[NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for2011 andbeyond

Fri Sep 24 16:01:00 AKDT 2010

  Dave,

  With regard to the Aussie system, it is completely possible to remain 
in a lower class forever. If you are not improving but only maintaining 
a current skill level due to lack of time or other reasons, you will 
probably stagnate in a class.
When I was there, expert and masters both flew the current F3A pattern. 
I gather that has changed somewhat now but 20 years ago it was true. I 
was in the expert class and due to work pressures, etc I did not have 
the time(and perhaps the ability) to gain promotional points to 
Masters(F3A), even with coaching from Peter Goldsmith(I still have a 
Lotus in my workshop).
I believe that most of that expert group has since made it to 
Masters(F3A). Gavin Dark and Brian McFarlane come to mind but at that 
time we were definitely mired in Expert without any promotion points in 
sight. Would it be possible to game the system to stay in a class? Yes, 
I suppose it would be but all I saw was a lot of eagerness to reach the 
next level.

I have no problem with Masters being a destination class. As I have 
stated a number of times, I consider it improper for Masters to be the 
_only_ class that is not required to advance to the next level. I've 
tried to make the point that while I have flown in higher 
classes(usually not well) I am very happy and competitive in Advanced, 
at least for the time being.
There are two ways to fix the advancement issue:

   1. Require Masters to advance to the F3A pattern
   2. Offer all the other classes the opportunity to self-regulate their
      advancement as well. I've already suggested one method of doing
      this in an earlier post.

Every argument I've heard for not requiring Masters to advance makes 
sense. What doesn't make sense is why the Masters pilots think these 
arguments apply only to them.
Seems to me that the Masters pilots should get on board the second 
solution....

