Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland,
CA
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Over 10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed its work on the new sequences. These were posted on the NSRCA website for review and comment - see below:
[link=http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html]Proposed Sequences[/link]
Included in all this material was a draft document that outlined the process on how sequences are developed, tested and approved and the makeup/content of the sequences based on the class it is meant to serve. This document is titled "NSRCA Procedures, Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Sequence Development". A mouthful, but it does outline a lot of information. It details the charter for the Sequence Committee, sequence development standards and guidelines for all classes, catalog of maneuvers for all classes and the process that the NSRCA will follow in designing, testing and approving changes to sequences, or for proposed sequences. These sequence development standards and guidelines have been in place for about 4 years now and have been used very successfully to build the current set of sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to the prior Masters sequence (and the new one as well).
Overall we received positive comments on the proposed sequences from Sportsman through Masters. As you know, there were two sequences developed for Masters, a long sequence using the standard 23 maneuver count and a short sequence using 19 maneuvers. In the time since we posted the sequences, some informal surveys were also made on the NSRCA website as well as on RCU asking for a preference of either the short or long Masters schedule. The overwhelming majority of respondents chose the short sequence. However, these surveys were a little flawed in that we didn't really know who was voting for them - were they all judges/pilots who voted because they didn't want to judge a long sequence, or were they really current and/or future Masters pilots that really did want to fly a shorter sequence.
Since the release of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats comments, the sequence committee has been hard at work making some tweaks to the short schedule with a view to increasing the difficulty level of the short Masters sequence to bring it into line with the long Masters sequence and also to ensure that we weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a shorter sequence. Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19 maneuvers (17 of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is a challenge if one is to avoid using some existing F3A type maneuvers, or "airplane killers", and to only use maneuvers that match the philosophy that we've embraced for a number of years. Since we've never developed a short Masters sequence, we need to make sure we get it right and that it not only provides a challenge to those that fly it but that it still provides a somewhat relatively higher jump for those pilots that are moving up from Advanced. We realize that creating a perfect schedule is not going to happen - we won't be able to please every pilot that moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able to please some former F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and isn't enough of a challenge. There has to be a balance. The Sequence Committee came up with some good positive changes and these are being vetted/tested as I write this. They've received extremely positive feedback from everyone that has either flown the newer short sequence on a simulator or using their pattern plane at the field. By the end of this weekend we'll know for sure whether it is a keeper or not.
When we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you that have "skin in this game", meaning you are a current Masters pilot or will be moving to Masters in the next year or two, to please contact your NSRCA District VP and let them know what your preference is - short or long sequence. The reason they need to know is that the NSRCA board will vote in the next couple of weeks to approve all the proposed sequences and also to select which sequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012.
The Sequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave Lockhart, Verne Koester, Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard Lewis. They've put in an extraordinary amount of work on these sequences and documentation and deserve huge kudos from everyone! Thanks guys - your work is very much appreciated!
We've also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA website which will have more information soon. It will contain the updated draft documentation and all the proposed sequences in one location. You can get to the new section from the main menu - just look for Sequence Committee - it is near the bottom of the menu.
[link=http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html]Proposed Sequences[/link]
Included in all this material was a draft document that outlined the process on how sequences are developed, tested and approved and the makeup/content of the sequences based on the class it is meant to serve. This document is titled "NSRCA Procedures, Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Sequence Development". A mouthful, but it does outline a lot of information. It details the charter for the Sequence Committee, sequence development standards and guidelines for all classes, catalog of maneuvers for all classes and the process that the NSRCA will follow in designing, testing and approving changes to sequences, or for proposed sequences. These sequence development standards and guidelines have been in place for about 4 years now and have been used very successfully to build the current set of sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to the prior Masters sequence (and the new one as well).
Overall we received positive comments on the proposed sequences from Sportsman through Masters. As you know, there were two sequences developed for Masters, a long sequence using the standard 23 maneuver count and a short sequence using 19 maneuvers. In the time since we posted the sequences, some informal surveys were also made on the NSRCA website as well as on RCU asking for a preference of either the short or long Masters schedule. The overwhelming majority of respondents chose the short sequence. However, these surveys were a little flawed in that we didn't really know who was voting for them - were they all judges/pilots who voted because they didn't want to judge a long sequence, or were they really current and/or future Masters pilots that really did want to fly a shorter sequence.
