Currently the NATS schedule is as follows. Site 1 and 3 FAI flies in the morning and Masters in the afternoons. FAI does finish with an hour or so before lunch, but Masters usually takes up the entire afternoon. Since we are using the Matrix system because of the large number pilots, both sites get used essentially all day. Site 4, which is the only other site flies Advanced in the morning and Intermediate in the afternoon. Both of those classes being smaller, there is room you MIGHT be able to fit it during the day, but maybe not. Having only 4 classes though works out really well at the NATs from a logistic point of view. Adding another class would also complicate judging. Depending on when Expert was flying, morning or afternoon, you would have to use extra judges from Masters and FAI. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would take a reshuffling of how we currently do things.

Arch

To me Arch’s post regarding practice and dedication is the key. I went thru the same curve as he. I personally invested major time, dollars and energy into learning and understanding the sport of pattern. I’ll be the first to tell you I do not possess natural magic skills, improvements in my flying over the years came from hard work.

I reflect back to high school when I tried out for the swimming team…yea that’s right not b-ball or football I said swimming. Sure I could swim however my technique and endurance was horrible I was not competitive until my second season. I became a student of the sport and listened to my coach on how to improve my technique for all four stroke disciplines and became one of the top Individual medley swimmers in the city. I simple applied the same effort to pattern flying.

Not sure what I said to Scott at the N Dallas contest this past weekend that made him reference me in an earlier post. Nice to be associated with Tony F tho.... I'm of the opinion the current AMA classes and their degree of difficultly are just, sure some minor tweaks are in order however adding another class is not the road I see AMA needing to travel. My perception is a large majority of AMA pattern flyers view the sport of pattern very casually. Do just enough to understand the rules and prepare just enough to attend contest for fun. (I probably made many new enemies with that last statement) Nothing wrong with that…I’m just saying guys like me who show-up at a contest after burning major amounts of fuel along with potent quality tuned equipment are viewed as trophy hogs which is further from the truth for me. I truly enjoy the practice and preparation it takes to be competitive. A contest is the validation the hard work has paid off.

Glen, it was the $100 you paid me.

I 100% agree with Glen. I remember when I first moved to D6, of thinking that I'm going to have to practice often as I know the level of competition is stiff. I know that when I was going to a contest, knowing Glen was going to be there that I had to bring my "A" game, and I'm reasonably certain that he felt the same. I think the competition did nothing but raise the level of the competition in the entire district. In 2007, 5 of the Masters finalists were from D6 and 6 of the top 10. At every contest you had better be on, or you could go from winning to 5th pretty easily at a local contest. This really made it a lot of fun, and I'm sure the high level of competition raised everyone's level of flying. As Glen said, there are a lot of people who fly occasionally, and just show up for the fun of it, but I personally really enjoy the competition side of it. I enjoy putting in the work and the rewards at the end.

Arch

The challenge/goal is to have an entry level sequence that can be flown by a very broad range of pilots with a broad range of planes (including trainers). Masters needs to be challenging enough to differentiate top pilots, and the classes in between need to have reasonable steps in difficulty such that pilots can progress from one class to the next. I'd suggest the ideal step size will never be agreed upon, but in practice, the number of pilots in pattern determines how many classes are viable, and how many steps (classes) there are on the way to Masters. Many local contests are seeing ~20 flyers these days, which means an average of 4 pilots per class (including FAI-F3A). It doesn't make much sense to add another class to have even smaller numbers in each class.

Regards,

No it only makes sense to add the class to make the flow from bottom to top more linear than exponential.

A good point system will also force those that need to move up do so and allow those that are not ready to stay put.

The thought of spending 4-6 years flying getting to Masters then 20 years of Masters doesn't seem apealing to me.

