[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
verne at twmi.rr.com
verne at twmi.rr.com
Fri May 8 08:03:12 AKDT 2009
Steve,
I know exactly who you're referring to regarding the Masters pilot that dropped out. I tried to gently dissuade him from entering Masters because I knew he wasn't ready. When I was trying to talk him out of moving up, he said he had pointed out even though he hadn't won a contest in Advanced in at least two years. I told him he was probably the only guy in D4 that kept track of his points and nobody would even notice unless he started winning all the time. The year he dropped out, we had just started a new schedule with an inverted 4 point and I heard he crashed two Focus's with wrong rudder trying to learn it. Obviously, I didn't succeed and now he's gone. He was no casual competitor and was actually an NSRCA Associate VP awhile back as well as a CD of one of our annual D4 contests.
Verne
---- Snaproll4 at aol.com wrote:
> Mark,
>
> For the last ten years I've been telling anyone who will listen
> that the current advancement system is flawed. I can name you at least 5
> pilots that have dropped out of pattern because of forced advancement. Is
> that what the rules are meant to achieve? In my first year of Masters,
> another Masters pilot came to me and said "I'm sick of finishing last". I never
> saw him again. My first year of Masters was the biggest eye opener.
> Everyone has top equipment, practices and wants to win. The worst aspect of the
> current rule is not being able to test a higher class.
>
> Steve Miller
>
>
>
> In a message dated 5/8/2009 9:10:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com writes:
>
> I think you're both right.
>
> Arch, the vertical upline does have some merit, just judging by how many
> struggle to get full vertical and then push out straight. My son is doing it
> with a big stik 40 with an old KB 40 and its ok. Not a huge vertical, but
> workable. He actually struggles more with power with the loops.
>
> As for the rest of the maneuvers in sportsman, they simply deserve more
> time to fly. There old sequence was so short we often had them fly through
> it twice. This is effectively the same thing.
>
> As for three rolls, I completely agree. If you can't do 3 rolls by the
> time you've mastered Intermediate you have no hope of slow rolls or 4pts in
> advanced.
>
> Let's keep in mind that these maneuvers are to be mastered when LEAVING
> the class, not entering it. They're supposed to be a challenge when you
> start a new class.
>
> Eliminating forced advancement would allow people to remain in the lower
> class until they could at least fly the maneuver safely if not judge worthy.
>
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Fri May 08 08:59:29 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
>
> Richard,
>
>
>
> So your answer about the 3 rolls is lets not put it in, because it is
> hard? It was a maneuver that was done for years with no problems, but it did
> make you learn to fly through the rolls.
>
>
>
> The vertical upline doesn’t really teach much. Try it with a .40 size
> sport plane. You are right, it doesn’t have to be a certain height. But you
> better be starting high as the next maneuver is a split S. Those last 5
> maneuvers don’t really teach anything. Sportsman should be about introducing
> people to pattern and allowing the guy with the .40 sport plane a chance to
> compete.
>
>
>
> Arch
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lewis
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:47 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
>
>
>
> Arch,
>
>
>
> The vertical upline is a great teaching maneuver for sportsman and
> requires no more power than a stall turn. There is NO criteria for the length of
> this line, and a box entry just before it. I tell every sportsman pilot I
> meet, no matter what they are flying this: Enter the box as high as
> necessary to do as short an upline as possible or that the plane is capable of and
> setup for the split-S. Overall, it's a quick and easy lesson in airspace
> management. The radii are also not specified, just need to be equal. So
> often we see sportsman approach center and pull a radically tight radius and
> expose nasty attitude changes. This ia another opportunity to teach. It
> is also an easy, low risk lesson in aircraft attitude and trimming, as
> transitioning through a radius from horizontal to vertical directly in front of
> you requires decent trimming (right thrust, etc...) and also a degree of
> confidence that the wings are level. Also a opportunity to teach.
>
>
>
> Put three rolls in intermediate and watch the intermediate pilots drop
> like flies........
>
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com; General pattern discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:42:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
>
> I think one thing we need to really get back to basics on is designing the
> schedules based around the skills necessary to be able to move on to the
> next sequence. I think we have picked a bunch of maneuvers, but are missing
> out on what skills are needed. The current sportsman sequence is way too
> long and requires a lot more power than a beginner sequence should. There
> was a time when you could fly a .40 sport plane and be competitive, but
> those days are gone. What is gained by the vertical upline on center
> maneuver? You have to have a plane with a reasonable thrust to weight ratio as the
> next maneuver is a split s. There are 2 half reverse Cuban eights. You
> could conceivably get rid of the last 5 maneuvers and not be missing
> anything. You would also allow a true .40 size first low wing plane a chance at
> being competitive. I understand the argument that theoretically those
> planes are already competitive, but in reality they aren’t.
