[NSRCA-discussion] Apology - And class sequence thoughts

[Atwood, Mark]

Since I think I’m the one the started this whole Sh#t storm with my original post about the sequences, I’d like to start by apologizing for that.  It was not meant to fill everyone’s in-box for the past 2 weeks.  It was not meant to put my beloved district VP on the hot seat, and it most certainly was not disparage the hard work that goes into any sequence creation.   So for all that, I truly apologize.

But that said, I think it’s resulted in some great dialog about our sport and our processes, all of which is good for the hobby.    So I’d like to voice my opinion  (Again?) on a few of the points that I’ve been reading over the past 10,000,000 emails.

FAI is not the devil.   Yes, they seem to have created some crazy sequences of late with F15 and F17, but all in all they are the core behind pattern.  ALL of the AMA classes below F3A are a result of trying to provide moderate stepping stones to get to F3A or to advance as far as you can.  It’s been stated before, but F3A is the only sequence that many countries have at all.  As a result, FAI introduced the A sequence (Advanced) as their own stepping stone sequence. In our case, we have AMA Masters, Advanced Intermediate and Sportsman.  I personally believe that trying to isolate our advancement sequences from movement in F3A, INCLUDING Masters, is folly.  It’s a simple progression.  Sportsman -> Intermediate -> Advanced -> Masters -> F3A.    The problem IS the size of the gaps.  As F3A progresses in difficulty, we have two choices.  Abandon F3A altogether and stagnate our lower classes, or, allow controlled, measured difficulty “creep” as it’s been called, to try and keep the spacing between those classes balanced.

Difficulty creep.  Needs to happen, but controlled.
In a perfect world, we would consider introducing another stepping stone in the form of another class.  But the reality is that we don’t have the attendance to support another class.  That leaves us with stagnation, or a widening gap between classes.  I prefer the latter.  But in a VERY controlled and thought out approach with each gap being not equal to, but slightly larger than the previous gaps.  I.e. it’s tough to jump to Intermediate, but tougher still to jump to Advanced, and even tougher again to move to Masters.      It’s the only way we’ll keep up with the world.   Let’s face it, doing a great 4pt roll with an modern pattern plane is no where near as difficult as it was with a curare… or a daddy rabbit.  We have more power, more agility, faster servos, more reliable radio connections, and complex computer radios that allow better trimming and flight modes to support all of our various conditions.  Hell, we trigger our snap condition with the gimbals..   Some could argue the sequences are all easier than they used to be given those improvements in technology.

Expectations on advancement  And why it shouldn’t be forced.
More than anything, I think we need to do a reset on what to expect when you advance in a class.  It’s common for the top guy in Advanced to move up and immediately be competitive in Masters.  And if not competitive, at least comfortable.  I believe that’s a bad expectation.   Moving to Advanced, and doing your very first 4pt roll in level flight is terrifying.  I did them over and over and over again, bailing out of many, LONG before I moved up to Advanced.  For one thing, it improved my ability to fly Sportsman (now Intermediate) as I was learning to use rudder in and out of rolls.  But the jump was still huge.  And I went from winning every contest in Intermediate, to below middle of the pack in Advanced.  I believe that’s as it should be.  Hard… and challenging.   And that’s good when it’s within reach.  But we currently make that tough to test.   That exacerbates are stress over difficulty creep.  We can’t “test” the next level in competition without committing. And flying it at your home field, in ideal conditions, is very different from flying it in competition at a strange field, in possibly crappy winds, with judges watching and no opportunity to comfortably bail out.

So I support the ability to chose the class you wish to fly without restrictions.  I’m far more terrified to fly F17 in a nasty crosswind at a field with a tall tree line, than I am on a dead calm day at the wide open Muncie site.  If I was transitioning between patterns, weather, field layout and my practice schedule would all come into play for which sequence I would want to fly.  Something to consider.

So my opinion on proposed sequences and the guide.
I’ll start by saying I like Stuart's Masters pattern.  I haven’t gotten into the weeds of K-factors and the entry/exit alignment, but it appears to be a nice flowing sequence that has all the elements I’d expect to see in a challenging Masters pattern.

But I’m more concerned with the guidelines we follow.  I’m an advocate for separating maneuver creation from sequence creation.  It’s tough for this cycle, but in the future, it’s a great approach that puts separation and some controls in place with regard to K-Factors for the individual maneuvers and removes any accusation of K manipulation.     I also like that our guidelines put some firm (not absolute, but firm) guidelines for each class.   MY Opinion…   that we shouldn’t force rudder with rolling until Advanced.  By “forced” I mean the maneuver is a disaster or potential crash without it.  Ex: slow roll or 4pt roll on a base line.    That’s NOT to say putting a 2/4 on the upward 45 of a half reverse cuban eight can’t be used in Intermediate to introduce the concept.  In that example, not using rudder makes it look bad… but not a train wreck.  It’s safe to fly without coordinated rudder.      Masters extends all those elements and adds both complexity (8pts, roll reversing, complex positioning, more snaps) along with significantly increased level of competition.   Much like forced rudder rolling in Advanced, I don’t believe we should introduce forced integration with rolling until F3A.    But like the Intermediate example of putting a 2/4pt on a 45deg upline, putting a roll over the top of a loop can be done with just throttle and gravity.  It won’t look great, but it’s not a crash.  It’s a good way to introduce the concept.


So lets not run from FAI.  Let’s not stagnate and isolate ourselves from the world.  Lets not be afraid to suck for a few years when we move up to the next class.   Let’s not force people to STAY up a class, if they discover they’re just not ready, or the conditions aren’t suitable.  And let’s not lose the structure we’ve put in place that’s helped us for so long.


So that’s my $0.02.   again.



MARK ATWOOD
o.  (440) 229-2502
c.  (216) 316-2489
e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
Powering The Digital Experience

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170713/1f667315/attachment.html>