[quote]ORIGINAL: VerneK

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


Once again Verne is 100% Correct, I have talked with Verne many times over the past seven or so years. He has plenty of experience and wisdom. Or maybe i'm just not as smart
I finally moved into Masters three years ago, and my hopes of winning when the top pilots show up is hopeless. Let's face it i am getting better but the top pilots are better. "I do not want a new class added" Because if the better pilots Verne, Arch and Mike live long enough i will beat them, Right now in District IV the up and comer is Brenner, I think adding a new class would be a serious disservice to Brenner when he finally kicks Verne off the perch, He is getting close now. And when he finally beat Bobby Satalino last year and did the victory dance it made it all worth it
Dying to see in a year or two when he does it to Verne.
Now as for me Verne take good care of your health you might need to live to be about 120 years old before i can woop on you.

It's not a new class.

We had 4 classes and ONE top class, Now we have 3 classes and TWO Top classes.

Tim

Hmmm, I've been flying Masters about 17 years now. I still find it just as challenging today as it was 17 years ago. Never won a Nats trophy. Never made a finals. Never dominated the class on the District level. Just happy to be competitive.

Tim,

I really don't understand your arguement. You say 4-6 years to get to Masters, and then 20 years staying there...adding another class would just add another class you have to get through, but doesn't mean you wouldnt end up in Masters. When I started flying masters, I was middle of the pack at local contests, and the same at the NATS. I went out and worked my tail off to get near the top and work my tail off to stay there. I know Glen Watson is the same way. Neither of us are blessed with magical abilities. Last weekend in Cincy I didn't win all the rounds and didn't win the contest. Verne, Mike and Brenner all flew very well, so its not like we are going out and winning every contest and nothing is close. Joe Lachowski and Dennis Bodary are 2 guys that under your arguement should be really pushing for a new class. They are both where I was a few years ago. Dennis usually finishes mid pack at local contests and Joe usually is around 3rd or so. Both I'm sure will agree that having better competition in the districts has made them fly better. Which would you rather be, a better pilot, or a guy who goes home with a trophy every week? I think we do this to make us better pilots. Competition is the driving force behind this. I'm not real sure what you would take out of a Masters sequence to make it easier for an "Expert" class. The maneuvers themselves in Masters aren't much about Advanced, but the complexity of making it fit within the box is. I would say the top 25 at the NATS at some point have flown each maneuver in the schedule very well, the difference in making the finals is putting all the maneuvers together in any given flight. In Masters, you can NOT have a bad maneuver, it will drop you from 1st to last in a round pretty easily, so I think that speaks to some level of parity. I know if I look at scores of contests I have flown this year, I see guys scoring roughly the same against me as they did at the beginning of the year, or even higher, however, I KNOW that i am flying a lot better around the NATS than I was at the beginning of the season, so therefor everyone is improving. Nothing makes you a better pilot like competition.

Arch

We did exactly this for a "fun Fly" type event at our club. We flew the Sportsman sequence before our primer, everyone, regardless of current class had to fly sportsman... but if you were an active pattern pilot you had to fly a 40 sized trainer. The current sportsman sequence is definitely flyable with a trainer and it was a good event for the club and reinforced what we have been saying all along that you can win sportsman with whatever you are most comfortable flying... even if it is a 40 sized trainer.

It wasn't meant to be anything other than, Spending 4-6 years going through the lower classes to end up in Master where you'll stay for a very long time or drop out.

I've seen guys just burn through the lower classes and end up in Masters only to quit. Some quit because they've now run up against Master pilots that have been there for 10-20 years and can fly rings around them . Some make the grade, some don't. Those that do, like Glen and yourself, have spent the time, money and effort to do so.
I applaude those guys.

I guess my whole point is if Masters is to remain a destination class, (I don't really care if it remains so or not), then the journey should be a smooth and long ride, once you're in Masters there's no where to go but FAI or start over in Imac.

