grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

I think we should vote on it. All in favor of Tony F moving up to FAI raise ur hand motion passes congratulations Tony...... Just Kidding... I think Moving up in class is a personnel choice for all the various reasons and should move is worded as it should have been all along.


gary

bjr_93tz

The concern I hold is when I see a pilot or pilots flying in higher classes, sacrificing what I believe to be the fundamentals of pattern flying and that is precison and gracefulness, in order to "get through" the more complicated maneuvers.

A square loop with rolling elements in the straight lines should look like a square loop first and fourmost, not some four sided figure where the straight line segments and radi are used to correct for wobbly rolling elements.

Getting through the maneuvers isn't the challenge, for me it's about maintaining the precision and gracefulness despite the complexity. You don't learn to play the piano by someone standing behind you calling the sheet music while you try to press the right keys and it takes more skill to play the Chopsticks well, than to play Fur Elise poorly..

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

Dave,

I'm not saying we have to force anyone to move down. What I'm saying is that if people who probably should move down, don't, we can't base the sequences on their skill set. If 20 people are in a class, and 18 of them can get through the sequence without any risk to themselves, others, or the airplane, while 2 can't (not saying it is this bad, but using it as an example), then the sequence should be built for the other 18, not the 2 who don't want to accept that maybe they should move down. I think if you look at scores and guys are constantly scoring in the 700's to low 800's and have been flying a sequence for some time, they might want to consider moving back a class.

Arch

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Correct Arch,

When I first posted this, I struggled with the word "Forced". Maybe with the scoring system in place into a national data base a flier that is in the lower 10-15% can move down a class if he so desires.

I agree being forced down a class can be a big hit to ones Ego. Some guys would welcome the change however.

Tim

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

Tim,

I like the giving guys the option to move back if they need to. I honestly don't see a lot of people who would use the opportunity to take advantage of the situation, so I think it would definitely work. A lot of pattern is confidence in your own abilities. I think you would actually see situations where a guy could move back to Advanced from Masters (and maybe that is the only class we let people move out of and stay there), and once he gets back to Advanced regains some confidence in himself and might want to move back up. I do think we need to let the lower class guys however have it setup so they can "try" a new sequence at 1 or 2 contets to see if they are really ready. Flying a sequence at home alone and in front of judges are two different things. Let guys test the waters if they haven't pointed out. But in Masters, let guys have the option if they are uncomfortable with a sequence of moving back.

Arch

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Worth pondering for a bit and see how it works out. I do like the idea of allowing guys to try the next higher class a few contests before committing to it. After all this is supposed to be fun, isn't it?

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

I've seen a lot of times guys were scared to try the next higher class from fear of not being able to go back. Most would stay once they move up, but at least it would help eliminate the fear from the equation.


Arch

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

I can relate to this. I'd have tried flying Intermediate at a contest or two with a small Sportsman turnout. Probably with a little coaching and feedback the jump would not seem that dramatic. Flying alone makes the transition difficult; I've been practicing Sportsman and having a tough enough time memorizing that routine, let along trying a full Intermediate schedule. Having a caller and some judges for feedback would be pretty sweet, and if it isn't time to jump up, you could go back.

I'll be working on moving up next summer regardless, just throwing in my $.02 for others in the same position, or for when it's time to consider the move to Advanced.

DaveL322

With the current US Advancement system, I've advocated it be guidance and not steadfast rule - for a couple reasons -
- no one really tracks the points.
- no one wants to be forced to move if they are truly not ready to move up.
- the broad demographics of the US make it near impossible to find a single point system that is equally fair to all flyers.
- if the advancement system is in place as guidance, the majority are going to adhere to it, and follow it.
- if the advancement system is in place as guidance, it is a foundation for peer pressure, which can be more influential/effective than the advancement system itself.

The US system now is not perfect, and given the broad demographics of the US, it never will be. Would adoption of the Aussie system (verbatim or modified) be an improvement? Maybe. I'd throw in the South African system (similar to the Aussie system) as another to consider - I've seen it used, discussed, debated, and tweaked, and it works very well for the South Africans.

