[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
Snaproll4 at aol.com
Snaproll4 at aol.com
Fri May 8 06:37:23 AKDT 2009
Mark,
For the last ten years I've been telling anyone who will listen
that the current advancement system is flawed. I can name you at least 5
pilots that have dropped out of pattern because of forced advancement. Is
that what the rules are meant to achieve? In my first year of Masters,
another Masters pilot came to me and said "I'm sick of finishing last". I never
saw him again. My first year of Masters was the biggest eye opener.
Everyone has top equipment, practices and wants to win. The worst aspect of the
current rule is not being able to test a higher class.
Steve Miller
In a message dated 5/8/2009 9:10:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
atwoodm at paragon-inc.com writes:
I think you're both right.
Arch, the vertical upline does have some merit, just judging by how many
struggle to get full vertical and then push out straight. My son is doing it
with a big stik 40 with an old KB 40 and its ok. Not a huge vertical, but
workable. He actually struggles more with power with the loops.
As for the rest of the maneuvers in sportsman, they simply deserve more
time to fly. There old sequence was so short we often had them fly through
it twice. This is effectively the same thing.
As for three rolls, I completely agree. If you can't do 3 rolls by the
time you've mastered Intermediate you have no hope of slow rolls or 4pts in
advanced.
Let's keep in mind that these maneuvers are to be mastered when LEAVING
the class, not entering it. They're supposed to be a challenge when you
start a new class.
Eliminating forced advancement would allow people to remain in the lower
class until they could at least fly the maneuver safely if not judge worthy.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri May 08 08:59:29 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
Richard,
So your answer about the 3 rolls is lets not put it in, because it is
hard? It was a maneuver that was done for years with no problems, but it did
make you learn to fly through the rolls.
The vertical upline doesn’t really teach much. Try it with a .40 size
sport plane. You are right, it doesn’t have to be a certain height. But you
better be starting high as the next maneuver is a split S. Those last 5
maneuvers don’t really teach anything. Sportsman should be about introducing
people to pattern and allowing the guy with the .40 sport plane a chance to
compete.
Arch
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lewis
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:47 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
Arch,
The vertical upline is a great teaching maneuver for sportsman and
requires no more power than a stall turn. There is NO criteria for the length of
this line, and a box entry just before it. I tell every sportsman pilot I
meet, no matter what they are flying this: Enter the box as high as
necessary to do as short an upline as possible or that the plane is capable of and
setup for the split-S. Overall, it's a quick and easy lesson in airspace
management. The radii are also not specified, just need to be equal. So
often we see sportsman approach center and pull a radically tight radius and
expose nasty attitude changes. This ia another opportunity to teach. It
is also an easy, low risk lesson in aircraft attitude and trimming, as
transitioning through a radius from horizontal to vertical directly in front of
you requires decent trimming (right thrust, etc...) and also a degree of
confidence that the wings are level. Also a opportunity to teach.
Put three rolls in intermediate and watch the intermediate pilots drop
like flies........
Richard
________________________________
From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
To: jpavlick at idseng.com; General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:42:50 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
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_0520
09>
________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322931x1201367171/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
=May5509AvgfooterNO115)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090508/0a4dabe4/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list