Since the release of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats comments, the sequence committee has been hard at work making some tweaks to the short schedule with a view to increasing the difficulty level of the short Masters sequence to bring it into line with the long Masters sequence and also to ensure that we weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a shorter sequence. Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19 maneuvers (17 of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is a challenge if one is to avoid using some existing F3A type maneuvers, or "airplane killers", and to only use maneuvers that match the philosophy that we've embraced for a number of years. Since we've never developed a short Masters sequence, we need to make sure we get it right and that it not only provides a challenge to those that fly it but that it still provides a somewhat relatively higher jump for those pilots that are moving up from Advanced. We realize that creating a perfect schedule is not going to happen - we won't be able to please every pilot that moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able to please some former F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and isn't enough of a challenge. There has to be a balance. The Sequence Committee came up with some good positive changes and these are being vetted/tested as I write this. They've received extremely positive feedback from everyone that has either flown the newer short sequence on a simulator or using their pattern plane at the field. By the end of this weekend we'll know for sure whether it is a keeper or not.
When we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you that have "skin in this game", meaning you are a current Masters pilot or will be moving to Masters in the next year or two, to please contact your NSRCA District VP and let them know what your preference is - short or long sequence. The reason they need to know is that the NSRCA board will vote in the next couple of weeks to approve all the proposed sequences and also to select which sequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012.
The Sequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave Lockhart, Verne Koester, Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard Lewis. They've put in an extraordinary amount of work on these sequences and documentation and deserve huge kudos from everyone! Thanks guys - your work is very much appreciated!
We've also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA website which will have more information soon. It will contain the updated draft documentation and all the proposed sequences in one location. You can get to the new section from the main menu - just look for Sequence Committee - it is near the bottom of the menu.
#2
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bolivia, NC
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
I posted the following on the NSRCA e-mail list responding to Derek so he's seen this before. I encourage all NSRCA members or Pattern Contestants to give their feedback to the NSRCA district Vice Presidents on the Masters sequence proposals.
"Derek,
I really object to your definition of who has “Skin in the game†- We all do if we pay our dues and attend contest.
The “skin†is the impact of a long vs. short sequence for every Masters flyer, Flyer who will be flying Masters in the next two years, every flyer/non flyer who judges at a contest, and every other flyer in all the other class who have to wait until the typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequence they fly.
So, whether I fly Masters in the next two years or not, I intend to let my opinion be known to my district VP and I expect him to give my view the same weight of any other opinion from “Masters†flyers or others.
This is an issue that should not be decided by only “Masters†flyers."
Dave
"Derek,
I really object to your definition of who has “Skin in the game†- We all do if we pay our dues and attend contest.
The “skin†is the impact of a long vs. short sequence for every Masters flyer, Flyer who will be flying Masters in the next two years, every flyer/non flyer who judges at a contest, and every other flyer in all the other class who have to wait until the typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequence they fly.
So, whether I fly Masters in the next two years or not, I intend to let my opinion be known to my district VP and I expect him to give my view the same weight of any other opinion from “Masters†flyers or others.
This is an issue that should not be decided by only “Masters†flyers."
Dave
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland,
CA
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
I think we will be doing the Masters pilots (current and future) a disservice if we allow anyone to voice their opinion on which sequence the Masters pilots should fly, especially if they don't even fly the sequence or have future plans to fly the sequence.
This is about selecting a sequence that matter to the people that fly it, not to the people that judge it or to the people and non Masters pilots that may have to wait around to fly again because of a large Masters turnout.
This is about selecting a sequence that matter to the people that fly it, not to the people that judge it or to the people and non Masters pilots that may have to wait around to fly again because of a large Masters turnout.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denham Springs,
LA
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
While I respect the efforts of the sequence committee, things like this are exactly why I was against the NSRCA having the sequences removed from the rule book and controlled solely by the NSRCA. I know everyone involved is well-meaning, but if I wasn’t subscribed to the NSRCA list or didn’t check RCU regularly I would have no idea that this was going on. I am aware who the NSRCA district VP is for my region, but keep in mind, he is not MY district VP. He is not bound by anything to even take my opinion into account. He represents the NSRCA members in my region, of which I am not a member. That’s not to say I never have been, or that I never will be again, but the simple fact remains he doesn’t represent me at this time. My recourse should be to people who have no "skin in the game" such as my AMA district VP or contest board members, or anyone else who has the ability to be completely objective.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Derek,
First, thanks for all the hard work in developing the sequences. As one who apparently meets the profile you are looking for, I will take the time to fly both the long, and short versions, and get back to you. I'm looking forward to seeing them.
