[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Fri May 8 07:22:50 AKDT 2009

I second the motion.

Steve Miller

In a message dated 5/8/2009 11:20:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
burtona at atmc.net writes:

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

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

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322931x1201367171/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd
=May5509AvgfooterNO115)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090508/d7c4d699/attachment.html>