[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement

[J N Hiller]

Hi Gordon. I remember seeing that. I went back and added 07 & 08, holy cow,
I got booted up. I may have to get serious. That'll be the day. Just don't
let me miss Miller Time.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Gordon
Anderson
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement

In d8 the AMA points are posted on our web site for 2006, through 2008.

--Gordon

John Fuqua wrote:
> The only thing that works now is PEER pressure or self honesty because no
> one has a clue what the points are.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:30 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement
>
> The main thing about the Australian system is that it allows comparison
> with the rest of your class on a national scale. You can actually get
> national rankings for each class out of the system, which everyone
> should be in favor of. Advancement could be voluntary under any system.
> Perhaps an open system allowing entry in the class of your choice at any
> local contest with a NATS requirement that you enter the class you last
> competed in.
> Based on activity levels in various districts, right now it is quite
> possible to be a perennial winner locally, but not pointed out of class
> and also struggle to get into the top half  if you travel to another
> district or the NATS which is much more competitive. Should you be
> considered a sandbagger?
> This is, of course, leaving out the issue of advancement from Masters to
> F3A. :)
>
> John
>
> J Shu wrote:
>
>> 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 thought he 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, 2009 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 other 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 already 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-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
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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