#6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland,
CA
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
ORIGINAL: 1bwana1
Derek,
First, thanks for all the hard work in developing the sequences. As one who apparently meets the profile you are looking for, I will take the time to fly both the long, and short versions, and get back to you. I'm looking forward to seeing them.
Derek,
First, thanks for all the hard work in developing the sequences. As one who apparently meets the profile you are looking for, I will take the time to fly both the long, and short versions, and get back to you. I'm looking forward to seeing them.
#7
My Feedback: (15)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: chino, CA
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
People stop crying, the NSRCA Sequence Committee did the best job they could.
If you dislike the, "Shorter Master Sequence" and think it's to easy.
Then move up, and (Go Fly FAI)
If you dislike the, "Shorter Master Sequence" and think it's to easy.
Then move up, and (Go Fly FAI)
#8
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Jarvis, that, in my opinion, is not a viable option. I no longer fly F3A because I don't want to compete with two radically different patterns, one much more difficult then the other. Then if I am lucky enough to make the finals, I absolutely do not want to deal with an unknown. That is why I fly Masters.
I really hope people are not making a decision based on flying this on a simulator. I have never seen a simulator that even came close to the representation of actually flying a pattern model. Especially regarding what wind does to flying the sequence.
I still believe the problem of the length of the Masters schedule is not the flight time of the pattern. It is that there are more masters fliers then any other class. That shows a basic problem in the lack of growth in the event and the decline of participation in it. And that decline will accelerate if you make the actual Masters fliers less happy with the schedule they fly.
I really hope people are not making a decision based on flying this on a simulator. I have never seen a simulator that even came close to the representation of actually flying a pattern model. Especially regarding what wind does to flying the sequence.
I still believe the problem of the length of the Masters schedule is not the flight time of the pattern. It is that there are more masters fliers then any other class. That shows a basic problem in the lack of growth in the event and the decline of participation in it. And that decline will accelerate if you make the actual Masters fliers less happy with the schedule they fly.
#9
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Maybe two Masters sequences could be the answer? I always thought each level was harder than the one before it, and prepared you for the one after it. Maybe two Masters sequences would bridge the gap between Masters and FAI? They don't necessarily have to be as different as they are in FAI. And maybe two schedules would help to determine a winner more clearly than flying one long sequence?
Just some thoughts and comments from the Sportsmans Gallery
Just some thoughts and comments from the Sportsmans Gallery
#10
My Feedback: (8)
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Intermediate seems a touch more difficult: added full roll in stall turn, second looping maneuver starting from the top... not complaining just noting, definitely ready for the challenge of at least practicing intermediate from now on. Sportsman moved things around - nice to have the Cobra after a 1/2 Reverse C8 rather just a 1/2 C8. Immelmann sequence is a little funny - double I followed by anothe I
I'd just like to say Thanks to all the guys who work on these sequences. I feel that Sportsman has done a good job of teaching me the basics and preparing me for intermediate. I would like to be more of a part of what goes on behind the scenes, and if things work out for me here in Cincinnati, I should have the opportunity to start doing so by next summer, or this winter.
I also would like to throw in a BIG Thanks to the guys in D1 for helping me out so much. I really am looking forward to seeing you guys next year at Nats, D14 shootout, and maybe the D4 championship for those that usually make it out.
I'd just like to say Thanks to all the guys who work on these sequences. I feel that Sportsman has done a good job of teaching me the basics and preparing me for intermediate. I would like to be more of a part of what goes on behind the scenes, and if things work out for me here in Cincinnati, I should have the opportunity to start doing so by next summer, or this winter.
I also would like to throw in a BIG Thanks to the guys in D1 for helping me out so much. I really am looking forward to seeing you guys next year at Nats, D14 shootout, and maybe the D4 championship for those that usually make it out.
#11
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Or...............