The result we've seen over the last 20 years, remember I was out of pattern for ten of those years coming back into it was a shock of major proportion, is the difficulty creep in the lower classes. This is directly attributable to FAI necessarily getting more difficult to keep those guys interested and weed out the also-rans from the guys who really can fly on the world stage. The rest rolled downhill right into "Masters" Heck Masters today is far harder than FAI was back then by a fair amount.

Killing off Expert was a mistake and disrupted the natural flow we had at the time. One can look at it two different ways I suppose.............

I just believe it was a mistake. If they'd deleted Masters and kept Expert we'd have the same result.

Tim

The FAI/CIAM put together F3A schedules with the sole purpose of picking a World's Champ. Has nothing to do with maintaining guys interest. The people who fly the top World class, have interest galore.

Adding Expert to AMA "might" divide Masters up a little, you may have a small point there. The logistics involved, from shcedule picking, to managing the events to filling the judge chairs, to me, is hardly worth the trouble.

But that's my opinion. YMMV

Yes, there has been some difficulty creep. A good portion of that is attributable to advancements in design and technology. I can tell you one thing for sure, it would be a bit more difficult to perform the current Masters sequence with my old Sequel than with the E-powered Integral I am flying now. The new stuff has more power, tracks better,rolls better, etc. I think much the same applies to the lower classes. The evolution of design and technology have made it that much easier.

On this point I understand completelty and agree.

What this led to was the trickle down into the AMA classes. No denying it. This is also a perfect point to the airplanes we fly, and all improvements, coming directly from FAI. (Hint that was a weight elimination jab).[8D]

[/quote]
Adding Expert to AMA ''might'' divide Masters up a little, you may have a small point there. The logistics involved, from shcedule picking, to managing the events to filling the judge chairs, to me, is hardly worth the trouble.

But that's my opinion. YMMV[/quote]

Yes there will be added work, I think it's worth it. We did it before, we can do it again. I'm not as worried about "Breaking up Masters as I am working the flow from the bottom to the top to make it better.

I know I'm tilting at a huge wind mill here but I'm bored today as work has dried up around the shop, normal for this time of year.

Tim

I think the whole point that Tim and I have been trying to make is that we are trying to kill two birds with one stone. In another thread, it was mentioned that the currently proposed Masters class wasn't challenging enough for the likes of Tony F. and others who were pushing for a higher difficulty. Derek started this thread to let us know that the NSRCA agreed and was changing the proposed short sequence to a more difficult sequence. Let me make this clear.....it should be harder! The downfall to this is that it makes a huge leap for Advanced fliers to come up and be competitive without several years of flying. Again, to be clear, we are speaking of the "average pilot" not the "gifted and talented". The average pilot makes up the majority of the Masters class. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't see the same people win over and over and over again.

We, as a whole, have worked very hard to take all skill levels into consideration and the Sequence committee has definitely worked hard to make sure that there is a fairly smooth transition between each of the classes. The point is if we are going to make Masters slightly more difficult so that the people that have decided to make Masters their "destination" can be challenged, which we are doing by the creation of this thread, we need to continue making the move to each class smooth instead of a gigantic jump. If we leave things the same as they are now, meaning 4 AMA classes, and we choose to want to continue to introduce techniques and making a smooth transition between the classes, we have two choices. Raise the difficulty of ALL classes to maintain what we've started or bring in a class that bridges the gap between Advanced and Masters.

I spent some time talking to a long time friend this weekend and he explained why he was absolutely against adding a class and...it makes sense. Where he is, they have enough trouble making enough in each class as it is. Adding another class would "thin out" the field even more. This definitely makes sense for the smaller districts or at least those that live in an area that doesn't get much participation. I also realize that these areas need to be taken into consideration. For these places, the CD has the right (per Derek's phone call) to not fly that class for his/her contest if it makes that big of a change to the number in each class.

By adding a class...
1.) We've raised the cost SLIGHTLY because the CD must now purchase or make three more awards. OK, I'll pay 3 extra dollars to compete to do this and I can't imagine that each contestant wouldn't do the same. If this weren't true, we wouldn't pay $35 at one contest and $25 at another. No one complains about that (THANK GOD).

