[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement
Tony
tony at radiosouthrc.com
Tue Feb 3 10:35:51 AKST 2009
At the NATS what we could do is roll the dice to decide what pattern we fly,
then roll the dice to determine which contest you are entered in (Contest A,
B, C or D)!
Tony Stillman, President
Radio South, Inc.
139 Altama Connector, Box 322
Brunswick, GA 31525
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:12 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement
Eventually we may need to fly against our own ever increasing average Beater
your past performance, if you can. The winner could be the contestant with
the highest increase in a running average.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of brian young
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:44 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement
I just keep thinking....we need more people in the lower classes to push up.
We need to fill the lower classes at least around where Im flying, otherwise
it will be an all masters contest....how do you judge that?
Either that or get the masters guys to get into F3A.
_____
From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA Discussion List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 7:34:17 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement
It may be only me, but I don't buy this not ready for Masters mentality. In
time practice usually fixes things along with taking ones lumps for at least
a season no matter how much it hurts. I did this years ago when we were
transitioning to turnaround. I saw the writing on the wall at that time and
jumped from the old AMA style Sportsman right to the new Expert turnaround
the following year. I took a beating and never finished better than fifth on
the local circuit which was in some cases last. The following year things
began to click and I placed in the top 3 a couple of times. Frankly, if you
are an advanced pilot now and think you may have to move up the next season,
you should be experimenting with some of the Masters maneuvers anyway. It
can only make you a better pilot
Jon you should be happy that you actually have a Nats trophy. I have never
had the opportunity and will probably never make it to the finals in Masters
because of the log jam up top. Yep, the Advanced sequence might be a little
simplified, but you know what, most Advanced pilots still can't fly it any
better than the previous sequence.
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:52:44 -0500
> From: jonlowe at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement
>
> 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 <http://www.shulmanaviation.com/>
>
> www.composite-arf.com <http://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 <http://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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_____
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out.
<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090203/ea9fb179/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list