John

On 9/24/2010 4:43 PM, Dave wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong --
>
> With regard to the Aussie advancement system, is it not possible for a 
> pilot to stay in a mid level class forever?  Never achieving 
> promotional points and never dropping below minimums?
>
> You point out that more complex maneuvers and winning at higher levels 
> are drivers for pilots to improve and advance, but they are not the 
> only drivers.  Many pilots practice pattern alone and never compete, 
> because they are singularly driving themselves to a higher level.  
> There is a limit to competitive drive....and a limit to personal 
> drive.  I'd suggest you have more of both than most, and that is not a 
> bad thing -- for you.
>
> I think the point that you are missing yourself, or not seeing as 
> valued by others is that many are happy at a given level, and don't 
> want to be pushed further.  They have climbed as far as they want to, 
> have resources for, are comfortable with, etc.  If they are pushed 
> further unwillingly, they quite possibly will leave the event.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave Lockhart
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *John 
> Gayer
> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 5:19 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for2011 
> andbeyond
>
> Glen,
>
> If you don't want to be forced to move to FAI, then you must accept 
> that there are those in other classes who do not wish to advance to 
> the next class either. Peer pressure and the challenge of learning 
> more complex maneuvers and doing better at a higher level are expected 
> to work for Sportsman through Advanced but not for Masters?
>
> While F3A maneuvers are controlled by the FAI, there is nothing 
> international about doing a loop with an integrated  8 point. It is, 
> however, a challenge to do well. Why are so many of the Masters flyers 
> disinterested in new challenges, new maneuvers, new competition? These 
> are the things that drove them to excel in the lower classes and in 
> Masters and then it all stops?
>
> I would think that winning the NATS in any class would lead one to 
> look around and say "where's the next hill to climb?"
>
> I firmly believe there needs to be some changes made in the 
> advancement process. It should be the same across the board for all 
> classes including Masters.
> In the past I have suggested abolishing the current advancement rules 
> and replacing it with the following:
>
> A competitor will select the class to be flown during the calendar 
> year. This selected class may be any higher class or the next lower 
> class than that flown in the previous calendar year. The set of 
> classes referred to is 401-404 and 406.
>
> This would at least make advancement requirements consistent for all 
> participants and is very easy to enforce.
>
> John Gayer
> AMA 75102
> NSRCA 632
> ex Sportsman, Advanced, Expert. Master, F3A and now thoroughly 
> challenged by Advanced(again)
>
>
>
> On 9/24/2010 2:22 PM, Glen Watson wrote:
>
> ...I probably meet Dave's description of a Masters' pilot who chooses 
> not to compete in an International class.  There are many personal 
> reason why this is the case.  i.e. desire, age, dollars, time etc.
>
> It's amazing to me the same issues are raised year-to-year about 
> changing the current establishment (AMA rules) to meet one's needs.  
>  Instead of trying to force someone like me to move-on to FAI why 
> can't the pilots who view someone like me as a potential sandbagger 
> work a bit harder in their respective class to become as competitive 
> as they can.  I do not mean to come across arrogant, just voicing my 
> opinion regarding attitude's I've  witness from the pattern community.
>
> I recognize the level of time, money and commitment it takes to 
> achieve excellence.  That's why I enjoy the sport of pattern, it's the 
> challenge of being competitive within the stated rules.
>
> ~Glen Watson
>
> AMA 136878
>
> NSRCA 2293
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Dave
> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 11:32 AM
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 
> 2011 andbeyond
>
> John,
>
> I'm not quite sure how to respond as I think my commentary made 
> perfect sense.
>
> I'll try it another way --
>
> The US has a substantial number of pilots that do not aspire to 
> international competition.  Many Masters pilots have expressed the 
> opinion that if they were required to fly a more difficult schedule, 
> or fly multiple schedules, they would drop out of the event.  So why 
> force them into a class that contains elements they clearly don't 
> want, and for which they have virtually no input or control?  How does 
> chasing people out of the event benefit pattern in the US?
>
> With respect to "ALL the lower classes and maneuvers are selected by 
> someone else(the sequence committee)"
>
> I couldn't disagree more.  The Seq Com has always been comprised of 
> pilots from all classes, and the direction taken by the Seq Com has 
> always been based on survey results and feedback from the masses.  
> "Someone else" is us, just like the judges are us.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave Lockhart
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *John 
> Gayer
> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 12:09 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 
> 2011 and beyond
>
> That makes no sense. Every other country has resolved the issue of 
> having their own internal classes and then finally advancing their 
> best pilots to F3A. Just because the maneuvers are selected by an 
> international committee on which we are represented is not a reason to 
> preclude F3A from an advancement process. We only have Turnaround 
> pattern in this country because the FAI led the way and we decided to 
> follow rather than go the way of the dodo.
> >From my point of view, ALL the lower classes and maneuvers are 
> selected by someone else(the sequence committee). For F3A that 
> committe is international. So what?
>
> John Gayer
> NSRCA 632
>
> On 9/24/2010 8:36 AM, Dave wrote:
>
> I believe the practical perspective is that FAI-F3A is an AMA class, 
> but it does not run in accordance with AMA rules (except where FAI is 
> silent), and AMA has virtually no control over F3A.  Given AMA has no 
> control over F3A, that is a key point in not requiring advancement to 
> F3A from Masters.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Lockhart
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Gene 
> Maurice
> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 8:18 AM
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 
> and beyond
>
> Sorry, FAI is an AMA class, 406,  it's only that the Sporting Code 
> supersedes, doesn't replace, the AMA rule book and the exemption from 
> advancement. >From the 2009-2010 rule book:
>
> RADIO CONTROL PATTERN
>
> For events 401, 402, 403, 404, 406.
>
> 7. Pattern event classes: The Pattern event shall
>
> be divided into five (5) classes. The first four (4
>
> shall (in order of increasing difficulty) be
>
> referred to as Sportsman, Intermediate,
>
> Advanced, and Masters. The fifth class shall be
>
> referred to as the FAI class. The Sportsman class
>
> is supplemental (see Supplemental and
>
> Provisional Rules, page 2). Competitors must be
>
> advised prior to the start of the contest of any
>
> planned deviations from standard AMA rules
>
> pertaining to the events they have entered.
>
> 19. FAI Pattern Maneuvers: The FAI class
>
> shall fly according to the current FAI RC
>
> Aerobatics (F3A) rules. The noise limit shall be
>
> the current noise limit used in AMA competition
>
> for classes 401-404, except in the case of a USA
>
> Team Selection contest, where the noise limit
>
> shall be the current FAI noise rule. The builder-
>
> of-the-model rule, if any, shall not be enforced.
>
> The AMA Competition Regulations will be
>
> applied when the FAI Sporting Code is silent on,
>
> or does not provide guidance concerning the
>
> conduct or rules of the FAI - F3A events.
>
>   8.2.5: There is no mandatory
>
> advancement into FAI from the Masters class.
>
> Contestants may enter their current AMA class
>
> or the FAI class at any contest but not both.
>
> Gene Maurice
>
> gene.maurice at sgmservice.com <mailto:gene.maurice at sgmservice.com>
>
> Dallas, GA
>
> AMA 3408
>
> NSRCA 877
>
> PACSS.sgmservice.com
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Dave 
> Harmon
> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 12:19 AM
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 
> and beyond
>
> Hi Vince....well....FAI/F3A is not an AMA class.....Masters and below 
> ARE....so...FAI/F3A cannot be a destination class for an AMA event.
>
> *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> 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:24 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 
> and beyond
>
> I think that making FAI-F3A destination class will be easier natural 
> solution.  How we are going to organize local contests having one 
> additional class?
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net> <mailto:k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and 
> beyond
>
> >> 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.*
>
> nfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>   
>
>   
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>   
>
>   
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100925/db2600c7/attachment.html>