<!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 can definitely see the quandary you are pointing
out here, Lance. I've known many pilots who never had the desire to move
from Masters to FAI competition. It had nothing to do with their skills, they
just didn't want to fly FAI. Not sure the deciding factor for them, they just
never moved "up" (or as I see it, moved on). I can definitely respect their
decision.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In my opinion Masters should at least seek to keep
up with the difficulty levels of the FAI Prelim sequence. That way we can have
that "Elite" class that is ours alone. I look at it like the difference between
soccer and football. The winner of the super bowl is probably the best
football team in the world, yet you can't really say they are because no other
countries play the sport (yeah, yeah, CFL and NFL Europe... they're all rejects
from the NFL, that has nothing to do with my point). On the other hand, we have
professional soccer teams here in the US, but nobody really cares about them
until the World Cup comes around. Even then, though, we don't just send the best
team, we hold try-outs to see who is the best of the best on the teams, and make
one Uber-Team to go out there and try to "bring home the gold."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I only fly Intermediate right now (I really hate
that name, by the way... never should have dropped the Novice class... I'd much
rather be called "Sportsman") but as I move up, I'd hate to "de-value" the
Masters class by making it just a stepping stone to FAI. I'll probably never be
good enough to compete on the international stage, and as a result would never
have the desire to move up to FAI. You can't "point out" of Masters, so why not
make it as difficult as you want? Heck, make it harder than FAI P and F... That
way we could have a National Champion who we could say is better than whoever
the FAI decides is the "world champion." I'm all about giving our classes more
value than the FAI classes... not less.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Matt</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=patterndude@tx.rr.com href="mailto:patterndude@tx.rr.com">Lance Van
Nostrand</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 11:37
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring
up the Masters 2009Sequencediscussionagain...</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>
<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>