Go back to allowing Masters to design their own schedule, give them a K factor total and let them have at it.
I know I know there's a million reasons it won't work.
Go back to allowing Masters to design their own schedule, give them a K factor total and let them have at it.
I know I know there's a million reasons it won't work.
#12
My Feedback: (45)
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
ORIGINAL: Mastertech
Or...............
Go back to allowing Masters to design their own schedule, give them a K factor total and let them have at it.
I know I know there's a million reasons it won't work.
Or...............
Go back to allowing Masters to design their own schedule, give them a K factor total and let them have at it.
I know I know there's a million reasons it won't work.
Arch
#13
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
100% agreed Arch, It's a thankless job someone has to do while getting bombarded from all sides. There's no way to sastify everyone, if you try you'll either go bonkers or never get anything done.
#14
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Pattern in general has always done a very good job of making smooth transitions from one class to another. If you take a look at the Sportsman class and follow that through Advanced and beyond, you will see exactly how new "parts" are introduced at each level making the pilot work a little harder in each class. You can see the evolution of a pattern pilot with each move up. It really is amazing. Even in the sequence design guide, you can see exactly how things are thought of and how to introduce them nurturing a pilot as he moves through the ranks.
The Masters sequence is the top of the top for AMA and is the final step in "Mastering" the techniques that we have been taught through our venture in pattern. It is the culmination of everything that we learned and now get to showcase our abilities. The Masters sequence should truly separate the pilots that are at the pinnacle of pattern and challenge them. The reason the Masters class is so large is because there is no place to go after unless you want to step up to FAI. The reason that Masters is so big is because those that can't be competitive in FAI can be competitive in Masters. I've said this before...we compete to win, period. This is proven every contest that I've gone to from back in the 80's to present time. There will be some folks that leave after Saturday because they are not in the running and have a long drive home.
All that being said, I think there needs to be a stepping process from Advanced to Masters. Obviously, Advanced fliers that move up will not be able to truly compete with folks that have been flying for a long time and have been in FAI. Why is it that we talk about this but never really do anything about it? Why don't we put a class in that continues what the pattern group has always done and that's to slowly introduce new techniques and maneuvers to encourage participation and growth? Is it really that difficult to add a new class? If you think about it, this serves several purposes. #1, it allows Masters pilots to truly compete and have the hardest stuff thrown at them that isn't on the FAI level and #2, it allows those that...and this is important....are forced to move up to be able to compete with others that are more "on their skill level" and #3, it cuts down on the size of the Masters class which will show beyond a reasonable doubt why Masters is really the largest class. Please, tell me what I need to do to formally suggest this. Think about it guys! By doing this, we eliminate all this bickering about too hard or too easy. We continue to support the growth of the pilot and we give another "goal" to pilots while allowing people with simiilar skills to compete against one another.
Maybe I'm one of few and not many really feel this way or chose not to admit it but we all compete to win. I, for one, will be rather discouraged when every contest I go to I'm getting whooped by guys that have years of experience more than myself and who have been flying pattern forever. Yes, I practice A LOT and yes I do OK and am happy with my progress but not being competitive with the elite guys for the next 5-10 years is going to suck. Just sayin....
The Masters sequence is the top of the top for AMA and is the final step in "Mastering" the techniques that we have been taught through our venture in pattern. It is the culmination of everything that we learned and now get to showcase our abilities. The Masters sequence should truly separate the pilots that are at the pinnacle of pattern and challenge them. The reason the Masters class is so large is because there is no place to go after unless you want to step up to FAI. The reason that Masters is so big is because those that can't be competitive in FAI can be competitive in Masters. I've said this before...we compete to win, period. This is proven every contest that I've gone to from back in the 80's to present time. There will be some folks that leave after Saturday because they are not in the running and have a long drive home.
All that being said, I think there needs to be a stepping process from Advanced to Masters. Obviously, Advanced fliers that move up will not be able to truly compete with folks that have been flying for a long time and have been in FAI. Why is it that we talk about this but never really do anything about it? Why don't we put a class in that continues what the pattern group has always done and that's to slowly introduce new techniques and maneuvers to encourage participation and growth? Is it really that difficult to add a new class? If you think about it, this serves several purposes. #1, it allows Masters pilots to truly compete and have the hardest stuff thrown at them that isn't on the FAI level and #2, it allows those that...and this is important....are forced to move up to be able to compete with others that are more "on their skill level" and #3, it cuts down on the size of the Masters class which will show beyond a reasonable doubt why Masters is really the largest class. Please, tell me what I need to do to formally suggest this. Think about it guys! By doing this, we eliminate all this bickering about too hard or too easy. We continue to support the growth of the pilot and we give another "goal" to pilots while allowing people with simiilar skills to compete against one another.
