Since adding the Expert class doesn't sound like it will happen, consideration in the future could be given to making the Advanced sequence more difficult by adding more K4 maneuvers and one K5. Thiscould ease the transition to Masters and encourage those to stay in Advanced longer to develop the skills to fly the more difficult pattern well. In other words, make the transition from Advanced to Masters less severe. Just an idea.

Danny Jackson

What I'd really like to see is the sequences change every year. Nothing rebuilds my enthusiasm for the hobby like a new sequence to practice. Did I read between the lines that this is planned for coming years?
Dan

I dont think the plan is every year. That really impacts the guys up north who can't fly until May each year. Every 2 years is a possibility, but every year is a little much and unfair to a lot of the country,

Arch

That would make the jump into Advancve huge. Not something we really want.

I think the tougher jump needs to be between Advanced and Masters. Although, with some of the maneuvers we are talking about adding to masters...loop with a 4pt at the top and such, it still really isn't increasing the level of difficulty, and it also might encourage people to stay in advanced a little longer to truly gain the skills necessary to move up. Just because you win a few contests doesn't always mean you are ready to move up.

Arch

One of the guys who tested the revised sequence which will be made available soon timed it twice at 6:30 doing it in a 10-12 mph crosswind.

Looking at next years Advance I believe it's a better primer to Masters than what we fly now.

Mine was slightly longer. Seemed to be closer to 7 from takeoff to landing, but I'm sure I was flying bigger as well.

Arch

Why not two masters sequences? Not an unknown, and not quite as difficult as FAI, but a step in that direction.

Joe,

A big reason guys don't want to fly FAI is not the unknowns, but having to learn 2 sequences. There are a lot of masters guys who have no desire, nor the time to learn to sequences.

Arch

Myself making the jump from intermediate to advanced next year, having flown both the intermediate and advanced new sequences... I feel that the advanced could be a bigger jump from intermediate... the jump from sportsman to intermediate is fairly large and a challenge when you first fly it, but I am not finding the advanced sequence that much more difficult than the intermediate... the jump from advanced to masters is more similar to the sportsman intermediate jump... so making advanced a little more difficult would even out the jumps between classes better.

Around 7 minutes is probably right from take-off to landing. My times did not include the landing, which takes about 30 to 40 seconds.

Totally agree! There is a lot more inverted action going on.

Arch,
I also agree that spending more time in Advanced is good BUT we don't really have a say in whether we move up or not. We have to follow the rules and if you attend even 3 contests, it's very easy to "have to move up".

Joe L. also said that K5 maneuvers are not allowed in Advanced so it makes it hard for a pilot to get use to the higher maneuvers.

I spoke with Derek last night and we had a very good conversation. The reason that there is not an "Expert" class is that he didn't get the support when this was tried a few years ago. Derek said that they actually created an "Expert" class in 2009 in D7 and many of the Masters pilots flew it. They didn't want to add to the cost of the event for the CD so they didn't expect trophies. He said it went well for an experiment. He suggested that we try this on a local (District level) and talk to the CD's and see if they would be willing to allow us to do this. Obviously, at the NATS we wouldn't have it but it could be a good test for the rest of the nation.

Here is what I'd like to propose: If enough are interested, I'll design the sequence. We don't have any guidelines but there's no reason why we can't design the sequence using a nice bridge between the PROPOSED2011 Advanced and Masters class...maybe stick 1 K5 in there. Let's fly it and take it from there. I am more than willing to do all the leg work if there is enough interest. Otherwise, it's great to discuss but really we're not doing anything about it. Let me know what y'all think! If enough look interested, I'll start a new thread with this discussion.

What it all boils down to is Tony Frak is correct. Masters should be more difficult for the seasoned Masters fliers. They have a choice to stay in Masters or move to FAI. Advanced fliers don't get this luxury. Because of this simple fact, there needs to be some way to bridge the gap. We can't really increase the difficulty of Advanced because we need to consider the Intermediate pilot moving up. It's a huge chain reaction. So, this shows the obvious need to bring back an "Expert" class. Tony, Glen Watson and others should all have the chance to be challenged in Masters but the Advanced pilots ready or required to move up should have a fighting chance with pilots at their skill level.

I'll do the work if y'all are interested. If we get enough support, we can take this back to Derek K. and he will help us move forward. What do y'all think?

Boy, somebody actually said something I posted her was correct. I'm blown over! Thanks Scott!

I will help design the sequence if you would like. I can fly it quite a bit and assist in refining it.

Well Tony...you are correct.

Please understand though that you are correct IF we can figure out a way to bridge the gap between Advanced and Masters. When I move to Masters, I want a fighting chance to win. I don't mind taking my lumps but if I can't be competitive because the difference between Advanced and Masters is too great, there is an issue for the majority of the pilots. I would be rather disappointed if I come to a contest over and over and continually get the snot beat out of me because Advanced didn't prepare me enough for an even more difficult Masters. This is exactly why I'm pushing the new class.

