[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Mon Feb 2 18:24:55 AKST 2009
Good luck. Wish I were going too.
What will it cost to get your planes there?
John
J Shu wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> This will be my 2nd trip to the land down under. I was there for the
> Desert Aircraft Challenge in 2007.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> www.shulmanaviation.com <http://www.shulmanaviation.com>
> www.composite-arf.com <http://www.composite-arf.com>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John Gayer <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 7:28 PM
> *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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090203/23b4e046/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list