<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm interested in what people think about this
question. This strikes at the heart of that topic: what's the difference
between Masters and FAI. I believe the many differences should be summed
up as "choices". For one example, "do I choose to learn 2 sequences or do
I only have time for 1?". Therefore, on the difficuulty question, I think
Masters and FAI P should track the same target difficulty. Jumping from
Masters to FAI forces the pilot to accept a lot of new issues that AMA doesn't
deal with. But the top AMA class should allow flying the same difficulty
without the rest of the baggage. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On the other hand, if Masters is not a stepping
stone class to FAI then why have it at all? Is the baggage really that
great? In practice, pilots usually hone their skills in Masters until they
have achieved some success before going to FAI, but that simply has created a
division based on skill but not difficulty. this is a tough question too,
but since most contests I see have more in Masters than FAI (or at least equal
numbers) I think our country supports the need for 2 classes even when the
difficulty is the same (as it is now).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>However, designing sequences that actually feel
equivalent in difficulty is very difficult. Just counting Kfactors is not
enough. Equivalent KF's can be found in manuvers that have only straight
lines and radiuses and in rolling manuvers. Rarely can that target be hit,
so sometimes two sequences intended to be similar in difficulty will fly a bit
different. One or the other may feel more difficult but over the years
with multiple sequence cycles one should be able to say they are essentially
equivalent. Our AMA sequences build skills so that when we get to Masters
we have enough fundamentals to fly any sequence in the KFactor range
prescribed. Remember, most countries don't have an AMA equivalent. If
you want to fly pattern, you start learning FAI P patterns. It is
fortunate we have our system so that people of all abilities can find enjoyment
and those that have super skills can follow a road that ends at the level of
their choosing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Right now, Masters and FAI P07 are about the
same. Once we say Masters is a step below FAI P my guess is that most
Masters pilots will feel ripped off.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Since AMA exists in this country for us alone we
should do what the majority desires, however the opinion of the currently active
Masters and FAI competitors is of particular interest. Therefore it
might be nice to identify your active class participation in any response you
might care to make.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>--Lance</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=drykert2@rochester.rr.com href="mailto:drykert2@rochester.rr.com">Del
K. Rykert</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:04
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring
up the Masters 2009 Sequencediscussionagain...</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is the intent/purpose to still have some
progress from Masters to FAI or to have Master at a similar complex level with
the intent of some staying in Masters as the top out Schedule? For some
advanced is the highest they will get. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Del</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=tkeithblack@gmail.com href="mailto:tkeithblack@gmail.com">Keith
Black</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:18
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up
the Masters 2009 Sequence discussionagain...</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A while back Derek asked the membership if they
wanted to stick with the 2009 Masters sequence that was proposed in 2005 or
change to a newly designed sequence that addresses concerns some people had
regarding the sequence. Apparently some pilots feel there are too many snaps
or some such complaints, I'm not really sure.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At the time I was not able to go fly the
sequences and thus I had no response, however, I now have flown the
sequences and have some comments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My first observation is that six of the eleven
centered maneuvers are the same so much of the content of the patterns are
identical. My second observation is that each sequence has maneuvers I think
would be more "fun" or "challenging" than the other. If I had to put numbers
to it I'd say there are three maneuvers in the 2005 proposed sequence
that I'd miss if we went with the newly proposed schedule and six maneuvers
in the new schedule that I'd miss if we went with the original 2005 proposed
schedule. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'd also say that IMHO both of these schedules
are easier than the 2007 schedule and my initial impression was that the
inverted entries have been reduced. I short, it seems that the schedules
have been watered down from what we currently have. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I will have no complaints flying either
schedule, but i</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>f I were to choose between the
two I'd select the newly proposed schedule; not to placate those that object
to the 2005 proposed schedule because I feel there's nothing wrong with it;
but because I think the newly proposed schedule is more
interesting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also, I'd like to comment that I feel that the
Advanced schedule for 2007 was too watered down and does not prepare pilots
for the 2007 Masters schedule. I hope when designing the schedules we
aren't trying to make Masters easier so the jump from Advanced is not as
big. If the jump is too big then we should increase the level of the Advance
pattern.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Keith Black</FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>