[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Mon Feb 2 11:50:13 AKST 2009

Work for me!
How well do you think it would be received?
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

I’m coming in very late to this discussion, but regardless of the system,  I
really think the primary change needs to be that instead of ANY mandatory
system, we change the key word to be “Guideline”...meaning it’s a guideline
for when to move, but not a fast rule.  This is pattern...a hobby.  Yes, a
competitive one, but there’s no huge money riding on it (certainly not at
the levels that are subjected to this) and there will always be valid
exceptions that no system can take into account.  So while we can and should
work on improving the advancement system to be as accurate as possible, I
will likely submit a proposal that simply changes the existing system to be
a guideline, rather than mandatory.

I personally think that fixes almost everything. (well...with regard to
pattern advancement). :)

-Mark

On 2/2/09 2:06 PM, "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:
I remember the discussion, thanks for reminding me of the Australian system.
Before it could be considered we would need the national database which
sidetracked the discussion to change the advancement rule last year. I
considered just submitting a change proposal but time was short and I just
walked away from it.
Pattern being an open rulebook event I suspect AMA would need to
administrate class advancement regardless of how it is done.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:07 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Jim,

When this subject came up lst year I suggested looking into the advancement
system the Australian Pattern Association uses to address the issues you are
bringing up. Their system is maintained by the APA which maintains the
status of each pilot attending any sanctioned contests. In Australia you
earn advancement to the next class  by beating a national standard (raw
score) three times in a running 12month period. They have 4 classes
(FAI,Expert, Advanced and Sportsman). Since the APA is keeping track of all
competitor's advancement status, there is no honor system or bookkeeping
issues for the competitor. Since advancement is based on national scoring
averages of the FAI(Masters) community, the quality of the local competition
in the individual classes is removed(mostly) from the class advancement
criteria.  Also, advancement of the top flyer in a class locally has no
impact on the advancement of the remaining competitors in that class.
I flew under this system for a couple of years and it works quite well. The
biggest problem, as  always, was fair and honest judging. Typically, classes
were judged by competitors in the next higher class and there was a tendency
to keep lower class competitors down on the farm.
More more information on the Australian advancement system, go to
http://www.australianpatternassociation.com.au and drill down to rules and
then MAAA Rules, scroll down to R/C Aerobatics Grading System to get a
complete description.

John

J N Hiller wrote:
Yes John the NSRCA rules change survey is for ALL who are interested in
pattern (RC Aerobatics). We can't emphasize this enough. For those who
haven't been around longer than dirt, the objective of the NSRCA is to gain
some consensuses within the pattern community regarding rule change
proposals. This process reduced the total number of proposals the AMA change
process needed to deal with, many of which were in conflict or adversely
affecting each other, greatly complicating the re-right between the first
and second AMA votes. At least I think that is how it was. It's been a
while! In any case individuals can still make change proposals directly to
AMA. To my knowledge AMA rules are not controlled or dictated by any special
interest group.
While out for a walk this afternoon I had a couple more thoughts that I wish
to share. First the story of how I got to masters should have included how
the remaining advanced fliers would be affected by my absence. They will
likely be trading first place advancement points, which will accumulating
faster, epically if a single individual dominates. Without gaining
significant proficiency someone could find himself or herself forced into
masters much less prepared than I, which can be difficult at best.
When I spoke of using the raw score as a personal benchmark I was actually
using the judge awarded average not the total K factor average. I found a
couple contest records both of which had 10-point takeoff and landing, which
contributed excessively to my performance average. The K-average was 1 to 2
% lower due to lower scores in higher K maneuvers. The value to be used
needs to be the K value average.
The other thing we should consider is revising / simplifying the rule used
to allow a return to a lower class. Nobody enjoys being in last place all
the time. A performance average used for advancement effectively identifies
the upper performance limit within a class and an equally valid argument
could be made to use a minimum value, below maybe 50%, to allow return to
the next lower class. Of course this of course would not be mandatory.
The thought also occurred to me that some incomplete flights due to a double
fowl line violation should be included in the contest performance average as
well. We don't see this very often but it justifiably pulls down the
competitor's performance average.
If you have read this far you are interested. Don't worry about offending
me. Post your thoughts.
Jim
-----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 1:36 PM
To: Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment
Jim,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply and your interest in the survey.
As someone once told me, you can't have change without dissatisfaction.
The subject of class advancement comes up often enough that one has
to believe a lot of folks feel there is a better way.
You bring up some excellent alternatives that need to be discussed.
I know this discussion will lead to one or more survey proposals.
I hope to have the survey ready to publish on the website, in the K-Factor
and
Model Aviation and on the various forums by late summer.  So we have time
to formulate your ideas.
By the way, the survey will be open to ALL those interested in pattern.
NOT just NSRCA members.
Once again thanks Jim!
JLK

> From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:37:25 -0800
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment
>
> 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
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org%5DOn>  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
>

  _____

_______________________________________________
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/20090202/f055b4d4/attachment.html>