I think you're the exception rather than the rule. Going from Intermediate to Advanced, a pilot has to learn how to do (with precision) a slow roll, 4-point roll, 2 maneuvers with snaps, and a spin. That's a lot to take on for most, but not all. Brett Wickizer went straight from Advanced to FAI and, if memory serves me correctly, made the Finals at the Nats in FAI in his first year. I'm quite confident that Brett's the exception. When schedules are being designed, they have to be designed around the norm, not the exception. As a Masters pilot who attends quite a few contests, I do a considerable amount of judging of all the classes other than Masters. From that experience and from watching those pilots progress over a few seasons, I think the previous sequence committee designers got it right. And that's looking at the whole package, Sportsman to Intermediate, Intermediate to Advanced, Advanced to Masters, and Masters to FAI.

I currently serve on both the AMA Contest Board and the current Sequence Committee. I wasn't on the previous Sequence Committee and only hope the one I sit on now has done as good a job as the previous one. If there's one thing I know from experience, it's that most competitors look at a new (or existing) schedule from their own personal frame of reference or skill set if you prefer. When you're tasked with the responsibility of designing schedules or making rules, you have to step outside of yourself and look at the interconnection from bottom to top. If you don't, you'll start dying from the bottom and that was happening just a few years ago. What I'm seeing now is a healthy influx of pilots coming in that currently reside primarily in the Sportsman and Intermediate classes with a few pilots ready to move up at this point. That tells me the previous Sequence Committee got it right and I can only hope we match their performance.

Related to all of this is the Annex system which effectively turns over the design, approval, and publication of all future schedules to the Special Interest Group (SIG) for Precision Aerobatics which is the NSRCA. As a member of the AMA Contest Board, I voted for this with significant reservation and I know at least some of the other Contest Board Members shared my reservations. My concerns go back to what I said about competitors viewing current or future schedules from their own frame of reference. What I've seen is Intermediate pilots that start getting bored with their schedules but don't want to go to Advanced for any number of reasons such as fear of inability to learn the maneuvers, entering a class at the bottom of the food chain, or whatever. They show up right here calling for Intermediate to be made harder, totally ignoring the guy coming up from Sportsman who's going to be significantly challenged. I see the same thing in Advanced where a pilot(s) starts getting bored with their schedules but don't want to go to Masters for any number of reasons, totally ignoring the guy coming up from Intermediate who's going to be significantly challenged. I'm starting to see it in Masters now too with a few pilots calling for integrated rolling maneuvers and so on, totally ignoring the guy coming up from Advanced who's going to be significantly challenged.

My concern is that if future Sequence Committee Members aren't careful with keeping a broad, overall view of ALL the classes and how they interconnect, Precision Aerobatics could be significantly damaged from the bottom up and it'll take years to fix it. That was my primary reservation in AMA handing over the responsibility to the NSRCA.

Verne Koester

I don't think a new class is necessarily required for this. Look at this years Masters finals. Chris Odom was in the finals after finishing second in Advanced last year at the NATS. Obviously the class prepared him for Masters. If you do add another class, how do you plan to implement it at the NATS? There are no more open flying sites.

Arch

Arch, there are always exceptions to the rule.  Chris Odom, Brett, and others are the exceptions.  If we want to continually grow pattern, we need to look at the majority and not the gifted few.

Verne hit the nail on the head which is why a new class would be perfect to accomplish this.  Why would anyone be against a new class?  It just doesn't make sense to me.  Is it change?  Is it making a class smaller?  Remember the gripe about Masters taking too long?  It takes long because of the size not the number of maneuvers.  This would be Masters fliers that aren't ready for a more difficult sequence and for those coming out of Advanced and getting ready to take Tony down....wait, I didn't say that.    I'm interested in why a new class would not be the answer.

Arch,

I doubt you'd get many more fliers for the Nats so the extra class would likely be populated from Masters and maybe Advance pilots. This would shorten the other classes.

I've looked for the short and long Masters sequence but couldn't find them so my next point might be moot.

Is the long the same as the short until the end with added maneuvers?

If it's two different sequences why not just add several high k4-5 to the end of the short. That way you'd only have to learn a few more maneuvers rather than two entire sequences?

Tim

http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html

Here you go Tim

There is a difference in the two sequences but regardless, they are changing the proposed 2011 Masters and posting soon. They will more than likely be flying the short as it was favored with a higher degree of "challenge" for the pilots.

Scott,
Archie also hit the nail on the head. I've always been an advocate of bringing back Expert but never though about it being flown at the Nats. Archie's right, there are no more sites available at the Nats. The only option available that I see would be to drop Intermediate from the Nats and I'm quite certain that there are any number of Intermediate pilots who wouldn't vote for that! The only other way would be to try and squeeze Expert in somewhere which would be an absolute nightmare for the Event Director. Site 1 & 3 are already locked down with FAI and Masters. I'm frankly not sure about Site 4 because I never get over there between flying in Masters and calling for Andrew in FAI, but I suspect there's little if any room to squeeze in another class.

