[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

[J N Hiller]

John, I would be happy to get involved with this.

I believe flight score averages derived from complete flights are good
indicators of ability. Advancement could be based on multiple contest
average (maybe 6???), enough to demonstrate consistency. 70%? 75%? 80%? 85%?
could be used as an advancement indicator rather it be mandatory or simply a
recommendation. Not having raw scores information it would be difficult for
me to suggest a hard number. Probably needs to be included in a proposal!
Last season's contest raw scores would be a good indicator of an appropriate
value.

Here is my story:
I'm being pushed into masters where it's not likely that I will ever be very
competitive, but that's OK. I reached my personal plateau of about 80%
flying advanced in 2007. Through much of 2008 during practice I was just
standing in the flight box going through the motions, talking to who ever
was standing there. I expect I will be hard pressed to break 70% in masters.
My feeling is advancement percentage needs to increase with the class
progression as the skill development or learning curve tends to level out.
Not that the maneuvers are more difficult relative to our acquired ability
but the sequences become much less forgiving of even simple errors.

For something like this to work the AMA would need to maintain accessible
records that are consistently updated by CD's. How many pattern contests are
sanctioned? Does AMA still require CD to send contest results to AMA? How
many CD's actually do? We started to touch on this issue in the 'national
database' discussion last year. How can it be done? Who is going to do it?
Who needs to be involved to make this happen? Are they interested? Are we
(pattern fliers) interested?

Change is never without obstacles. Lets discuss this and other ideas and add
it to the rules proposal survey. Lets try not to get overwhelmed with
unreasonable high tech automated data management systems. We only need one
additional number included with contest results and a new advancement
'points' card format.

It's past time to try something different. John, how much time do we have?

Jim Hiller


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Konneker
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:17 AM
To: Discussion List; d_bodary at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Pattern Classes & Growth

hmmm...
Jim H.,
That looks like a good rules proposal in the making!
I'd be happy to include it in the survey.
;-)
JLK



From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
To: d_bodary at yahoo.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:37:28 -0800
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Pattern Classes & Growth

Dennis your dedication is admirable and describes rather well the problem I
see with the mandatory advancement system.
It is based on performance of others, or lack of, rather than individual
capability. In short flying against more capable competitors reduces
premature mandatory advancement.
Flying a sequence for 4 years can get old especially if improvement stalls.
I pay close attention to raw score averages, both individual maneuvers and
total flight, and use it as a guide to understanding problem areas and gauge
improvement. It is also a very good indicator of flight-to-flight
consistency and the ability to control the flight in adverse conditions.
Even more rewarding than winning the round, contest or district championship
was maintaining my average flight score in very windy conditions.
Pattern flying can be very rewarding.
Jim Hiller