<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ed,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I don't think anyone is suggesting we make Masters easier.
The real issue is how we get someone to try pattern in the first place and then
how we transition them logically through the classes. There are three
undisputable facts in all of this. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Fact one is that prior to ever competing in their first
pattern contest, a pilot has never competed in a pattern contest. As ridiculous
as that sounds, it's very relevant. Most never will, it's always been that way,
and there's not much we can do to change it. For the relatively few out there
that are considering it, we have to make sure that it doesn't seem to be an
insurmountable challenge. All the while we're doing that, we have to pick
maneuvers that also start them on a path upwards. The various schedules we've
had over the last twenty-five years have done a reasonably good job of
that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Fact two is that FAI is in fact raising the bar and it's
been reported that they do so not only to differentiate the very best from the
best, but to increase spectator appeal as well. The spectator appeal part
concerns me most because there seems to be a definite trend toward the inclusion
of 3D type maneuvers such as rolling loops and rolling circles. The question at
hand is whether we continue to raise the bar in Masters to prepare one for this
trend in FAI. My personal opinion is that what we're doing right now DOES
prepare a Masters pilot for FAI if they so choose. If a pilot chooses to
continue on in FAI, part of the learning curve will be learning some of these
maneuvers when they get there. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Fact three is that if you make Masters EQUIVALENT to
FAI in difficulty with the rolling circles and rolling loops and so on, the
trickle down effect is that you'll have to raise the bar in the classes that
precede Masters to get those folks ready to fly Masters. Problem with that is
the guy at the bottom on the outside that's never flown in a pattern contest
before isn't any more ready either way because he's not even here yet. And then
there's the guy in Intermediate that isn't challenged with it anymore but
doesn't feel anywhere near ready to fly in Advanced because we've had to raise
the bar to get him ready for Masters.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Of course, if you don't buy into the theory (not you
personally, Ed) that each class should be a logical stepping stone or building
block into the next level of difficulty, all of this is moot. The real challenge
in all of this is developing schedules that get a pilot logically and reasonably
from "A to E". The key in that is to set learning objectives at each level that
take into account where someone is coming from as well as where they're going.
Both sides of that last sentence are equally important. In my opinion, and it's
just my opinion, we've done a pretty good job with that until we hit the
transition from Intermediate to Advanced. The step is way to big and it's skewed
everything around it. BTW, all this stuff about building blocks, objectives, and
steps is what makes it so difficult to design new schedules for Intermediate and
Advanced because the objectives for those classes shouldn't change. If we do it
right, nobody should be there long enough to get bored in the first
place.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Verne Koester</FONT></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=divesplat@yahoo.com href="mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com">Ed Deaver</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> Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:51
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: adding interest and
complexity to Sportsman ... again and again and</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I don't see the correlation between Sportsman and Masters diff.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Masters is supposed to be the </DIV>
<DIV>"King of the Hill" "Top Dog", "Big Dog" </DIV>
<DIV>of Pattern in the USA with FAI being flown also. FAI is tougher
than Masters and Masters is a good stepping stone to FAI(if a pilot wishes to
go that way) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, my question is what is it some people want. If Masters were to
get easier, why not just write a letter and fly Advanced. Evolution
happens, is unstoppable and unpreventable. We can hide from it, or we
can embrace and accept the challenge. I've said this many times in
different avenues. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I for one DO NOT want to take a step backwards and admit defeat.
There is nothing in this years Masters that is all that difficult!!!!
Challenging YES, Fun YES. Requiring effort and practice YES. This
is what my idea of Pattern is, or more comprehensively, Aerobatics.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Nadia raised the bar for Gymnastics, Marty Hogan reinvented Racquetball,
Pete Sampras set the bar for Tennis, as well as the Williams sisters.
Chip, JAson, CPLR, QQ all have raised the bar for aerobatics. We cannot
go backwards.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>JMHO</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ed<BR><B><I>Bob Pastorello <rcaerobob@cox.net></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV>And this issue is EXACTLY why the "progression of classes" needs to be
managed, and (caps by intent)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>WE MUST STOP ESCALATING THE OVERALL COMPLEXITY OF SEQUENCES TO KEEP UP
WITH CHANGES IN FAI !!!!! The "trickle down" of FAI difficulty drives
Masters. Then that drives Advanced, then it drives Intermediate
changes, and finally Sportsman, where we lose potential entrants because it
overwhelms them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are people who monitor this list who I have been coaching.
