[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Mon Feb 2 14:34:42 AKST 2009

Hi Guys, Hi John...

Sorry-been lurking for a while now. 

Yes John is correct about our system and I must say it kind of works ok.
Nothing is ever perfect, but it does work. Maybe you guys can learn
something from us?

On another note, I've been a NSRCA member now since '95 ( I think?) and
Oh dear...I must renew...Sorry Jim! I have very few reasons actually to
be a NSRCA member!!! What can the NSRCA do for me?????  All I can get is
that warm fuzzy feeling knowing that I am part of the pattern
community-is that enough?
On top of that, now that the dues have increased, the exchange rate is
killing me!!! Let me ask this-how many of you would pay $100 for the
K-factor alone?

Well, I will-and I get no benefit at all from your organisation. Or do
I?

In all truth, I actually think I get great value! I have made some great
friends over the years and how does one put a monetary value on that? So
( Jim in particular) I will renew asap...but I just might watch the
exchange rates for a day or two and try and pick a good time!
Oh-and I will write and contribute to the K-factor-I just need to line
up a few more ducks first.

Fuels: Guys down here most of us mix our own using the Coolpower oil. We
source Nitro from VP ( or other brands) and buy methanol anywhere we
can, as long as its pure. To buy pre mix is disgustingly expensive. I
think a gallon of CP30 Heli will be close to $85. Just plain madness in
my opinion.
Electrics will flourish eventually-simply from an economic point of
view. You guys in the US do not always appreciate just how lucky you
are!

Gasoline ( we call it Petrol :-) right now seems to be around $1.20-
$1.30 per litre. Just a little trivia for you all. 

Tom

________________________________

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John
Gayer
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 2:07 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.

	<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

	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. 

	<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

	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.

	<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

	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.

	<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

	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 !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

	If you have read this far you are interested. Don't worry about
offending me. Post your thoughts.

	<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

	Jim  

	<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

	-----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

	<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

	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 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
	> 
	<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
	<!--[endif]-->

________________________________

	_______________________________________________
	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/20090202/80f080ad/attachment.html>