[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement

Vicente "Vince" Bortone vicenterc at comcast.net
Mon Feb 2 14:15:59 AKST 2009 


Yes, add "MOVE UP" to the rulebook.  In my case someone one is going to suggest  "MOVE DOWN". 



Vicente "Vince" Bortone 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2009 5:01:38 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement 

The only thing that works now is PEER pressure or self honesty because no 
one has a clue what the points are.   

-----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 4:30 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement 

The main thing about the Australian system is that it allows comparison 
with the rest of your class on a national scale. You can actually get 
national rankings for each class out of the system, which everyone 
should be in favor of. Advancement could be voluntary under any system. 
Perhaps an open system allowing entry in the class of your choice at any 
local contest with a NATS requirement that you enter the class you last 
competed in. 
Based on activity levels in various districts, right now it is quite 
possible to be a perennial winner locally, but not pointed out of class 
and also struggle to get into the top half  if you travel to another 
district or the NATS which is much more competitive. Should you be 
considered a sandbagger? 
This is, of course, leaving out the issue of advancement from Masters to 
F3A. :) 

John 

J Shu wrote: 
> I can move back to advanced... never flew a Masters flight outside of 
> practice...lol. But don't worry, the only way I'd move back is if 
> Blake gets to big of a head <G>. 
> 
> I don't think the points advancement should be removed, just some new 
> 'rules' applied to it. I don't want to see a sandbagger stay in a 
> class that they clearly don't belong in. But I'd also like to see a 
> way for pilots that like to go to many contests stay in a class if 
> they still aren't ready for instead of pointing out cause they're a 
> die-hard competitor. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Jason 
> www.shulmanaviation.com 
> www.composite-arf.com 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net> 
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:41 PM 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement 
> 
> 
> I agree with Mark on this. There is no reason to have a 
> points/advancement 
> system that's not even administered and serves no purpose except to force 
> flyers to move beyond their ability in too many cases. Eliminate it all 
> together! 
> Dave Burton 
> 
> -----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 4:28 PM 
> To: General pattern discussion 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement 
> 
> Does he need one??  I thought he moved directly from Adv to FAI?  I would 
> think he could go back to Adv.... 
> 
> But that's my whole point.  The only classes where some type of mandatory 
> move makes sense is the only place where we don't have one. AND IT WORKS 
> FINE. 
> 
> Let's let people fly where THEY feel comfortable and competitive.  If 
> I lose 
> a contest to a "Sandbagger" than A) I still suck and can get better, 
> and B) 
> they need to get a life and realize that it's a hobby. 
> 
> How often does this really happen?? 
> 
> I think a simple guideline that helps advise people on where they 
> should be 
> is the better approach. 
> 
> 
> On 2/2/09 4:12 PM, "Tony Stillman" <tony at radiosouthrc.com> wrote: 
> 
>> Just contact your AMA VP.  I have granted 3 or 4 such moves down over 
>> the 
>> last 3 years. 
>> 
>> Sorry Jason, you WON'T be granted one.... LOL... 
>> 
>> 
>> Tony Stillman, President 
>> Radio South, Inc. 
>> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322 
>> Brunswick, GA  31525 
>> 1-800-962-7802 
>> www.radiosouthrc.com 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J Shu 
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:05 PM 
>> To: General pattern discussion 
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment 
>> 
>> Why not have pilots that wish to move back a class submit a request to 
>> (who?) and then that person contact some pilots in the area 
>> to find out the scoop if it should be allowed or not. 
>> 
>> I would allow myself to move back to Advanced... I really should... 
>> oops, 
> I 
>> can...hehehehe. 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> Jason 
>> www.shulmanaviation.com 
>> www.composite-arf.com 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> 
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; 
>> "Tom 
>> Simes" <simestd at netexpress.com> 
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:55 PM 
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment 
>> 
>> 
>> Just one of the MANY scenarios that supports just having a guideline 
>> approach.  I like the data that PACSS will have, but again, let's use it 
> to 
>> advise people where they best fit, not force them. 
>> 
>> I don't know of many trophy hounds that are so UN competitive that they 
>> would fly beneath themselves just for a plaque.  I'm sure they 
>> exist...but 
>> I'm also sure they have other more serious problems in life than me 
> worrying 
>> about making them "move up".  lol 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/2/09 3:43 PM, "Tom Simes" <simestd at netexpress.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Mark Atwood wrote: 
>>>> I¹m 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 ³Guideline²...meaning it¹s a 
>> guideline 
>>>> for when to move, but not a fast rule.  This is pattern...a hobby.   
>>>> Yes, 
>> a 
>>>> competitive one, but there¹s 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 
>>> 
>>> In PACSS, Gene already has the underpinnings built and working for 
>>> national results reporting.  I'm not advocating one way or another, 
>>> just throwing out a data point that one of the hardest parts to 
>>> coordinate is already in place. 
>>> 
>>> With regard to mandatory advancement, one aspect that I think deserves 
>>> careful attention is how to handle people getting back into pattern 
>>> after an absence or people who have reached a point in their lives 
>>> where their skills are in decline for one reason or another. 
>>> 
>>> It's sad to see a competitor who progressed into the higher ranks 
>>> years ago and feels obligated to stay there but whose skills are 
>>> obviously not adequate for the class anymore.  If mandatory 
>>> advancement is being considered, there should also be a mechanism to 
>>> move downward as well - instead of just leaving the hobby. 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> 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 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> 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 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________ 
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/20090202/41d710ce/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list