<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Here is a silly question:</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Is the log jam of people in Masters as much a function of it being "acceptable" to park there as much as anything else? I am a "relatively competent" advanced pilot, I don't win the class but I am usually competitive and have on occasion played the part of spoiler, I already feel the pressure to move up to masters even though I still have not mastered advanced. Would there be more people in advanced if it felt ok to stay there until you felt completely comfortable with all elements of the class? would that equlize participant distribution in other classes? I know a couple of people in D4 that are doing well in advanced but not consistantly dominant. If they move up to masters they will almost certainly have less fun and will absolutely struggle at contests. Should they be allowed to stay in advanced forever if they like? Perhaps that is the limit of their natural flying ability or the highest level they can ascend to
given their life situation (work, practice time, budget, etc). On the other side, I spoke with D5 pilot this summer that said "I should not be in masters, I moved up because it was time to but i can't really fly this pattern as well as I need to, I just don't have enough time to practice". </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't know what the right approach is but we should consider the entire picture as we look for answers. The problem may now be with the sequences at all, but with the general feeling that a particular pilot has to move up before they are ready. I guess that is the old advancement discussion again.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks</DIV>
<DIV>Anthony</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Stuart Chale <schale@optonline.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:26:02 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question<BR></FONT><BR>8 to 1 middle of the 9th.<BR>In regards to the sequences, I am probably in the minority but I think the lower classes need to be a little harder. Probably even Masters. Most areas of the country are seeing a bunching up in Masters. I like it, makes for good competition in that class. I do not want to come in second in my class (and last) :)<BR>Perhaps if the classes were a little more difficult people would not move up as quickly. Put more difficult rolling maneuvers in advanced, add some integrated
rolling maneuvers into Masters. Would there be more fliers in the lower classes, would the classes be more even? Don't know. Is this what we want?<BR><BR>Should someone be "prepared" to go to the next higher class from their current class? There needs to be an increase in difficulty which there is. You should have to work at the next class when moving up.<BR><BR>Rollers, love to watch them done well, but can't do them well :) They really do use a lot of real estate though and sort of goes against the idea of decreased space use that we have with turnaround. IMAC has the same problem. They have a score for proper airspace use which includes a reduced footprint but has rollers in all 3 or the upper classes :)<BR><BR>Stuart C.<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>