2.) We've also given the "middle packers" in Masters a better chance to be competitive along with the guys moving up from Advanced. There are many more "middle packers" than winners. Again, very important, we compete to win! Every single person has agreed to this. To back this up with facts, look how many people have said "I stay in Masters because I want to win the NATS before moving to FAI". So, you can't tell me we don't want to win, it's in our nature.

3.) We have allowed Masters to be more challenging and bridged the gap between Masters and Advanced.

4.) We have given everyone another goal, level of competition, and avenue to improve their skills.

Anyways, please keep in mind we aren't trying to fight those that are against, I think we are just trying to think of a way to make the MAJORITY happy and to get you to consider this side of things. Don't shut it down just because you don't think it's the way to go, weigh the Pro's and Con's.

I say this with <u>COMPLETE and UTTER respect</u> but I find it interesting that most of the people that are against this ( at least in this thread) are the people, at the very least, getting to the podium in Masters. It would be good to hear from those that finish mid-pack or lower all the time and see if they are truly happy with this. I don't understand how this is possible since we are all competitors. Arch and others, truly I'm not trying to be disrespectful by saying these things. One day, I can only hope to fly as good as y'all regardless of how all this turns out. I simply would like us to try to figure out the best way to make the majority happy, not get stuck in a mold of how things should be, and work on improving not only the quality of our sport, but increasing the enjoyment and continually grow what we have already started.

Scott,

Other than not really seeing a major reasoning for doing it, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense logistically, particularly at the NATS. You say it is the guys at the top of masters who are against it. I beg to differ. In this thread Joe Lachowski, and in the other thread Dennis Bodary, are two guys that this would affect, and both of them are against changing it. The changes made in the masters sequence were very minor. Repositioned a few things and made a square with 1/2 rolls, a square on corner. My guess is this will be published in the next couple days. For a short time, it might show some benefit, but after 2-3 years the guys you are talking about benefitting from it are the guys who are going to be moving out and into masters and will be in the same boat. You may have just prolonged it a couple of years if that. When I was one of the guys who would've fit that description, I would've rather just kept flying what I was and getting better. I realize it sounds very easy to do, but the way the NATS are configured, I really think this would be a LOT more difficult than it sounds, and adding extra days really isn't an option. Even the guys who were near the top in Advanced last year and moved up this year obviously had the skill level needed. Chris Odom made the finals, but Gary Courtney finished 14th. Marcio Jorge made the finals this year after a year of getting his feet wet in Masters. The skills needed are currently learned in Advanced, but when you are flying against guys who have been flying it for years, its not going to be easy to crack the top 10. Adding another class isn't going to change that.

Arch

Although you may have heard more often from Archie and Watson on this, I think many Masters pilots are reading the postings.

Let me give you my point of view. I have not won a Masters local event in 15 years. I have not placed in a Masters local event in 10 years. Last time I flew at the Nats, I came in in the top 20 back in 2004, I think. Only time I even got close to a Nats win was way back in 1981, when I led the Sportsman Event for 2 days, but lost it due to balky engine. Just didn't know enough to set the silly thing right. Not enough experience.

I am Mr. Middle of the Pack. I just don't see that the majority of all of us Mssrs "Middle of the Pack" are unhappy about our placing. For all of us who scored great at one time but we no longer do, we know what it takes....more work. Many of us, myself included, simply don't have time or energy to put in the necessary practice to get better. Some of us, myself included, now may have physical or medical problems that make it even more difficult to put it the required time.

