[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

[Bill Glaze]

Not that many, agreed--but they are around.  Bill Glaze
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Archie Stafford" <astafford at swtexas.net>
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up


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