Maybe I'm one of few and not many really feel this way or chose not to admit it but we all compete to win. I, for one, will be rather discouraged when every contest I go to I'm getting whooped by guys that have years of experience more than myself and who have been flying pattern forever. Yes, I practice A LOT and yes I do OK and am happy with my progress but not being competitive with the elite guys for the next 5-10 years is going to suck. Just sayin....
#16
My Feedback: (10)
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
ORIGINAL: gaRCfield
Intermediate seems a touch more difficult: added full roll in stall turn, second looping maneuver starting from the top... not complaining just noting, definitely ready for the challenge of at least practicing intermediate from now on. Sportsman moved things around - nice to have the Cobra after a 1/2 Reverse C8 rather just a 1/2 C8. Immelmann sequence is a little funny - double I followed by anothe I
I'd just like to say Thanks to all the guys who work on these sequences. I feel that Sportsman has done a good job of teaching me the basics and preparing me for intermediate. I would like to be more of a part of what goes on behind the scenes, and if things work out for me here in Cincinnati, I should have the opportunity to start doing so by next summer, or this winter.
I also would like to throw in a BIG Thanks to the guys in D1 for helping me out so much. I really am looking forward to seeing you guys next year at Nats, D14 shootout, and maybe the D4 championship for those that usually make it out.
Intermediate seems a touch more difficult: added full roll in stall turn, second looping maneuver starting from the top... not complaining just noting, definitely ready for the challenge of at least practicing intermediate from now on. Sportsman moved things around - nice to have the Cobra after a 1/2 Reverse C8 rather just a 1/2 C8. Immelmann sequence is a little funny - double I followed by anothe I
I'd just like to say Thanks to all the guys who work on these sequences. I feel that Sportsman has done a good job of teaching me the basics and preparing me for intermediate. I would like to be more of a part of what goes on behind the scenes, and if things work out for me here in Cincinnati, I should have the opportunity to start doing so by next summer, or this winter.
I also would like to throw in a BIG Thanks to the guys in D1 for helping me out so much. I really am looking forward to seeing you guys next year at Nats, D14 shootout, and maybe the D4 championship for those that usually make it out.
I was nice to be back. Flying the Kaos 40 was not the original plan, but I wasn't going to miss the D4 Champs again this year.
#17
My Feedback: (46)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bridgewater,
NJ
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
It may help some if we change Advanced every two years. I think that is going to be the plan for the future. I've seen a number of Advanced guys move up prematurely in my opinion to Masters. Changing it every two years may keep them more interested to stay longer in Advanced to get ther skills polished to a point where they can more successfully make the jump up. But most of those guys I talk of after a few seasons of struggle have started to make great strides in their flying since moving up to Masters.
I do not think we have enough people flying these days to truly support an extra class. We already have more than half the contestants receiving a 1st to 3rd place award at local contests. Contest attendance on average is easily below thirty. Back in the late 80's the numbers were there, not at the moment.
By the way, I flew Expert T/A back then. It was probably on par with the current Advanced. Afterall, there has been some creap in sequence difficulty over the years.
I moved up to Expert T/A from nonturnaround Sportsman(now Intermediate) and took my lumps for a season, but it prepared me for the inevitable conversion to all turnaround. To think the first Masters Turnaround sequence was an old FAI sequence. To this day it is my most favorite sequence. To think of it, if there was an Expert Class today, it would probably make a good candidate sequence.
I do not think we have enough people flying these days to truly support an extra class. We already have more than half the contestants receiving a 1st to 3rd place award at local contests. Contest attendance on average is easily below thirty. Back in the late 80's the numbers were there, not at the moment.
By the way, I flew Expert T/A back then. It was probably on par with the current Advanced. Afterall, there has been some creap in sequence difficulty over the years.
