[NSRCA-discussion] Forced Advancement
george w. kennie
geobet at gis.net
Mon Feb 4 17:28:28 AKST 2008
Forced AdvancementThe only problem I have with you Mark is I always find you too easy to agree with. I like to argue and it frustrates me. ;>)
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Atwood
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Forced Advancement
I will chime in on this one and say I agree completely that the "forced Advancement" rule should be changed to being merely a guideline.
A few thoughts, cause I could go on about this all day...
1.. we do need a guideline. When I started pattern, it was nice to have a "measure" to help decide when it was time to move up. I think the point system works well for that 85% of the time. AS A GUIDELINE...but not as a rule.
2.. Sandbagging is a myth. My personal opinion. And while someone will invariable point to one incident in the last 20 years to validate their concern, the reality is two fold. A) VERY VERY VERY few true sandbaggers exist and peer pressure has always successfully moved them, and B) who cares. If you can't beat someone...fine. They're better than you. Period. Either move up past them and smile as you go by, or bust your butt and beat them. What good is it to say "oooh, I won...because so in so didn't show up!" (or moved up). Seems like a rather hallow victory.
3.. There are a million reasons why people who are competitive (winning) at one level, can't enjoy competing at the next level. This is mainly in the upper levels, but even applies to the lower levels. Age (eye sight?), Time, Desire, innate skill, etc. Each level isn't simply an extension of the prior. Each level requires a new level of skill, commitment, and equipment to be competitive. To win masters you need to practice more than you did to win advanced...and so on. The competition is stiffer, regardless of the complexity of the maneuvers.
We have lost numerous people to the advancement system. Not because it was strictly enforced...it's not. But because honest people see a rule and feel that they're cheating if they don't follow it. I can name 5 off the top of my head locally that have quit because they pointed out of Advanced...and had no ability to "compete" in Masters. They could fly it...but coming in last every contest is not being competitive, and if you have no chance...its just not fun. And yes, had they stayed in Advanced, they would have won here and there...but so would other people, and they might be the "guy to beat" in the local area. That's great. It tends to stay local. I have a hard time thinking that the guy who wins Intermediate at the NATs is going to stay in intermediate without a rule to push him forward.
I would love to see the rule simply altered to say it's a guideline. Let people fly where they feel they should fly. If someone needs trophies so badly that they go back JUST for the trophy...well, let 'em have it. They clearly have bigger issues to deal with.
This would alleviate a lot of problems for a lot of people. I could give 20 different scenarios, but I think we all know them. What I never hear is the ACTUAL...not speculative, but the ACTUAL scenario where not having an advancement rule would have been a big problem.
Rant complete...exiting the ...text box.
-Mark
On 2/4/08 1:33 PM, "chris moon" <cjm767driver at hotmail.com> wrote:
I think Mike hit the nail. The real problem is that there are too many
guys that advance then hit a wall or drop out briefly without an easy
way to move back. Adding another class is just bad. WIth the average
attendance at a contest probably around 20, probably less, if we add
another class to make 6, then that means essentially 3 people per
class. Not really a competitive atmosphere. My vote would be to allow
a system for guys to move BACK more easily, only for those who have
moved up voluntarily and did not point out in their last class or have
failed to excel in their new class. The peter principle applies to
flying also.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong
Chris
mike mueller wrote:
> I've flown both classes in the last 3 years. I don't think that this
> discussion is going to get the rules changed.There are way too many
> Masters guys who are content with the way things are. I would like to
> see the guys that are stuck at the bottom of their respective classes
> have an easier time going back a class. The main reason we have so
> many Masters flyers is we advanced guys thru the system before they
> were ready to compete due to a lack of competition. It's sad to see
> guys hit a brick wall and end up quiting the sport due to frustration.
> I like the idea that I can fly Fai or Masters based on my own
> volition. In the midwest we always have large fields in Masters and
> it's pretty hard to beat the field.
> Mike
>
> */"Woodward, Jim" /* wrote:
>
> Hi Anthony,
> Nice summary below. Another way to tackle this is to have the
> top-2 Masters pilots for each district be required to move to FAI
> for the next season. This would open up the Masters class a bit
> and allow for some reinvigoration into the class and allow some
> new blood to have a shot at some wood. While it may upset the two
> guys who would need to move for a season, it would "invigorate" a
> whole bunch more to practice with some enthusiasm. After 1 season
> of FAI they could move back to Masters if they want.
> Thanks,
> Jim
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
> may contain confidential and proprietary information. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please
> contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
> original message.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] *On Behalf Of
> *Anthony Romano
> *Sent:* Monday, February 04, 2008 10:29 AM
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Exper Class??
> HMMM. Ponder this
> Masters is the largest class at just about any contest in the country.
> Masters presents a large judging load.
> Many want to leave Masters as it stands.
> Many Masters pilots are frustrated by the extreme depth and
> competitiveness of the Masters class.
> A number of pilots want to fly FAI but are not ready for F sequences.
> Many FAI pilots don't have the resources to prepare for 2 sequences.
> Many of the top FAI pilots don't participate because we don't fly
> F sequences.
>
> Adding an expert class that flies the current P could help.
> Sequence development and rules are already done. It would
> increases the judge and competitor pool while improving the level
> of flying and judging. Really no more work in scoring. So other
> than an extra set of awards, which most would gladly waive, what
> harm would it cause?
>
> If my club would let me CD a contest again I would try it. Once
> again I agree with Jason. Should I be worried?
>
> Anthony
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:49:09 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
> Sorry Doug, that makes too much sense and follows the basis of the
> way pattern is supposed to be. That's unacceptable...lol.
