[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Sat May 9 08:58:24 AKDT 2009

The reality is that EVERY class is a destination class for some. Either time, talent, money, desire, regardless the reason, there should be no shame or deterent to "topping out" at any of the levels.

For this reason ALL the classes should change periodically, and all should build to the next level.

Its disingenuous to pretend that Masters is the Top class when all are aware that FAI holds that position.  Know one is mislead into thinking the Masters champ is equal to the FAI champ.

Moreover, FAI is a 2 sequence level. Not just one.  And the F patterns are daunting at best.

We have GREAT schedules!!  We need 2 things in my opinion.  A removal of forced advancement of any kind, and a good methodology for keeping the schedules "good" and Fresh.

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sat May 09 12:35:15 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Ok, if Masters is supposed to be the AMA highest skill level "destination"
class shouldn't it be difficult? Pilots who reach this level should be able
to safely attempt any of the integrated rollers. Doing them well is a matter
of repetition, practice skills, and talent. Why "dumb down" the destination
class? It should be comparable to FAI in difficulty IMO. If FAI is to be the
destination class then it would be appropriate to use Masters as a building
block to FAI level. But that's not my understanding of Masters at this time.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Fuqua
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

I beg to differ.  One is on a straight line and the other is in a part loop
or full loop depending.  One is horizontal the other could be headed up or
headed towards the dirt.  One entails maybe two control inputs the other
requires three pretty much simultaneously.   An intermediate can do one set
and some FAI pilots cannot do the other set well.   Totally different skill
level required.

Although something like a half loop going up with an integrated 2 of 4 point
or half roll might be something to think about.  At least it would be safe
and provide a way to begin the skills training process.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek
Koopowitz
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 10:15 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Doing an integrated roll such as a loop with a 4 point in it is no different
than doing an Immelman with a 2 of 4, Split S with a 2 of 4.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Fuqua
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 6:00 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

And I think the reason is that most Masters pilot's (myself included) do not
relish the thought of doing integrated rollers in loops and half loops nor
rolling circles.  We could probably use the FAI P if we instituted
substitutions for those when building the sequences.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:44 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Earl, I think you are correct about the "C" and "D" sequences. I don't
remember ever flying "C".
I'd like to see the current FAI P schedule flown by both FAI and Masters as
separate classes because of the larger pool of judges for both classes that
would result. It worked well back in the day. The idea doesn't seem to get
much traction when it's proposed however.
Dave

-----Original Message-----
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 10:18 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

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

> Its 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_Tutoria
l_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_Tutori
al_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

_______________________________________________
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

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.21/2103 - Release Date: 05/09/09 06:54:00