[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[J N Hiller]

Mark I absolutely agree that adding a new class would excessively burden
most local contests. A CD option to split an overloaded masters class (A & B
groups) is probably a more reasonable approach.
This was my first year in masters and I have much to learn but I wasn't
interested in flying the current advanced schedule any more. I would rather
finish last flying the more challenging sequence.
The current advanced doesn't come close to preparing one to fly masters.
Changing the schedule every two years and including some of the features
required in masters would help keep in interesting and better prepare a
person for the move to masters.
It may sound strange but I've never had to fly coordinated left rolls until
now, which I've been working on this fall. I likewise hadn't had to fly much
inverted and few if any inverted exits. As for inverted 4-points I'm lucky I
didn't wrong rudder it into the ground the first few times I tried it.
Getting through a flight without blowing the box or posting a zero is a
pretty good flight and I'm much more interested in my 5 or 6 round raw score
average than where I place, even when I was winning in advanced.
I still have much to learn and look forward to the challenges ahead.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 12:32 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Allowing people to move back without issue would be a big part of this for
several reasons.  1) people climb to masters.but often can't sustain that
level of competition.  Either life/age/ability gets in the way and instead
of moving back, they either hang in there in the bottom or even lower middle
of the pack, or they quit.  Both are bad.  2) People jump too soon and
realize that it's less the maneuvers, than the brutal level of the
competition that should have kept them in Advanced. Again, they can't move.
3) Sequences change and the patterns march forward in difficulty, and often
we don't keep up.  Allowing movement would let people make that shift.

Adding a new class would kill contests financially and logistically.  It
might have been possible in the era of 50 person contests but when the norm
is 18-25, it's just not practical.  Also, where is the fun in competing in
groups of 3??

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com <mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>   |
www.paragon-inc.com <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:36 PM
To: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I think one of the biggest problems we face right now is the void in
Advanced. The Advanced sequence this time around was made just a tad more
difficult and some of us in the sequence committee are all for changing
Advanced every two years along with Masters. In my opinion, some are moving
up to Masters too quick. Changing Advanced more frequently along with
changing the advancement requirements might just be the ticket for keeping
guys in Advanced a little longer. Hopefully, we can build up this class to
where it should be which should increase the judging pool at local contests.
I am also for allowing guys to move back to Advanced when the new sequences
come into use.

  _____

From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:57:15 -0700
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
You know there was some resistance to splitting masters into two groups "A"
& "B" so they could judge each other when a contest was overloaded with
masters fliers. I don't see two FAI classes as being much different. Adding
an 'Expert" class also addresses the judging overload. There may also be
some concern that the ever increasing difficulty in FAI may encourage some
people to fly masters, adding to the judge imbalance.
I'm a new guy in masters and will fly or stumble through whatever is decided
on. I just want to point out that there are other ways to deal with contest
judge imbalances.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:07 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I for one have gotten VERY poor feedback from our masters flyers on this.
It makes sense to me, and in a vacuum I would certainly vote for it, but
alas, I'm not.  Given the current sentiment on this in D3(AMA D3 that is,
not NSRCA) it would be a resounding no vote without removing the integrated
rolling maneuvers at a minimum.

Those maneuvers alone keep many from moving up to FAI, in addition to having
to learn 2 sequences.  I don't know what the response would be to a Masters
"FAI LITE" sequence where you simply removed the integrated roll from the
Figure M and maybe replaced the Loop w/8pt with an avalanche or such.    But
I know I'll get an ear full of "Nays" if there's a proposal for straight FAI
in masters.



Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com <mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>   |
www.paragon-inc.com <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Cc: Tom Miller
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

It seems to me that adopting the FAI "P" schedule for the Masters class with
"changes" is not the way to go. A better alternative IMO is to  fly FAI P
schedule under FAI rules as a separate class. Those of us with some age
remember when this was done years ago as "D" expert and "D" Novice classes.
As I remember AMA class "D" was the FAI event back then.  This would have
the advantages of two classes flying under the same rules and the benefits
of more  flyers/judges familiar with the same rules and maneuvers. It would
also eliminate the work involved in coming up with a new Masters sequence
every three or so years as a new schedule would be automatically be invoked
FAI changed. I'd like to see a proposal for this change submitted to the
Contest Board.
Dave Burton

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente
"Vince" Bortone
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:29 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Hi Lance,

Just to clarify.  I am not the only one making this proposal.  Don Ramsey
and Charlie Rock helped me to put it together.  I am going to try to respond
to your questions below.  Please read below in bold.  Thanks for bringing
this discussion to the list.

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:51:30 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
I know official discussion hasn't started but this list is one of the good
vetting forums.  Vince proposed Masters flying FAI P, which is clear (this
is for sure the most important statement), but if the logic behind the
proposal as written causes confusion it may make a less convincing case.
Good point.  We assumed that was easy for someone that is very familiar to
pattern to digest the intent of the proposal.  Your conclusions are correct.
We are assuming that the current procedures we use to design the Master
schedule are not changed.  We adopt the current FAI P schedule with the
appropriate changes to suit the Master class.  This is the reason why we
didn't try to discuss other details.  For example, it says "there is an
evident pile up f pilots in the Masters class" but never clearly states how
flying the same sequence would change that.  He may be implying that people
will more freely move between classes to balance the lines because they are
flying a similar sequence but the sequences may not be identical and the
judging rules are not identical.  Correct.  You actually saw what happened
in Tulsa this year.  There were 10 pilots in Masters and you decided to
divide the group in two and five flew Masters and five flew FAI.  This also
happened already in other local contest around KC.  It happens at Fort Scott
contest also.  Pilots will be more willing to do this we fly the same
schedule.  At another point it says "This will make judging of both classes
very accurate" but doesn't address the obvious differences in judging
criteria between AMA and FAI, which is the current burden that Masters and
FAI pilots currently bear when the fly one class and judge the other. I am
sure that we will agree that it will be a lot easier to deal with these
differences if we fly the same schedules.  The proposal intent is not to
address the differences in judging criteria between AMA and FAI.  I believe
that it will become natural as we start to fly the same schedule and the
differences will go away with time.  Finally, there is no exact wording
proposed on the form where it is expected, but later in the logic it refers
to the idea of replacing some FAI maneuvers where appropriate.  We are
assuming that the current procedure to design the schedules is still in
place.  The committee will check the current FAI P schedule and proposed a
final one with the changes to make it suitable for Masters.  For example,
P11 the only portion I will change is the integrated half loop on the figure
M.  I will suggest something like 2 of 4 or 1/2 roll on bottom to replace
the integrated 1/2 roll.  I believe that all other maneuvers are suitable
for Masters.  Without exact wording, its not clear how this is done, or if
the maneuver descriptions will be re-written in the AMA rules, or referenced
to the FAI descriptions like the sequence.  The committee will decide
whatever is appropriate.  If they feel that the FAI descriptions are
appropiate we could use it as is.  Oh, and how does AMA deal with the fact
that FAI changes schedules in odd years?  We will need to follow FAI
schedule.  I think that this is very possible and should not be a problem.

My intent is simply to point out aspects that detract from it's
thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the issue.  We put this together
just taking at the 2008 Nats.  I remember that I have to judge FAI and I
never had the chance to judge FAI before the Nats.  I was trying to study
the FAI schedule at the same time that I was trying to fly my own contest.
This is clearly an additional pressure on the contestant.  If this proposal
pass it will make our life easier at the local contest and when we judging
at the Nats or any other contest.  Also, clearly will make the judging level
very high because Masters and FAI pilots will be very familiar with the
schedules we fly and the details requires to judge each of the maneuvers.
Finally, the balance in local contest will be easier to fix since we will
more willing to fly FAI when required.

--Lance

_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/ef7b5f6e/attachment.html>