> **8.2.5.** //There is no mandatory/// ///advancement into FAI from
> the Masters class./// ///Contestants may enter their current AMA
> class/// ///or the FAI class at/// a///ny contest but not both.//
> If a pilot does not like the way FAI is flown, he does not have to
> fly it. An Expert class seems like a logical "solution" , but I
> believe it has been shot down many times before. Wouldn't this be
> a great way to get the one's who want more of a challenge than
> Masters, but don't want to fly F, a class of their own? It could
> even be an "FAI type" of class where Masters is still the highest
> class to advance into but pilots can jump into and out of Expert
> at any time. Establish a rule, written or not, that the pattern
> can not have any integrated rolling loops or circles. This would
> allow the FAI pilots to continue to fly FAI, not just half of it.
> Masters and Expert pilots could judge FAI, FAI and Expert judge
> Masters, FAI and Masters judge Expert.
> Sportsman- gets feet wet
> Intermediate- likes wet feet
> Advanced- ready to learn more
> Masters- ready to fly more of what was learned
> *Expert- the imaginary perfect in-between class
> FAI- wants to be challenged beyond what was learned
> I really hope that here locally (D3) we don't do away with the F
> sequence. But if that is what the majority decide is best for the
> class, so be it. I know of 4 pilots that want to continue to fly
> F, and they already compete in FAI.
> Regards,
> Jason
> www.jasonshulman.com
> www.shulmanaviation.com
> www.composite-arf.com
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of
> *Doug Cronkhite
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2008 4:14 PM
> *To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
> Actually, I think the solution is to just decide once and for all
> that Masters will not be the training ground for FAI and make the
> Masters sequence the destination difficulty. I suspect that's
> actually been done several times and people just keep trying to
> change it.
> If people want to fly FAI, then they have to just deal with the
> problems that go along with it. No more complaining that the jump
> from Masters to FAI is too hard or they don't have the right
> airplane, because well.. too bad.
> Seems like this topic goes around the list AT LEAST once a year.
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
> *vicenterc at comcast.net
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2008 12:43 PM
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
> Jason,
> I agree. Another solution is get the Master class the level that
> was 8-10 years ago. It was between Advanced and FAI-F3A. It was
> natural for pilots wining Masters to move to FAI and not like we
> see now more moving from F3A to Masters. It is clear to me that
> the new Master schedule is equal or harder than the new P schedule.
> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "JShulman"
> So if FAI pilots, that are flying FAI now, want to fly FAI (P
> and F), and Masters pilots, that are flying Masters now, want
> to fly Masters, what are we really "discussing"? Are we
> looking for a middle class to call Masters + for the guys that
> want to fly P and not F or Masters? Sounds like the addition
> of an Expert class in AMA to give the fliers in Masters, that
> want a P type of sequence, a place to go?
> Regards,
> Jason
> www.jasonshulman.com
> www.shulmanaviation.com
> www.composite-arf.com
>
> -------------- Original message
> --------------
> From: "John Fuqua"
> I have been following this discussion with
> some relutance to jump in. As a current
> Masters pilot and old time F3A flyer I to
> once pushed to have the Master schedule be
> the P schedule. But you guys need to look
> at what FAI has done to the P schedule.
> Here is link to the F3A rules.
> http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4
>
> FAI has reduced the total maneuvers to 19
> including a non scored takeoff and
> landing. AMA Master is 23 including a
> scored takeoff and landing.
> Going to FAI would certainly speed things
> up (which is what FAI intended for large
> contests like WC to speed up the prelims
> and get to the real contest).
> Not sure this is what AMA/NSRCA membership
> wants for a destination class.
> John
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:*
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Del Rykert
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:14 AM
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed
> topic to killing Masters?
> Hi Dave..
> I never saw anyone suggesting to do away
> with the Masters class.. I have thought of
> another restriction/factor. Some of the
> FAI maneuvers require a specific designed
> plane to do them well. If you don't have
> such an aircraft in your stable you can be
> looking at a prohibitive change to switch
> to those type of planes or live with the
> self imposed handicap. Granted, some of
> the best can make a good showing in FAI
> type maneuvers but when needing the 1
> point advantage in a high K-Factor
> maneuver it does drive the contestants to
> seek the best sled that works for them.
> A good friend pointed out something I had
> lost sight of once. He acquired a newer
> designed airplane to his stable that
> performed the maneuvers he was flying so
> much easier. The design choice alone was
> raising his scores by almost 1 point per
> maneuver. With only a little bit of
> practice with new plane. He never
> appreciated the handicap he self imposed
> until having better equipment. Heck.. I
> still have coreless servos and not a
> digital do I own.. How far behind am I? LOL.
> Del
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dave Burton
>
> *To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 02, 2008
> 7:33 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at
> locals?
> Del, I've never advocated doing away
> with the Master's class. I only
> suggested adopting the most current
> FAI P maneuver schedule and fly
> Master's as a separate class as we do
> today. Masters pilots would not be
> required to advance to the FAI class
> unless they chose to do so. Seems to
> me like it solves several problems. It
> allows a CD to have more flexibility
> in arranging flight lines, a larger
> pool of knowledgeable judges,
> eliminates the need for NSRCA (or
> others) to come up with a new schedule
> periodically for the Masters Class. I
> don't think there is any difference in
> the difficulty level of the P schedule
> and the Masters schedule today and
> would not require any greater skill
> level than Masters does today IMO.
> Dave Burton
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You
> IM, we give. Learn more.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. Learn more. <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080205/ccfc51af/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list