>
>
>
> The biggest thing that people in sportsman need is the basic understanding
> of a contest and the ability to learn to fly a straight line and maintain
> altitude. Then as you progress you can add other maneuvers.
>
>
>
> Two maneuvers I think need to be put back into intermediate are the 3
> horizontal rolls…3, not 2. With 3 you have to learn to fly through them.
> Also, the double stall turn was a great maneuver for that sequence. Straight
> inverted flight is another important element that gets missed, even with
> the inverted exit. As you progress into Advanced maybe introduce snaps and
> a spin, with a couple more inverted exits to actually prepare someone for
> Masters.
>
>
>
> I think if the sequences get viewed as building blocks, then the maneuvers
> needed will take care of themselves.
>
>
>
> Just my .02,
>
>
>
> Arch
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:35 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> What district are you in? Maybe Ziggy and I will take a road trip this
> summer. That could make things interesting for you guys. I'm staying in
> Advanced as long as I can or at least until I lose my day job. :)
>
>
>
> John Pavlick
>
> --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Bill Glaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> From: Bill Glaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 7:36 PM
>
> Joe:
>
> Advanced last weekend in Winston = 0 contestants. A couple of weeks ago
> in Green Sea: Advanced = 1 contestant. I don't believe that we've had more
> than 4 contestants in Advanced in a single contest for 2 years--maybe more.
> I haven't thought much about just why that might be, but right now, it's
> a very unpopular class. I concur that most of the dropouts seem to be
> either from the Advanced class, or, from those who are forced into the Advanced
> class. No matter how/why they're forced to move up, it's just the way it
> is right now.
>
> Bill Glaze
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Joe Lachowski <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>
>
> To: NSRCA Discussion List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:32 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
>
>
>
> I'm for getting rid of advancement in the Advanced class for one. This is
> the class a number flyers who stick around seem to hit their skill level
> wall and disappear. It also appears to be the smallest class attended at
> local contests these days. At least in D1 it is.
>
> I'd also like to see the option of being able to move back after one year
> in the next higher class. This would be a allowed one time only.
>
> To make frequent sequence change doable, instead of having to come up with
> new ones every 4 years or so, maybe we should just come up with a good set
> of say 4 for each class. You can rotate through them every 2 years and
> start from the first one all over again after they've cycled through. This
> could easily be done for Intermediate and Advanced. Probably even Masters.
> After about 8 years the pool of flyers for the most part will have changed in
> each class anyway. Establishing these sequences will probably take a well
> thought process of about two years by some dedicated people willing to take
> it on. You could also just change a handful of maneuvers in these sequences
> after the 8 year cycle to keep things a little fresh for those that are
> still flying a particular class after the 8 year cycle. This is a lot of work
> up front but in teh long run it is easier.
>
> As far as Sportsman goes, you just need one good sequence that teaches the
> basic skills to get you to Intermediate. The one we have now is pretty
> close if not good enough.
>
> Just some ideas.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:48:08 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
>
> Good idea Earl. I think peer pressure alone will suffice but if we want an
> organize system this has merit.
> Do we realize if we allow the other classes to become destinations then
> the sequences should change more frequently.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ejhaury at comcast.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:24:18 -0500
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
>
> In the discussion regarding the Masters sequence / length a few
> competitors mentioned that increasing the difficulty would cause them to stop
> competing. Folks, this needs to be addressed! We can't tolerate a system where
> folks are forced to a level where they can't enjoy pattern and/or chose to
> quit.
>
>
>
> There are generally two views of the current system. One is that it is
> cast in stone and needed to force the "trophy hound" to move to the proper
> class. The other is that peer pressure alone will result in proper
> classification. I think that there's a third possibility, some folks prematurely move
> to a higher class for the "prestige" of that class. There's likely reality
> / unreality to each view which supports that some process is needed. While
> there have been some changes to smooth the advancement process, nothing has
> changed for a person who finds themselves in a class that exceeds their
> skills. I know - there's a process to petition for dropping to a lower class,
> but it's intended for hardship cases rather than being uncompetitive.
>
>
>
> OK - going back to the first paragraph - how might we fix this? My
> suggestion is to change the rules so that folks who gather points in the lower
> percentile of a class for X number of events (or rounds, or time span?) have
> the option to stay where they are, or move back a class. The current
> advancement rules would be applied to folks in the upper percentile. It seems that
> this would provide an option for the casual competitor to seek a comfort
> level and retain a reasonable advancement process for the serious
> competitor. Of course there are administrative issues, probably best to simply use
> data within each district, as most already track points for district
> championships. A district based data set would also best weight performance within
> one's local peer group.
>
>
>
> Just my thoughts - how about the group discussing this some.
>
>
>
> Earl
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Hotmail® goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_0520
> 09>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check
> it out.
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009>
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list