[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Wed Feb 4 07:52:11 AKST 2009

Thank you Jack,
Maybe flying unknowns should be added to the rules proposal.
Many here could speak to this better than I, but here goes.
Flying unknowns at large contests having a significant number of well-practiced contestants with similar ability would be a good separator. When I was flying IMAC before the big airplanes took over the more experienced pilots were able to cope with unknowns a lot easier and familiarity with the maneuvers selected was an asset, especially if they were flown in previous schedules. 
Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of jtkeiser at comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:39 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Been reading all these posts about Mandatory Advancement and thought I'd add my 2 cents.

I'm probably one of the few on this list that fly acro competition (althogh not very well) in all 3 venues - AMA Pattern, IMAC and IAC. I'm fairly new to IMAC, but I've been at the others quite a while.

In IAC, there is no MA; you fly whatever class you want. Obviously, the overriding concern there is safety. For many, the 'destination class' is ADV or INT, some even Sportsman. This depends either pilot or aircraft limitations. Some people just don't like the hard neg G stuff, and although capable, choose not to fly ADV or Unlimited. Or, if you fly a Decathalon, you're pretty much limited to Sportsman by the plane's capabilities - any higher would be like flying a Telemaster in Masters.

Do you encounter the dreaded "Sandbagger" ?  Rarely.  If so, are they a deterent to participation in that class? Not that I've ever seen. 

I believe one thing that tends to equalize things, enen when you have a "Sandbagger", is the variety of sequences you fly. In each contest, you fly a Known, Freestyle and an Unknown. The Known is like our published AMA sequence; the Freestyle you create, according to a defined criteria, to best suit you and your plane's capabilities. The Unknown is the "Equalizer". No matter how many times you've flown the Known, or how many years you've been in that class, the Unknown is just as new to the old timer as the guy who's flying the class for the first time. Many contests, I'd guess more than half, are determined by the last flight of the contest -the Unknown. It certainly adds to the interest and keeps everyone focused to the very end.

IMAC uses the Unknown in all classes except Sportsman, although they can, and occasionally do use it there too. 

I believe adding an Unknown in Pattern (perhaps excepting Sportsman) would be welcomed by most all participants, and it'd add some variety to what is seen by many as boring routines. Might even attract a few IMAC guys, who generally consider Pattern passe'.

In the early 1980's, we even had a Feestyle in Masters.  I always looked forward to that, but didn't reach Masters until too late. Don't remember when it was dropped, but I always felt it took something away from the class.

There does seem to be a lot of discontent about MA, and we're constantly lamenting the decline in membership and participation, so why not try something new? Add an Unknown and eliminate MA - little downside and maybe some new interest.

Jack

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Hansen" <rcpilot at wowway.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 7:04:12 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

I think the only time mandatory advancement makes sense is for
sportsman.  If new pilots are getting beat bad by pilots that should be
in intermediate or advanced then it deters pilots from getting into
pattern and staying in pattern.  

Maybe we could use the NATS as a gauge for advancement.  If you finish
in the top five in intermediate or advanced in the NATs then you have to
move up.  I really don't think there are that many people sand bagging
to win a local contest or a district championship.  I do believe some
stay in intermediate or advanced an additional year or two to try and
win in all at the NATS.  I'm certain there have been intermediate pilots
that won the NATS that easily could have finished in the top half in
Advanced at the NATS.

I also think adding another class doesn't make sense.  I watched Dave
Johnstone and Dennis Bodary fly masters for the first time this year.
Dave and Dennis even flew some FAI.  Both showed a lot of improvement
from the beginning of the year to the end.  Both may never make the
finals in masters but I don't think either one regrets moving up.  Both
would also be hard pressed to finish near the top in Advanced at the
NATS.

My 2 cents.

Ron Hansen

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N
Hiller
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:13 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

I tend to agree that guidelines would be great. Before normalized
scoring we
say total scores for other contests including the NATS. This gave me a
real
good understanding of how I compared to others and what kind of spread
there
was between the top placing fliers. Published normalized scores hides or
masks the performance indicator (total K). At the time there was real
value
in reading contest results from all districts, beyond seeing people
mentioned that I knew or met somewhere.
Jim

-----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 12:55 PM
To: General pattern discussion; Tom Simes
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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3820 (20090203) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

_______________________________________________
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/20090204/cd2afcc4/attachment.html>