[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Thu Oct 22 12:28:39 AKDT 2009

Mike,

What is the point of a mandatory system for advancement without a 
central organization keeping track? That makes it voluntary. Sort of 
like posting a speed limit but guaranteeing that there are no cops on 
the road.
There are also huge differences in the depth and quality of the 
competition geographically. You may be chief frog in your little puddle 
but if you venture out into the ocean you are in way over your head.
If you must have an advancement system, it should be done the Aussie 
way. Keep a national database of raw scores, establish national averages 
for class advancement, and  kick flyers into the next class when they 
exceed the National average three times in a year. It also allows for 
relegating down a class if you don't maintain a minimum scoring 
standard. Not perfect but a whole lot better than ours.

Or.... we could just change the advancement system to a guideline or 
even abolish it.

John Gayer

michael s harrison wrote:
>
> I personally don't think the mandatory system should be abandoned, but 
> it should be overhauled.  I would recommend something on the order of 
> 5 points for 1^st , 3 for 2^nd and 1 for 3^rd for a total of maybe 50 
> points, with the stipulation that you will have to have 2 first place 
> finishes for required advancement.  That scenario would give the pilot 
> 1^st place at 10 contests before movement is required.  If the pilot 
> never places first, he would never be required to advance.  Another 
> stipulation is that a minimum of 3 pilots compete. 
>
> I believe that pilots that are truly competitive will move up 
> voluntarily-most of the time.  However, a safeguard- or check and 
> balance system is warranted, IMO.
>
>  
>
> Mike
>
>  
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Anthony Abdullah
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:54 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
>  
>
> Jim,
>
> You make some excellent points and in large part I agree with you. I 
> don't, however, see how your response has addressed the food for 
> thought questions I presented. Let me put it a different way that 
> might make more sense.
>
> Masters is the "accepted" destination class, but every pattern pilot 
> has his own destination class based on a number of factors. In a  
> perfect world every individual internally defines thier destination 
> class, and I think that is what you are saying below. Know your 
> abilities and life situation and fly in the appropriate class for your 
> skills until you feel the need to move up. What I was suggesting we 
> think about is addressing some of the external factors that push 
> people to a class they are not prepared for or interested in.
>
>  
>
> At the end of the day, it feels like I am closing the door after the 
> horse is already out of the barn because this issue has already been 
> addressed, for the most part. I think removing forced advancement and 
> allowing movement up and down between classes will solve those problems.
>
>  
>
> So, like the old Saturday Night Live sketch.... Nevermind. 
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:58:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
> I think the right approach is on the way, dump mandatory advancement 
> and allow moving back and change the advanced sequence every two years.
>
> Like most voluntary activities we name our own poison. I voluntarily 
> moved to masters because I was getting too complacent flying advanced. 
> If we had gotten a new sequence for 09-10 I probably would have 
> stayed. The gage I use is my contest (all 5 or 6 rounds) raw score 
> average. By mid season the second year it was dropping a clear 
> indication that my interest was dropping and needed additional challenges.
>
> For most of us proficiency flying pattern includes a lot of experience 
> / stick time flying in all conditions over an extended period of time 
> and has nothing to do with how many times you beat someone that's 
> having a bad day or can't get out to practice. Some of us still have 
> work and family commitments that take priority.
>
> Stay in advanced until you feel the need for something more 
> challenging or through several sequence changes. Each new sequence 
> teaches new lessons and offers valuable experience and the opportunity 
> to fly a sequence your comfortable with in adverse weather conditions. 
> Flying in adverse conditions only compounds the difficulty when moving 
> up. For example, maintaining figure M geometry, track and position in 
> a 15-20 MPH wind is about twice as hard and probably 4 times as hard 
> as flying the 6-side outside loop on a windy day.
>
> As for the pile up in masters ask them how long they have flown 
> pattern been in masters. Probably half have flown with and against 
> each other from pre-turnaround and likely will continue. AMA masters 
> class is and has been a destination class for a very long time not a 
> steeping stone to FAI. In years past FAI team selection was through a 
> masters selection program and FAI wasn't even flown at most local 
> contests. Adding FAI at local contests allowed them to fly a single 
> event / schedule only effectively reducing masters class numbers.
>
> The bottom line is, fly and compete where you are comfortable and 
> judge your ability by your own scores as a percent of maximum K rather 
> than on how well someone else flies or doesn't fly.
>
> Sorry about getting on my soap box but I really like the challenge of 
> flying pattern and traveling around flying with old and new friends. 
> It never gets any easier but it is always fun and I wouldn't have it 
> any other way.
>
> Jim Hiller
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of 
> *Anthony Abdullah
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:47 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
>  
>
> Here is a silly question:
>
>
> Is the log jam of people in Masters as much a function of it being 
> "acceptable" to park there as much as anything else? I am a 
> "relatively competent" advanced pilot, I don't win the class but I am 
> usually competitive and have on occasion played the part of spoiler, I 
> already feel the pressure to move up to masters even though I still 
> have not mastered advanced. Would there be more people in advanced if 
> it felt ok to stay there until you felt completely comfortable with 
> all elements of the class? would that equlize participant distribution 
> in other classes? I know a couple of people in D4 that are doing well 
> in advanced but not consistantly dominant. If they move up to masters 
> they will almost certainly have less fun and will absolutely struggle 
> at contests. Should they be allowed to stay in advanced forever if 
> they like? Perhaps that is the limit of their natural flying ability 
> or the highest level they can ascend to given their life situation 
> (work, practice time, budget, etc). On the other side, I spoke with  
> D5 pilot this summer that said "I should not be in masters, I moved up 
> because it was time to but i can't really fly this pattern as well as 
> I need to, I just don't have enough time to practice".
>
>  
>
> I don't know what the right approach is but we should consider the 
> entire picture as we look for answers. The problem may now be with the 
> sequences at all, but with the general feeling that a particular pilot 
> has to move up before they are ready. I guess that is the old 
> advancement discussion again.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Anthony
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:26:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
> 8 to 1 middle of the 9th.
> In regards to the sequences, I am probably in the minority but I think 
> the lower classes need to be a little harder.  Probably even Masters.  
> Most areas of the country are seeing a bunching up in Masters.  I like 
> it, makes for good competition in that class.  I do not want to come 
> in second in my class (and last) :)
> Perhaps if the classes were a little more difficult people would not 
> move up as quickly.  Put more difficult rolling maneuvers in advanced, 
> add some integrated rolling maneuvers into Masters.  Would there be 
> more fliers in the lower classes, would the classes be more even?  
> Don't know.  Is this what we want?
>
> Should someone be "prepared" to go to the next higher class from their 
> current class?  There needs to be an increase in difficulty which 
> there is.  You should have to work at the next class when moving up.
>
> Rollers, love to watch them done well, but can't do them well :)  They 
> really do use a lot of real estate though and sort of goes against the 
> idea of decreased space use that we have with turnaround.  IMAC has 
> the same problem.  They have a score for proper airspace use which 
> includes a reduced footprint but has rollers in all 3 or the upper 
> classes :)
>
> Stuart C.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091022/94f6ae51/attachment.html>