Want to know what? I enjoy the sport as much as ever....its great to win true. But there are other ways to enjoy it also...for me, it's creating something new and different that still keeps me at the front of my seat. It is all part of the whole

Arch,
I definitely see your points. You guys have seen a lot and have been to the NATS and know what a logistical nightmare it is....I haven't (yet). Personally, I think I can fly the Masters pattern and be fairly competitive but I have just returned to pattern and feel I need to regain my skills and just like the Masters guys, I want to attend the NATS and see how I fair in Advanced. I guess I"m just trying to help the guys who want to be competitive and whether it be skill, equipment or simply enough time to practice (this is the key by the way...practice) can't have a chance to win. I believe this is one of the major reasons why we have many drop out of pattern (besides other givens). Why would you want to compete and not win?

Additionally, I think there are a lot more people that attend all the combined local contests than attend the NATS. Are we considering them when we just simply say "no"? The local contests are what feeds the NATS, not the other way around. I certainly don't have all the answers but there has got to be a way to accomplish our goals. In my opinion, our goals are to grow our sport, eliminate, within reasons, people leaving this facet and finally to continue the ongoing process of learning and to continue what we've already started, nurturing the beginning flier all the way through to Masters.

Maybe this isn't the solution. Maybe 4 AMA classes is all we can handle presently but I applaud anyone that tries to figure out a solution to benefit the majority of our hobby. I think there is always a better way to do something. The Pattern community tends to resist change. I'm not shocking anyone by saying this. We can come up with battery trays that slide and counter-rotating props and make planes that are 6 1/2 feet long weigh less than 11 pounds but we can't figure out a way to bridge the gap and have a healthy continually growing community?? Something is wrong here. I'm just trying.to make a difference and help the community. I live for pattern, it's why I work. I've been told I even "hand fly" the pattern in my sleep (don't laugh, y'all do it too). My computer desktop is a pattern plane. I only want to help us grow and try to make people happy. This is only one potential solution and I challenge all to come up with a way to help as well. THIS is what makes us a stronger community. This doesn't have to be the answer but hopefully this spurs others to try to figure out a way. Status-quo is not good enough.

Just so you guys understand my point.

Master should be hard, very hard.

It should be close or equal to FAI.

All I'm advocating (In this thread) is working the flow from bottom to top.

Trying to make it better for those that come after us.

I understand the guys wanting to win a national event, I've come close once. I intend to go again and hope to place one position higher than I did before and win it all.

Time will tell on all accounts.

Tim

A-men Tim

A concept I've seen in several post on this thread is one I take issue with to some extent. That's the "I compete to win" statement.
We don't all compete to win the contest. I did this competition in the 70's and 80's with some sucess at the local level as I made my way up through the classes at the time. Then took a 15-20 year leave. I don't have the skills, desire, energy, or need be in first place any more. Been there, done that years ago!
But there are always two contest going on at a pattern event.

First is the contest with all the other contestants and how we stack up. I don't have any hope of winning a Masters event any more. Most of us "middle" and "back" packers don't. But we can still enjoy seeing how we stack up against the winners. It's still a competition "fix".

Second is the best competition of all. That's the competition with ourselves. How well can I fly this maneuver or sequence compared to how it should be flown? This is the competition we can all win at times. When I fly a good maneuver or sequence really well compared to my "usual" then that's a victory and I can enjoy that victory just as the first place flyer does.



Dave Burton

Agreed Dave,

I'm more inclined to do "Battle" with myself. If I go to a contest and fly to the best of my ability and my equipment doesn't fail me then I'm happy.

It doesn't matter where I end up in a contest. My fangs retracted years ago. I go now for the fellowship side of this sport.

I no longer have the "Passion" I once had. It's still there, just not as hot as it once was.

Tim

Everyone,

The updated short Masters sequence, Aresti and associated maneuver descriptions and downgrades have been posted on the NSRCA website:

[link=http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html]Proposed NSRCA Sequences[/link]

In addition, the draft Sequence Development guide has also been posted.

The Sequence Committee did a great job of modifying the short sequence and it has been tested by a number of pilots from around the country - all with very positive feedback.

Looks fun, I'll try it this weekend.