[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

[Dave Burton]

Let' just remove all the wording about advancement and points from the rule
book and let anyone fly any class they want for any reason they feel is
appropriate. I've been advocating this for years and have written rules
proposals in the past that got shot down by NSRCA.

I'll volunteer to write the proposal and submit it to AMA if NSRCA will
support it. Without the support of NSRCA it would be pretty futile effort.

Dave Burton

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:46 AM
To: General pattern discussion
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090508/36d93f20/attachment.html>