<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV><STRONG>Matt wrote: "Fourth</STRONG>, what problem would be solved? I'll
answer it with a question: are we (Masters pilots)happy with status quo? Same
ol' same old is a good thing? If yes, then the whole discussion is moot. If no,
then lets change it."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt, if you'll note my original reply to GP's question, you'll see that is
exactly what I suggested!! The Masters pilots have to be polled for
this; every one of us; and that's a simple "do we/don't we" type
thing. I would hope the new administration (God help them) will understand
the importance of this.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199 AMA 46373<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Rcmaster199@aol.com
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, January 07, 2005 1:47
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: AMA MASTER'S unknown?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>A couple more thoughts on the subject: </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>First,</STRONG> the issue of judging Finals (knowns and unknowns
alike): Having judged Masters Nats and F3A Nats and Team Selection
Finals, I found it was easier for we judges to have a
competent caller amongst us, calling the maneuver to us. This was a person
separate from the pilots' caller, speaking softly as to not distract the
pilot. But when we didn't have a caller, it wasn't that bad. The demo flights
before the round started served as good refreshers as to what the shapes
looked like. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some of us had not seen the F knowns flown before, let alone the
unknowns. As an F3A Finals judge, you do what you can to familiarize yourself
with the sequence. If you're chosen to judge, you already know how (elements,
presentation, positioning, distance, S and G, etc, not belaboring the
obvious).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Second</STRONG>, regarding Masters unknowns: Judging will be a
little trickier because our pool of competent judges is still rather small,
and F3A uses 10 already. Less are needed for Masters which is a good
thing. With a demo flight, this shouldn't be that bad for pilots and judges
alike. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Finalist F3Aers can do the F sequences and unknowns sequences (of their
choosing) and I believe Masters Finalists can also. Do they need to? NO THEY
DON"T. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But, it wasn't that long ago that Masters was not only able, they were
REQUIRED to choose their own schedules from the Masters list of maneuvers.
There was a maximum K Factor, and that was the only guide line. Not only that,
but they could change their schedules from round to round if they chose. After
all they were MASTERS PILOTS AND IT WAS <STRONG><EM>THE TOP
CLASS</EM></STRONG>. The ability to choose was the rite of passage, and
some moved there with that mind set. Was it interesting? Yup, without a doubt.
This was before TA and scoring programs and the like. Should we retuurn to
that way of doing business? It would be much harder to do it
administratively, so, NO, probably not! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, I do find it strange that MASTERS pilots in general, appear to
be saying that it would be too complicated so lets not even bother. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Third</STRONG>, does it have to be an unknown? NO. It could just
be a Finals known sequence that is different than the Prelim schedule. I favor
this actually over an unknown. The Final sequence in my view, would be reduced
in maneuver number but increased in complexity. Putting snaps aside for a
minute, I see nothing wrong with loop-roll combinations for example. Same
thing for a rolling circle, (but not crazy as in the F05 schedule). One roll
circles or two roll circles are very pretty maneuvers and a great deal of fun
to do, and don't use up half the county. These maneuver types are hard to do
with precision, but that's the whole point. They are separator maneuvers.
Again, what becomes harder is the administration.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Fourth</STRONG>, what problem would be solved? I'll answer it
with a question: are we (Masters pilots)happy with status quo? Same ol' same
old is a good thing? If yes, then the whole discussion is moot. If no, then
lets change it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/7/2005 12:31:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Ed_Alt@hotmail.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well, after flying Scale Aerobatics,
AKA IMAC for 7 or 8 years, from Sportsman through Unlimited, I guess
I'm not very excited about introducing unknowns into Pattern. On the
one hand, it does add some interest. On the other hand, it introduces
so many variables that it can really screw up an event and adversely affect
the outcome. If the desire here is to turn Pattern into a contest of
who can best memorize new sequences on the fly, who won't crack under the
pressure and simply brain fart their way into a few zeros, then this is
a great idea.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So if we do this, the sequences have to be well
designed, there has to be a uniform standard to apply to construct the
sequences and there has to be a way to get the judges ready to properly
judge them. They are unknowns for them as well. So even if we
have a flight line full of steely eyed flyers who can memorize and repeat a
new sequence flawlessly, the quality of the judged outcome can really suffer
if you do not assure that the judges are rehearsed for the unknowns.
Sometimes at the IMAC Nats, the judges would be treated to a demo flight
before the unknowns in the finals round. Sometimes not. BTW, they have
a new unknown every day after day one. You tend to spend your nights
memorizing sequences and forgetting the previous days unknown. It's
part of the IMAC mindset, i.e., the unknowns are supposed to separate the
men from the boys and if you can't deal with this idea, then don't come to
play. If you get screwed because the judges don't know what they're
looking at until the 5th of 6th flyer gets in front of them, then so be
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In general, IMAC gets things into the Scale
Aerobatics rules because "that's what IAC does". Super. Are we
to introduce unknowns because IMAC does it? Again, what problem are we
trying to solve and how does introducing unknowns solve it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Ed</FONT></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>