[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed masters sequence thoughts

[Vicente Bortone]

Hi Jon,

The reason to adopt P Pattern is to make easier to split groups between
masters and fai in local contest.  It makes easier to flip flop between
both.  This weekend we have the Cedar Rapids contest.  We have about 6-8
masters no FAI and one Advanced.   We got 4 or 5 in club and sportsmans.
Looks like we are going to have judging problems or overloading the guys
that know how to judge.  I know  about the Silver class but that is a good
solution when we have a lot of pilots in masters and FAI.   That is not the
case in most contest around D5 in the last few years.

Best,

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:47 PM Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> This email to the list is derived from one I sent Joe Walker. I think it
> bears some thought.
>
> We still don't have a timeline for approval of new sequences by the
> membership as required by AMA rules. We also don't know how long we have
> for making comments to the proposed sequences.
>
> Given the comments so far on Masters, there is still a long way to go. I
> agree with Tony F. If the intent is to drive people from masters, this is
> the sequence to do it.
>
> Some people have compared the new Masters sequence to what IMAC
> does.Trying to compare pattern to IMAC is apples and oranges. IMAC doesn't
> have to center, match radii, match line lengths, fly in a box, maintain 150
> meters or have an emphasis on smoothness and gracefulness. Heck, they don't
> even have to land their own aircraft. Their emphasis is on snaps, via the 1
> point per 5 degree rule, if I understand their rules. Witness what happened
> when top IMAC fliers came over to pattern for a couple of years thinking
> they would make the team. They left with their tails between their legs. So
> saying we should do something because IMAC does is not a valid argument.
> Different skill set and emphasis.
>
> I was ok with a simple roller that was safe when it was first proposed.
> There was a howl when we did it that it would open Pandora's box, and
> unfortunately, it appears it did. I don't believe anyone at the time
> contemplated there being more than one per sequence. And with the
> infatuation with knife edge manuevers, we are making the transition from
> advanced way too difficult. We do NOTHING in the lower classes that
> prepares them for what they now face in Masters. We had that right about
> right two sequences ago, and now we screwed it up. Now we are even throwing
> in instantaneous transition between roll directions. So a new Masters pilot
> faces two rollers, three complex knife edge maneuvers,  and instant roll
> direction changes. Why would anyone want to move up? Heck, if I was still
> in advanced, I wouldn't want to. From what I've seen this year in advanced
> flying, that pattern is very difficult to fly well, but it still doesn't
> have the building blocks for the current or proposed masters sequences.
> Have we abandoned the building block approach, and preparing the Masters
> pattern accordingly?
>
> I also don't understand the tendency to completely ignore the maneuvers in
> the guide. They are there for a reason. Seems to be a tendency to
> incorporate FAI maneuvers and ignore the building block concept which the
> guide maneuvers provide. I'd suggest that the development guide restrict
> the introduction of new, non-guide maneuvers to no more than two per
> sequence, certainly not the majority of maneuvers as in the proposed
> sequence. There is zero reason to make Masters just like FAI. FAI already
> exists, go fly it if you want.
>
> Personally, I think the instant roll direction changes are ugly and hard
> to judge in FAI. What's the point of putting them in Masters?
>
> I applaud the decision to get rid of the Masters F sequence. It was an
> answer to a question no one asked.
>
>
> Jon
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170708/c93ebe7f/attachment.html>