I moved up to Expert T/A from nonturnaround Sportsman(now Intermediate) and took my lumps for a season, but it prepared me for the inevitable conversion to all turnaround. To think the first Masters Turnaround sequence was an old FAI sequence. To this day it is my most favorite sequence. To think of it, if there was an Expert Class today, it would probably make a good candidate sequence.
#18
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Joe,
I agree Expert was a fun class. I flew it during those years as well. Normally there were 2-3 flying it back then. AMA guys just snickered at us back then.
I agree the low turn out of fliers would hardly justify the extra class but given that I still think we should have it.
Without FAI being a destination class and the amount of fliers in Masters it would make sense to bring it back.
The learning flow from Int to Masters then would be much easier jump from one class to the next with the correctly spaced building blocks to make the trip.
FAI is going to get harder and harder as time goes by, as it has in the last 20 years, Masters will follow suit to keep those in the class interested. The flow down from there is going to get deep.
Tim
I agree Expert was a fun class. I flew it during those years as well. Normally there were 2-3 flying it back then. AMA guys just snickered at us back then.
I agree the low turn out of fliers would hardly justify the extra class but given that I still think we should have it.
Without FAI being a destination class and the amount of fliers in Masters it would make sense to bring it back.
The learning flow from Int to Masters then would be much easier jump from one class to the next with the correctly spaced building blocks to make the trip.
FAI is going to get harder and harder as time goes by, as it has in the last 20 years, Masters will follow suit to keep those in the class interested. The flow down from there is going to get deep.
Tim
#19
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Joe,
The low turnout is true enough but as Tim says, the majority of the "new class" would come from the over-flow of Masters pilots that could really use the buffer between the current Masters and Advanced. The gripe is that Masters is the biggest class and it takes them forever to get through it not because of an extra 4 maneuvers but because...it is the biggest class. Really, since it's the number of total pilots, what's the difference in if they are flying Masters or "Expert" (for lack of a better term), they still have to fly a flight. This still allows Masters to be harder and gives us that are forced to move a fighting chance instead of having to fly against the best of the best. It really just makes sense. I understand the fact that sometimes there are only 3-5 pilots in the classes now but I'd rather see 5 people that are of the same skill level competing against one another rather than seeing the guy who just came out of Advanced competing against Stephen Byrd and Tony Frak.
I remember in the early 90's where Masters was the smallest class and there were only 3-4 people there. Maybe Masters is so big now because it's the end of the line?? Add a new class and give us another goal!
The low turnout is true enough but as Tim says, the majority of the "new class" would come from the over-flow of Masters pilots that could really use the buffer between the current Masters and Advanced. The gripe is that Masters is the biggest class and it takes them forever to get through it not because of an extra 4 maneuvers but because...it is the biggest class. Really, since it's the number of total pilots, what's the difference in if they are flying Masters or "Expert" (for lack of a better term), they still have to fly a flight. This still allows Masters to be harder and gives us that are forced to move a fighting chance instead of having to fly against the best of the best. It really just makes sense. I understand the fact that sometimes there are only 3-5 pilots in the classes now but I'd rather see 5 people that are of the same skill level competing against one another rather than seeing the guy who just came out of Advanced competing against Stephen Byrd and Tony Frak.
I remember in the early 90's where Masters was the smallest class and there were only 3-4 people there. Maybe Masters is so big now because it's the end of the line?? Add a new class and give us another goal!
#20
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dalzell, SC
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
And there's almost zero cost involved in adding Expert. Most Contests now just give a picture frame with your picture in it along with a PC generated certificate. I'm good with those.
Back then we bought trophies and they got expensive.
I prefer what we do now as it shows progression in airplanes and my receding hairline.
Back then we bought trophies and they got expensive.
I prefer what we do now as it shows progression in airplanes and my receding hairline.
#21
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Something else (because this has really got me going here). Do y'all realize that there is not one single K5 maneuver in Advanced? To jump to 3 K5 maneuvers in the currently proposed Masters is a pretty big jump and to consider the start of this thread is Derek switching the proposed sequence to make it more difficult. Yet another reason to add the "Expert" class in. We need to introduce some of the harder maneuvers in before making a guy fly Masters.
Please understand, I'm all for making Masters harder because everyone should have a challenge but even if we didn't make it more of a challenge for them, there still needs to be a step between Advanced and Masters. The leap is not overwhelming but large enough with a forced move it is a deterrent.