Verne Koester

There is always going to be a learning curve. My first year in Masters I finished 26th at the NATS. It took me 3 years of flying it to make the finals. I didn't get discouraged, I just went out and practiced.

Arch

There isn't a great deal of time over there to squeeze them in. Not saying it couldn't be done, but you would be adding to the work load of the scorer, line chiefs and site director. Even with the same number of pilots, another class means more tweaking of the judging assignments and the people who actually work the site wouldn't get any kind of break. Logistically it isn't as easy as it sounds.

What happens when we dumb down Advanced, and make Expert the new Advanced, then the gap between Expert and Masters grows, do we create another class? The class schedule works. It should be a challenge for someone moving from Advanced to being competitive in Masters. That will be the case with Expert. You are going to be flying against guys that have been in the class for years. Every year there are new guys making the finals. Marcio Jorge made it this year, after taking a year or so to get comfortable in Masters. The process works. Even with creating a new class, you are going to have guys that are consistently at the top of Masters, so now you'll just end up with guys complaining after making the jump from Expert. I don't see any reason that if you are capable of finishing in the top 5 in Advanced at the NATS that you can't fly the Masters sequence. And if you aren't at that level, then don't move up. With the way the point rule is now, you have to fly a LOT of contests and beat a LOT of people in a season to have to move up unless you are flying Sportsman.

At the end of the day this is COMPETITION...you are going to only have 1 winner at each contest from each class. We don't need to turn this into a participation event like little league has become where everyone gets a trophy.

There are many guys who have been upset with guys winning and staying in Masters, or coming back to Masters. I personally don't have an issue with it. I really enjoy flying against Tony, as I know that I have to fly my best to beat him. I have taken rounds from him, so he can be beat, but over the course of the event, he has out flown me. I take that as a challenge, not a reason to see him want to move out of Masters.

Arch

I've thought about this. The main obstacles to it are not that difficult to overcome; these are as follows: scoring it from a tabulation point of view and having the judges make sure the sequence is followed.

First, scoring:
Have a sequence that spells out the required KFactors only for each spot in the schedule, not maneuvers. For each K factor, list the maneuvers possible. Let the Masters Pilot choose which one he wants to fly. This then becomes a Master Pilot's option since every pilot would be a designer of his own schedule. The *****ing and finger pointing stops right there and then. You Masters Pilots feel that you are not being heard? Well, here's your chance. Step up and design your own sequence.

Tabulation will not pose any extra problem since the scoring program will have a correct sequence of KFactors already in the software.

[b]Judging the sequences:[/b]

Solely dependent on the Pilot's caller. Must speak loud enough for the judges to hear it. If it's mumbled or not understood, a maneuver is scored ZERO...

Another way to do it is have the sequence played back to a head set that each judge will wear. The Pilot will need to speak his designed schedule in one of the many play back devices now on the market.

Details of how the sequence will be played back in the correct time frame have not been thought through. I am presenting the idea here-in for one of you snappy whipper snappers with all the whiz bang gadgetry knowledge to figure out

Arch and Verne,
Admittedly, I've never had the opportunity to make it to the NATS although I suspect I will be there in 2011. I also agree with everything you are saying and I believe that one day I'll be competitive regardless of how this all plays out. I was simply looking at the group as a whole. Another hurdle to cross and another goal for the average pilot to hit. It's all about the competition and no one flies pattern to come in last place or be "happy" with finishing mid-pack. If there is a class where pilots of similar abilities can compete between Advanced and Masters, we have done a service to those pilots and also to the pilots that are gifted enough to be able to fly a harder sequence in the top of Masters. No one can ever convince me that we don't compete to win.

I also agree with the fact we will always find a reason to complain. I feel that I was trying to find a solution to the complaint of Masters being too easy for the gifted ones and Masters class size being too big and not really complaining. Obviously, the AMA and NSRCA have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and maybe the current system is that line but new ideas and ways to make things better do not come from accepting status-quo.

Also, concerning the NATS, what I am led to believe by the comment (again, never having gone) is that there is no room for growth? Are we saying that the NATS are so large now that we can't add in new events and disciplines? The same number of people are going to attend the NATS regardless of how many classes are flown. If Expert was created, this would take (I would surmise) a fair number from the Masters class and some from the Advanced class. Why would it be difficult to have Expert fly before Masters or after Advanced or whatever? It's still the same number of pilots. Remember, I haven't been to one of these yet so pardon me being naive.

If it can be thought of, it can be accomplished. Nothing that is worthwhile is easy but that which is easy isn't really worth doing.