Regards,

Mastertech

My Feedback: (31)

Dave,

I think looking at all the different countries point system is worth while. So far I prefer the national bank of scores and believe the system would work just fine. It would almost run in the back ground as the CD would bear the brunt of doing the reports.

IMAC (As I've read) does this and seems to work fine for them, I don't see why it wouldn't for us as well.
Making the "Forced" jump to the next class by raw scores against the rule book seems to me to be more realistic than how many points you get for placement in local contests.

Tim

DaveL322

3 more points -

You can practice the next class before moving into it (as Joe M is doing), and you might find doing so improves your flying in your current class.

I think most would prefer to be demoted to the next lower class than suck up their pride and voluntarily move down. In essence, it is simply recognition that one's peak skills are not middle of the pack in either class, and a pilot may spend the bulk of their pattern current bouncing between two clases......too good for the lower class, but not quite good enough for the higher class. I think is as much a cultural idea/change as anything else.

In countries that have a large enough number of pilots to support multiple classes, a building block structure to the classes can be put in place, and can be effective at developing trimming skills and flight skills. The goal or system is designed to "build" better pilots and promote competition at all levels. FAI has no such goal or system. The goal of FAI is to pick the very best Team and very best pilot in the world, and as such, the FAI system is desinged to do exactly that, which does not make it particuarly well suited for local contests. For an FAI flyer, the mechanisms to improve are largely placed on the flyer, and the support network to assist them simply does not exist to the extent it does with AMA flyers (in the US).

Regards,

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

Sweet, so now we're going to have a new cheer during the awards ceremony. . . 

"Move Down!!!"

RC_Pattern_Flyer

My Feedback: (1)

When I pointed out of Advanced, I was flying fairly well and making almost all the contests.

Life, money and the pursuit of happiness has led me to fly occasionally and I get to go to contests. Now, when I do, it is everything I can do to break 900.

I still have fun, I enjoy being around good friends and sharing and learning, but... the desire to win kills me. Yet, i go, and I know i will not win.

I want to be competitive and if i flew more often I would no doubt fly masters, but lately, i would rather fly advanced and be competitive with those guys than go fly 6 rounds of mediocre sequences.

Chuck Hochhalter

bjr_93tz

I still think that making everyone fly the sportsman schedule (scored of course) for the first round would be a good way to loosen up the thumbs at local competitions. It's easy to fly and is a great way to get your eye in at a new field.

Freddy

My Feedback: (3)

Once you have flown Masters or FAI you should be able to move back and forth. No system in a hobby should force anything. Gentlemen this is not a life or death situation. Case in point; Tony Frackoviak who made the US national team several times (i.e. flies like the Gods) moved back to Masters!

dreadnaut

My Feedback: (5)

I quite agree with these two points. I started flying sportsman in '98 and about a year later I won a contest in a field of five decent pilots and decided to self promote myself. I proceeded to struggle in intermediate, but I was not bothered by it. It challenged me and I got better, then I got worse as my flying time started to taper off and I dropped out in '03.

Last month I flew my first contest in seven years and debated stepping back down to sportsman. I contacted the CD and was informed that he had no problem with it. After talking to people at the local club I determined that intermediate would have a decent turn out, so decided to practice the intermediate routine. There were five pilots in intermediate, and I finished fifth. Still, I was satisfied. I had a normalized score of about 3500, did not finish on the bottom in every round, and the guy who won came from a higher class in IMAC. Not bad for only twenty practice flights with my pattern plane. There was only one contestant show up in sportsman, and they were a DNF. I would much rather finish fifth of five than first of one. First out of five is my goal, and now I finish my practice flights with one advance maneuver (that slow roll is a but kicker now that I have been practicing it with out a "cheater low rate") .

Sure, some may sandbag it, but most probably do not. I like to challenge myself. Sure, I like to win, but I don't cry if I don't. If it comes to some forced system, I would not have a problem if it were consistent.