[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Fri May 8 18:18:10 AKDT 2009

Pretty good memory! As I recall the top AMA classes were C Novice & C Expert 
(same sequences), D Novice & D Expert used the FAI sequence. Most local 
events used the D version as no one was very fond of the touch & go in the C 
sequence, the Nats used C N&E, Team Selections D. B class also had a touch & 
go as the maneuver following take-off (made for some short flights).

Earl
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net>
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

> It’s been a long time ago but I think three rolls and three inside loops 
> were in the entry level "A" pattern back in 1971-72 when I was flying "A" 
> class. If I remember correctly we had 3 outside loops from the top in "B" 
> pattern class. From memory, "A" pattern sequence was take off, straight 
> flight out, procedure turn, straight flight back, horizontal figure 8 
> (centered flat 8 in front of you), three inside loops, three rolls, stall 
> turn, immelman turn, traffic pattern approach, and landing. I haven't 
> tried to remember this in a long time so I may have left something out. 
> (BTW, we had "D" Expert and "D" Novice classes that flew the same sequence 
> as the top two classes. FAI was only flown at the Team selection contest 
> and by the team at the world championships as I remember)
> Dave Burton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of 
> mjfrederick at cox.net
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:10 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
>
> 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.  Dont 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 doesnt really teach much.  Try it with a .40 size 
>> sport plane.  You are right, it doesnt have to be a certain height. But 
>> you better be starting high as the next maneuver is a split S.  Those 
>> last 5 maneuvers dont 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 arent.
>>
>> 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 rolls3, 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! Dont 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 