[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

[Keith Hoard]

How is that any different from having a guy who's flown IMAC for umptee-ump
years show up and smoke all of the Sportsman pilots?

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

> In this case there is no need for any guideline/recomendation in the
> rulebook since it carries no weight. The rulebook should conatin only the
> rules.
>
> But, I still think you need to give a CD something in the rulebook to back
> him up in the case of the occasional bad apple.  As a CD, I don't want to
> have to explain to 6 Intermediate pilots that show up at my contest, that a
> Masters pilot is perfectly within the rules to fly in Intermediate.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 8, 2009 9:46:24 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>



-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090508/11b245b2/attachment.html>