[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Sat May 9 18:12:59 AKDT 2009

Dave,
What class are you currently flying? I'm about to go into Masters. :(

John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net>
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 12:35 PM
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 