[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Fri May 8 09:12:10 AKDT 2009

Again I ask, hy does there need to be ANY rule?  This just isn't a problem. 

If I start the year trying a sequence and that's the wrong place for me regardless of the reason (no practice time, bad plane, I suck, whatever) I think you should be able to change. 

It just isn't a big deal. And rarely happens. But when it needs to happen, and can't, we lose a flyer. And losing even one matters. 
--------------------------
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 13:04:59 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

The rule concerning advancement can be written very simply.

"The class you fly in your first contest of the calendar year establishes the minimum class you are qualified to participate in for the calendar year"

Archie Stafford wrote: 

I don't think we can make the rules just for the possibility of having someone drop back 2 classes to win a trophy.  I with Verne.  I don't see that happening.  I don't think you punish the guys that aren't ready to move up, just so that the possibility exists of someone in a higher class dropping back to win a trophy.  I just don't see that many guys with that mentality.

Arch

-----Original Message-----

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of verne at twmi.rr.com

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:07 AM

To: General pattern discussion

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  <mailto:humptybump at sbcglobal.net> <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"  <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

To: General pattern discussion  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> <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

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2103 - Release Date: 05/07/09 18:05:00