[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Mon Feb 2 15:16:58 AKST 2009

What the heck is a litre? :-)

Matt
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Koenig, Tom 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20090203/c1e75399/attachment.html>