[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Mon Feb 2 18:44:58 AKST 2009

Who brings your batteries?

  _____  

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 7:33 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Its usually about $80-125 to bring my plane. Then I stick minimal stuff I
need in my suitcase and carry on my Tx.

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
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 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

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
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

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20090203/94c4d3de/attachment.html>