[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Fri May 8 07:11:43 AKDT 2009

To put in my 2 cents worth.. As we pilots get better and better, the
outside-looking-in sport pilot sees an increasingly higher skill level
required to compete.  Not counting $$$ at all, this alone is effecting the
number of competitors in many AMA/FAI events around the world.  

My recommendation is to keep the bottom two classes simple enough to get
into and be competitive for the good sport pilot.  Then make larger jumps in
pilot skills from Intermediate to Advanced and from Advanced to Masters/FAI.
Those jumps can be significant and not bother the first two classes.  

Tony Stillman, President

Radio South, Inc.

139 Altama Connector, Box 322

Brunswick, GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Hoard
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:03 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

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 <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>  

To: General pattern discussion <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090508/20cb0313/attachment.html>