[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Mon Feb 2 16:05:58 AKST 2009

hehehehehehe.....John...don't tell them all our secrets!! I have asked a
few of you to pull the cable tie trick on Peter when you seem him next,
but there seems to be some reluctance?? Peter will get it- just smile
and tell him greetings from me!! There are other options ofcourse too-he
deserves payback!

John-we can buy the Coolpower Red oil. Most of us are now combining the
Red and Blue oil in a 50/50 mix. It seems to work better for my engines
longevity at least. It may not make the same power ( not that I care or
notice) but I am happy with that mix.

Oh-Jason...put on the thick skin please, you may well be a target for
the odd practical joke-at least if I will be there!!!!! ( I hope I will)
Will be glad to meet you ( again....we met at the 94 TOC briefly)

Tom

PS: Petrol is fluctuating on  daily basis-the oil companies tell us its
just part of the weekly cycle. Funny how it rises sharply every long
weekend and pay week !!!&&^&^%$$!!@##

________________________________

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 11:29 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Tom,

The NSRCA website says overseas dues are 40 USD when K-Factor is online
only. Probably should be even less to encourage overseas participation
and since overseas dues are gravy if K-Factor is online only.
Are your dollar quotes USD or AUD?

For everyone else 
Aussie dollar is currently about 0.63 dollars US. 
current Sydney petrol price for Shell regular= 1.159 AUD/liter    =
1.159 * 4 / 1.05 * 0.63 =  2.78 USD/gallon

What is your  homebrew cost for 30%DZ fuel using coolpower oil? I assume
that is the regular 2-stroke oil we used to use rather than the
low-viscosity heli oil?

The APA website says Jason is going to be at the KraftMasters this year.
First trip, Jason? You'll love it.

When I was there, Peter Goldsmith and a team that will remain nameless
put cable ties on the driveshaft of the Canadian team van. They were
sweating bullets all the way back to the airport wondering if the van
was going to make it. Beware of practical jokers. Just enjoy massive
quantities of great beer and new friends.

John

Koenig, Tom wrote: 

	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/20090203/38fe54e5/attachment.html>