[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Fri May 8 06:59:49 AKDT 2009

I'll second that. 

I haven't flown pattern as long as some, but in the years I have spent I haven't seen trophy hounds being an issue at all. yes they exist occasionally. But they rarely last long. Sooner or later they get beat, and that's the end of it soon after. natural selection I guess.

I'm the poster child for the advancement problem to masters as described earlier. When I was flying advanced I had a lot of time to practice and did pretty well. Then I got the bright idea to kit a wood pattern plane....so much for free time LOL  So this is my 3rd year in masters and I have yet to get anywhere close to practiced form. This year started out well, then I lost my only plane. So much for this season.....

Not that I would want to return to advanced at all, I belong in masters. But I can see plainly where others have moved up because of points and wierd circumstances and they are over thier head, as in more than usually expected. These are some of the best people in pattern and I would hate to lose them just because of an arbitrary rule to weed out the so called sandbagger, who is rare as hen's teeth.

In that respect, I agree with Mark....make it a guideline ONLY. I have enough faith in people that they will do what's right and fly in the class they need to be in. maybe not all the time, but enough so it won't really matter in the big picture. 

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Atwood, Mark 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:46 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

  I really do think this is easy.

  Change the advancement rule to be a guideline, not a rule.

  People should be able to change what class they fly when they want to.  Yes, there could be the occasional A$$ that changes for the wrong reason, but let's not make rules just to capture idiots, and make more work for everyone else in the process.

  People move between FAI and Masters ALL THE TIME based on who's at a contest, or the overall contest make up and no one cares.  There's no reason that the same can't happen in the lower classes.  Let's just try it for a bit.  Please??

  All we need is a proposal to change the wording on advancement to be a guideline, a recommendation.  And remove any language that refers to mandatory advancement or prevents people from moving back down a level.

  Let's see what problems it causes.  I'm betting NONE, and it will eliminate numerous problems.

  -M

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
  Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:33 AM
  To: Discussion List, NSRCA
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

  Lots of good observations and comments that are on topic. 

  Also, adjusting the sequences / classes may be a fix to the root cause of poor skill fits in a given class that would dictate moving up or down.

  IMHO, I believe the immediate focus should be on changing the advancement system so that folks who find themselves in a class way beyond their skill level have a mechanism to move to a class better fitting their skills. I'm not proposing that the focused competitor who moves up and then finds themselves not competitive for a few years should move back. I do believe that the casual competitor who finds that age / career / family / increased sequence difficulty should be able to easily move to a class where they're comfortable. As the discussions regarding sequence content indicate, the consummate competitor wants (needs) an increasing level of difficulty to maintain challenge & interest. This increase in difficulty can (and apparently does) overwhelm some casual competitors who then leave pattern. Possibly they can be retained if it were easy for them to drop back a class.

  I don't perceive that this discussion has reached a consensus on how best to handle the current advancement system, previous discussions have ended similarly and nothing much has changed. The options seem to be:

  1. Leave the current system alone & adjust sequences / classes. (Appears to concede to the lowest skill pilots per class.)

  2. No official advancement system, peer pressure is adequate. (Might actually work, most pattern folks are honorable.)

  3. Variant of current system with provisions for casual competitors to move back basis their comfort / performance. (Probably OK and would seem to have a good chance with the CB.)

  4. Performance based system where folks float between classes basis performance. (Actually my favorite as it would both satisfy providing comfort to the casual and prestige to the consummate. Unfortunately logistically most difficult, someone would need to manage the data and assign classes.)

  So - the trick is to reach some sort of consensus and move it to a rules proposal. Discussion alone won't get the job done.

  Earl

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.19/2099 - Release Date: 05/07/09 18:05:00

  E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
  Database version: 6.12350
  http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
  Database version: 6.12350
  http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
Database version: 6.12350
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090508/4c18ce57/attachment.html>