[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Fri May 8 07:10:03 AKDT 2009

I don't see it as being what the leadership wants... its what the membership
wants.  I'm taking a lot of notes these days because the rules survey is
being put together in hopes that we (all of us - the membership) steer the
NSRCA in a direction that benefits pattern.

BTW, I've always thought that pattern is and should be a fun sport - I know
that we generally have a lot of fun at our contests.  Lets keep it that
way.  I also know that, to some, pattern is a job and they work really hard
at it.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess the bottom line to all of this is:  Does the NSRCA leadership want
> Pattern to be a fun leisure-time activity, or a part-time job?
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>  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 <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> *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/<http://www.pctools.com/en/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/spyware-doctor-antivirus/<http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>
>> *
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090508/41856ddc/attachment.html>