[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

Sat May 9 08:09:21 AKDT 2009

Just an idea for any CD's that have this problem, award trophies/plaques 
deeper in other classes, order a replacement plate and use double sided 
tape.

I just ran an imac event and had 4 extra trophies from upper classes, I 
awarded them through fifth instead of third in the two lower classes, 
ordered new plates and mailed them to the pilots.

Chuck

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Ford" <steveandlaurel at valornet.com>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:19 PM
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System - follow up

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