[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Fri May 8 12:33:07 AKDT 2009

Shoot, there was even Pre-Novice at one time, I believe...

Matt
---- Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote: 
And I'm sure the "Novices" weren't afraid to walk away. . .

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:10 PM, <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:

> No, it was a Sportsman class maneuver. This was back when we weren't afraid
> to call Novices what they are: Novices.
>
> Matt
> ---- verne at twmi.rr.com wrote:
> In the old pre-turnaround days, 3 rolls was an Advanced-class maneuver.
>
>
> ---- Don Ramsey <don.ramsey at suddenlink.net> wrote:
> > I disagree with Arch about the 3 rolls.  I think this is an aircraft
> killer.  It killed a lot planes when we did it.  Don’t require maneuvers in
> the early patterns that put the aircraft at high risk.
> >
> > There are other maneuvers that teach the skills to do the slow roll and
> point rolls with little risk to the plane.  To do the 3 rolls properly takes
> a lot of real estate and requires other skills that the Sportsman pilot is
> not equipped to handle.  When it was in the sequence people did get through
> it but very few performed it well and I thought it did not teach much toward
> advancement of the skills required of rolls in the other patterns.  Slow
> rolls and point rolls are very easy compared to the skills required to do 3
> rolls.
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 7:59 AM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > 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_052009
> >
> >
> >   _____
> >
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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