[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement
Jon Lowe
jonlowe at aol.com
Mon Feb 2 15:52:54 AKST 2009
Now he's talking about me!!
Seriously, I only flew reasonably well at the NATS (5th) and one other
contest this year in advanced when Gary Courtney was well off his game.
I had my butt handed to me everywhere else. However, I was close to
pointing out in 2007 due to minimal competition at many contests, and
did point out this year. However, as the results at the the Tangerine
this year show, I am not ready for Masters ( I did beat Van Putte!).
Part of it is the Masters sequence. Half of it is inverted, and I
never encountered inverted entrances and exits as I moved up in ANY
sequence. The current advanced sequence was simplified a couple of
years ago, and it was overdone. However, I think I would go mad if I
was to do another year of advanced. The sequence needs to be shaken up
every couple of years, just to keep it interesting to those who aren't
going to move up anytime soon.
I think the Australian method is interesting. Perhaps we could adapt
at least part of it to our needs.
Jon Lowe
-----Original Message-----
From: J Shu <jshulman at cfl.rr.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement
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 thought20he 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,=2
02009 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 ot
her 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 alr
eady 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-di
scussion 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list