Please understand, I'm all for making Masters harder because everyone should have a challenge but even if we didn't make it more of a challenge for them, there still needs to be a step between Advanced and Masters. The leap is not overwhelming but large enough with a forced move it is a deterrent.
#22
My Feedback: (46)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bridgewater,
NJ
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
There are different versions of a particular geometric shape that can be a K3, K4 or K5. K5's are in Masters only. There can be anywhere from 2 to 3 in a Masters sequence. It has usually been only two with the traditional long sequence we have been using till now. Also, not all K4's are really equal to each other in difficulty. A K4 Square Loop on Corner is definitely more difficult to do than a K4 Square Loop with the exact same roll elements.
As you progress up the classes, you start to get higher K maneuvers introduced. There are plenty of K4's that can challenge an Advanced pilot and prepare him for Masters. A simple example, a K4 Triangle Loop in Advanced should adequately prepare an Advanced pattern pilot to fly a K5 Triangle loop in Masters. Difference being one or more elements added.
The progression of the classes is set up to introduce new skill sets and difficulty at each level.
When Derek posts the final approved sequence development guide on the NSRCA website, you will see the established boundaries and considerations taken based on past sequences and past sequence committees concensus described in the Annex section. They are intended to be reevaluated each time new sequences are developed and can be adjusted depending on the state of pattern, but can only be changed if it can be justified. This is done with the intention of trying to limit the creap in sequence difficulty over time. Right now Masters has a hard ceiling established on maneuver difficulty. It does not allow complex integrated roll maneuvers, certain snap and roll combinations, and rolling circles. To me there is a greater jump between Masters and F3A then there are in the other classes. I can't even really do a rolling circle. I hope this never changes, otherwise hastalavista for me.
As you progress up the classes, you start to get higher K maneuvers introduced. There are plenty of K4's that can challenge an Advanced pilot and prepare him for Masters. A simple example, a K4 Triangle Loop in Advanced should adequately prepare an Advanced pattern pilot to fly a K5 Triangle loop in Masters. Difference being one or more elements added.
The progression of the classes is set up to introduce new skill sets and difficulty at each level.
When Derek posts the final approved sequence development guide on the NSRCA website, you will see the established boundaries and considerations taken based on past sequences and past sequence committees concensus described in the Annex section. They are intended to be reevaluated each time new sequences are developed and can be adjusted depending on the state of pattern, but can only be changed if it can be justified. This is done with the intention of trying to limit the creap in sequence difficulty over time. Right now Masters has a hard ceiling established on maneuver difficulty. It does not allow complex integrated roll maneuvers, certain snap and roll combinations, and rolling circles. To me there is a greater jump between Masters and F3A then there are in the other classes. I can't even really do a rolling circle. I hope this never changes, otherwise hastalavista for me.
#23
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Joe,
I totally understand your point(s). The one thing to remember here is that you don't HAVE to move to FAI, you have to move to Masters whether you think you can do the maneuvers or not. If we begin to do well in Advanced, we must move up. Masters guys can sit there indefinitely. Masters fliers need to be challenged but for newbie Masters guys to come along and be competitive with some of these gentlemen is a task not so easily overcome. I've seen a lot of Intermediate pilots move up to Advanced and be competitive but "a lot" of Advanced pilots are not going to be proportionately in Masters.
I totally understand your point(s). The one thing to remember here is that you don't HAVE to move to FAI, you have to move to Masters whether you think you can do the maneuvers or not. If we begin to do well in Advanced, we must move up. Masters guys can sit there indefinitely. Masters fliers need to be challenged but for newbie Masters guys to come along and be competitive with some of these gentlemen is a task not so easily overcome. I've seen a lot of Intermediate pilots move up to Advanced and be competitive but "a lot" of Advanced pilots are not going to be proportionately in Masters.
#25
My Feedback: (92)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rosamond, CA
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
I set my timer for 7:30 and start it just before I take-off. In the current sequence it usually goes off just before the vertical 2 of 2 or right before the spin. In the proposed long sequence I always finished the pattern and the timer would go off after I exited the spin. In the proposed short, I would say it takes about 6:00. I could always do several more maneuvers before my timer would go off.