If they chime in, they will tell you of the difficulty in "finesse" needed
to be really competent NOW in Sportsman, and even moreso when they moved to
Intermediate.</DIV>
<DIV> I am NOT one of those "disconnected" Masters pilot
guys.....I "know" what's going on in other classes, and we better address it
as a society. Soon.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As a rule-proposing body, the NSRCA has the responsibility, as a
society, to Stop the Madness.</DIV>
<DIV> Masters does NOT have to be "nearly FAI".
Obvious reason; someone wants that complexity, let 'em FLY FAI.</DIV>
<DIV> Advanced would not be such a huge jump from
Intermediate IF it wasn't the stepping stone to a less-complex
Masters.</DIV>
<DIV> Intermediate would not have to be so tough of a jump
from Sportsman.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Changing our very philosophy of the game is what it will take,
men. You may disagree, but you cannot deny what pitifully-small data
points we have paint a picture of the "graying" of the game.</DIV>
<DIV> Yes - there are LOTS of reasons we don't have the
'seed pipe' we used to (competing RC venues, time, money, etc.), but my
point is, and HAS BEEN, that we do NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE GAME *HARDER* to
make it challenging for Masters' pilots!!!!</DIV>
<DIV><BR>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> Sunday, January 09, 2005 1:23
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: adding interest and
complexity to Sportsman ... again and again and </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Sportsman needs to be maintained as the entry class to Pattern events
and overcomplicating it will not be a step in the right direction. I feel
same as Steve that it's about right in complexity. I would add that
it should remain unchanged for a consiiderable amount of time (pick a
period--10 years is a nice round number)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Rationale for long time period before changes (if
ever):</STRONG> Pilots seldom stay in the class more than two years so the
ones that move on, see a fresh schedule regardless. The ones that drop,
well, it makes little difference to them. It would serve virtually no
purpose to change this schedule</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Rationale for keeping the sequence "simple":</STRONG> A
friend of mine has tried to get into pattern competition for a couple
years now. He is a very good sport flier, can 3D his 1/3 scale aerobats
just fine and knows some construction technique, engine maintenance and
radio diagnostics already.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But the demands of pattern planes are different and he has had
to overcome several issues. After a couple of years of
frustration and perseverence, he has started to practice in earnest.
He has commented to me how difficult the "simple" Sportsman schedule is. I
admire his perseverence; most would have quit.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Point is, many Sportsmen face alot issues with
fundamentals that the other classes have learned to overcome.
Their learning curve is vertical already. Lets leave the complicated stuff
for the higher classes. The Sportsmen who move on, will see that soon
enough.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/9/2005 12:29:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rcsteve@tcrcm.org 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><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>I have to agree with John here. I'm concerned that we keep
making the entry-level class too hard for the real newbie that we are
trying to hook.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>I flew my first contest 7 months after solo. This was back in
about 1997 or so. The individual manuevers were no easier, but you
got to go out of the box pretty frequently and get lined back up. For
someone that isn't that skilled (people we need to bring into the entry
ranks to fill the pipe), after a couple maneuvers, they get behind the
airplane and are going into the next maneuver in trouble. Leaving the
box gave us the opportunity to calm down and get straightened
out.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>If your skills were better than that, start in Intermediate. Same
message today to those that think Sportsman is too easy. It
should be really easy!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Sportsman should be constructed so that regular club sport
flyers can come taste pattern with little or no practice when the
local club holds a meet with their 4 star 40's and Tiger
60's.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>This year, I tried to bring a couple of our yearling's into our
local contest. They just couldn't handle the continuity of it all,
and both gave up. Oh we could be elitist and say they should have
practiced more and got better airplanes, but is that really going to
seed the pipe?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=258284804-09012005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Maybe what we need is another (non-rated?) entry class?
Fun-pattern class or
something?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>