[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Thu May 7 16:43:20 AKDT 2009

I think one thing we need to really get back to basics on is designing the schedules based around the skills necessary to be able to move on to the next sequence.  I think we have picked a bunch of maneuvers, but are missing out on what skills are needed.  The current sportsman sequence is way too long and requires a lot more power than a beginner sequence should.  There was a time when you could fly a .40 sport plane and be competitive, but those days are gone.  What is gained by the vertical upline on center maneuver?  You have to have a plane with a reasonable thrust to weight ratio as the next maneuver is a split s.  There are 2 half reverse Cuban eights.  You could conceivably get rid of the last 5 maneuvers and not be missing anything.  You would also allow a true .40 size first low wing plane a chance at being competitive.  I understand the argument that theoretically those planes are already competitive, but in reality they aren’t.  

The biggest thing that people in sportsman need is the basic understanding of a contest and the ability to learn to fly a straight line and maintain altitude.  Then as you progress you can add other maneuvers.  

Two maneuvers I think need to be put back into intermediate are the 3 horizontal rolls…3, not 2.  With 3 you have to learn to fly through them.  Also, the double stall turn was a great maneuver for that sequence.  Straight inverted flight is another important element that gets missed, even with the inverted exit.   As you progress into Advanced maybe introduce snaps and a spin, with a couple more inverted exits to actually prepare someone for Masters.  

I think if the sequences get viewed as building blocks, then the maneuvers needed will take care of themselves.  

Just my .02,

Arch

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:35 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Bill,

 What district are you in? Maybe Ziggy and I will take a road trip this summer. That could make things interesting for you guys. I'm staying in Advanced as long as I can or at least until I lose my day job. :)

John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Bill Glaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:

From: Bill Glaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 7:36 PM

Joe:

 Advanced last weekend in Winston = 0 contestants.  A couple of weeks ago in Green Sea: Advanced = 1 contestant.  I don't believe that we've had more than 4 contestants in Advanced in a single contest for 2 years--maybe more.  I haven't thought much about just why that might be, but right now, it's a very unpopular class.  I concur that most of the dropouts seem to be either from the Advanced class, or, from those who are forced into the Advanced class.  No matter how/why they're forced to move up, it's just the way it is right now.

Bill Glaze

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Joe Lachowski <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>  

To: NSRCA Discussion List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:32 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

I'm for getting rid of advancement in the Advanced class for one. This is the class a number flyers who stick around seem to hit their skill level wall and disappear.  It also appears to be the smallest class attended at local contests these days.  At least in D1 it is.

I'd also like to see the option of being able to move back after one year in the next higher class. This would be a allowed one time only.

 To make frequent sequence change doable, instead of having to come up with new ones every 4 years or so, maybe we should just come up with a good set of say 4 for each class. You can rotate through them every 2 years and start from the first one all over again after they've cycled through. This could easily be done for Intermediate and Advanced. Probably even Masters. After about 8 years the pool of flyers for the most part will have changed in each class anyway. Establishing these sequences will probably take a well thought process of about two years by some dedicated people willing to take it on. You could also just change a handful of maneuvers in these sequences after the 8 year cycle to keep things a little fresh for those that are still flying a particular class after the 8 year cycle. This is a lot of work up front but in teh long run it is easier. 

 As far as Sportsman goes, you just need one good sequence that teaches the basic skills to get you to Intermediate. The one we have now is pretty close if not good enough.

Just some ideas.

  _____  

From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:48:08 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Good idea Earl. I think peer pressure alone will suffice but if we want an organize system this has merit. 
 Do we realize if we allow the other classes to become destinations then the sequences should change more frequently. 

Anthony

  _____  

From: ejhaury at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:24:18 -0500
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

In the discussion regarding the Masters sequence / length a few competitors mentioned that increasing the difficulty would cause them to stop competing. Folks, this needs to be addressed! We can't tolerate a system where folks are forced to a level where they can't enjoy pattern and/or chose to quit. 

There are generally two views of the current system. One is that it is cast in stone and needed to force the "trophy hound" to move to the proper class. The other is that peer pressure alone will result in proper classification. I think that there's a third possibility, some folks prematurely move to a higher class for the "prestige" of that class. There's likely reality / unreality to each view which supports that some process is needed. While there have been some changes to smooth the advancement process, nothing has changed for a person who finds themselves in a class that exceeds their skills. I know - there's a process to petition for dropping to a lower class, but it's intended for hardship cases rather than being uncompetitive.

OK - going back to the first paragraph - how might we fix this? My suggestion is to change the rules so that folks who gather points in the lower percentile of a class for X number of events (or rounds, or time span?) have the option to stay where they are, or move back a class. The current advancement rules would be applied to folks in the upper percentile. It seems that this would provide an option for the casual competitor to seek a comfort level and retain a reasonable advancement process for the serious competitor. Of course there are administrative issues, probably best to simply use data within each district, as most already track points for district championships. A district based data set would also best weight performance within one's local peer group.

Just my thoughts - how about the group discussing this some.

Earl

  _____  

Hotmail® goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone. <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009> 

  _____  

Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out. <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009>  

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20090508/dea33841/attachment.html>