[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

[Keith Hoard]

. . .<snip> . . .

>   So how would this "heat" manifest itself?  How would the competitors
> handle it?  How about the CD?  How about the AMA?
>
> Richard
>

     (As 5 guys gather around the sandbaggers airplane prior to the pilot's
meeting) . . "So's. . . . its looks like you gots yourself a nice, new,
shiny motor in that plane there. . . what's is it? . . one of them thar
fancy Y.S.'s?  It'd be a cryin' shame if something's awful would's happen's
to its now, wouldnt's it? . . .

     (The beauty of this veiled threat is that nobody would actually have to
go through with it because, you know, something awful always happens to Y.S.
engines anyway. . .(



>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* "verne at twmi.rr.com" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Cc:* Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 8, 2009 11:07:24 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up
>
> Richard,
> Do you actually know a Masters pilot that would do that? If someone tried
> that in D4/D5, the heat would be unbearable.
>
> Verne Koester
>
>
> ---- Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > In this case there is no need for any guideline/recomendation in the
> rulebook since it carries no weight. The rulebook should conatin only the
> rules.
>
> But, I still think you need to give a CD something in the rulebook to back
> him up in the case of the occasional bad apple.  As a CD, I don't want to
> have to explain to 6 Intermediate pilots that show up at my contest, that a
> Masters pilot is perfectly within the rules to fly in Intermediate.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 9:46:24 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090508/05206b3f/attachment.html>