[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

[jtkeiser at comcast.net]

John, 



For many years I have watched AMA Pattern decline while IMAC has grown to be twice as popular, at least by the contests I have attended. I have tried to recruit IMAC flyers to attend pattern contests with vitually no success. On the other hand, there are quite a few pattern flyers with whom I used to compete, and they now have moved to IMAC. Many reasons given, but most common is that pattern is boring and stogy.  And it does seem that way after competing in IMAC. 



Clearly, the past couple years have seen attendance drop in both venues due to economic conditions, but IMAC still outdraws Pattern by at least  2 to 1. And that, in spite of equipment that is generally more costly - a 40% IMAC plane can easily run $6K - $8K. 



You pointed out some very good reasons why IMAC is more popular:  frequently changing sequences, unknowns and freestyles.  I'm not saying that adding these features would bring people back from IMAC but it would add some variety and interest. It is ironic that Pattern had the Freestyle feature some 30 years ago and abandoned it for a reason I'll never understand. When I began flying pattern in the late '70's, Masters had a freestyle - a list of approved maneuvers and a maximum K and you built y our own sequence to best suit you and your plane's abilities. Much the same as is now done in the full-scale IAC contest. The Unknown feature in IMAC is a direct copy of the full-scale IAC program - so close in fact, that the same individual, Brian Howard, coordinates both, at least he did in the past. 



Having freestyles and unknowns does complicate scoring a bit - but, hey, we did it 30 years ago without computers and with 30 or 40 entries. I have difficulty believing we can't do it now. 



And the interest it adds is well worth it. At most pattern contests, you see the winner of each class having a score of 4000. After the first round or two, the outcome is pretty well known - not always, but often. When you have an Unknown sequence, the situation is different. Yes, the best pilot still almost always prevails, but sometimes, the best pilot is not the guy who practices the Known to near perfection, but the one who can look at a new sequence and fly it better based on inherent skills.  In IAC competition, where you fly a Known, Freestyle and an Unknown, the final outcome is usually determined by the Unknown flight. 



Just adding the Freestyle back to Masters (and  Adv & Int, and optional in Sportsman) , I believe, would solve many of the issues currently being bantered about and add a much needed shot-in-the-arm to a dying sport. 



Just the 2 cents of and old guy who hates to see Pattern fade away. 



Jack 












----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Gayer" <jgghome at comcast.net> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:11:47 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond 

We knew you meant Advanced. 
We have trouble in this part of the country getting enough pilots in each class so there is some competition. It can be very discouraging to drive hundreds of miles and end up the sole participant in your class. The last thing we need is to add a class to avoid fixing  the problem in Masters.  If Masters progresses to F3A then the pressure to upgrade Masters as a destination class would ease off. 

Perhaps we should look to IMAC for some ideas. Around this part of the country (southwest) they are outdrawing pattern  two to one and there are at least twice as many contests available. This is with planes that are at least as expensive than ours. BTW, Arch, the 1/4 circle with one roll  starts in Intermediate not Sportsman. 

So what are they doing? 


    1. They have a common scoring system for all contests that must be used. 
    2. They spice up a contest by having unknown patterns for all classes except Basic. The unknowns are created for the whole year by some committee. The CD just requests the unknowns for the weekend of the contest. 
    3. They maintain season standings and individual contest results for all participants on a regional basis which is all available on one website. These regional standings can qualify you for entry in competitions such as the Tucson Shootout. 
    4. The patterns for all classes are only 10 maneuvers long and you fly the sequence twice in each flight, Landings and takeoffs are not scored and you are expected to takeoff before the competitor preceding you has landed which keeps things flowing pretty well 
    5. There are additional separate results kept for Seniors with season point totals as well 
    6. There is usually an optional Freestyle competition that appeals mostly to the kids 
    7. They change patterns every year. 

In any case, IMAC is where you find the kids and  the young adults, not at a Pattern contest. At our pattern contest last week we had 6 Sportsman flyers, all in their first contest. The age spread was 47 to 67. In fact the 47 year was the second youngest competitor overall as we had an intermediate contestant who was only 43.  The only kid on the field was a 12 year old that was helping out as a club member. 
The last IMAC contest here in Albuquerque  had two contestants under 13 and I would say that all age groups were well represented.  

I don't believe there is anything that would "turnaround" the current skewing in pattern towards old farts but we could try some of the concepts IMAC is  using. Certainly IMAC appears to have a much better handle on patterns and scoring. With a one year cycle on patterns it would be easy for the committe to respond to specific objections about patterns "we'll look imto that next year. Meanwhile just fly what we gave you".  Also a National scoring system and website presentation of results and standings would be a big help. 

John 



On 9/23/2010 6:12 PM, Dave Harmon wrote: 




>> time because the new class would 

be populated from the other classes….like Masters and Intermediate.<<< 

arrrrgghhh……I meant Advanced……another class between Advanced and Masters. 

Sorry…. 






Dave Harmon 

NSRCA 586 

K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net 

Sperry, Ok. 





From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [ mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 6:59 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond 




We arent talking about totally changing everything. Unfortunately the average age of pattern flyers is constantly getting older. There are a few young new faces but not many. Many of those also fly helis or IMAC and at some point they will migrate that way. The planes have progressed, the equipment has progressed, but unfortunately a lot of the mindsets haven't. Adding new maneuvers which arent more difficult, but add new skills is essential in the progression of the sport. The sequences need to be designed to be a challenge for the top 50%, not made easier for those not there. Like it or not, Masters is a destination class and the skill level should reflect that. If guys dont have time to practice or skill levels are diminishing then avenues for them to move back a class. Not comparing us and IMAC, but in there sportsman sequence theyhave guys doing partial rolling circles. I have seen the pilots, they are certainly no better than our intermediate pilots. Their schedules FORCE guys to try new things. Its OK to try new things. Most people will find they arent as difficult as we think. No Im not advocating rolling circles, but how many pattern guys ever go out and just fly. Trying new maneuvers and trying to learn new skills. It will really improve your flying skills.  OK. Ill shut up on the subject now.  





Arch 


_______________________________________________ 
NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100924/5d7bb937/attachment.html>