[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Fri May 8 09:19:55 AKDT 2009

Easy solution for trophy hunters.  Come to the Tulsa OK contest on May 
30,31st.  I have plenty of Sportsman class trophies left over from the last 
3 years to fill a wall.
www.americanturfflyers.com for all the details.

Ok, sorry for the hijack and shameless plug of our contest. :)

Steve Ford
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Glaze" <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

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