[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[J N Hiller]

Thanks for sharing that. This is exactly why advancement shouldn't be based
on someone else's performance or lack of which ever the case may be.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Hansen
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:41 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I agree with Mark.  I've been flying intermediate for 4 years and I have no
idea how many points I've accumulated and I really don't care to keep track.
I finished 12th out of 22 at the NATS this year, I was the D4 champ in 2007
and 2009.  I won half of the D4 meets this year.  I certainly don't think I'
m grooving the intermediate sequence yet.  The guy who won the intermediate
NATS this year probably would have won the D4 championships this year in
advanced.  So how you do at the local level is completely irrelevant in most
cases.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:21 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Exactly, and this is the conundrum.  There is no good way to do that.  We've
tried the sliding scale over a number of years and that really hasn't change
anything.  Those who "Top out" near the top of a class eventually get stuck
moving to the class above where they really don't belong.

There seems to be lots of worry about abuse.and yet no one has ever really
had an example of any.  We don't have "abuse" in Masters/FAI, why do we
assume that we'll have it between Masters/Advanced.or Advanced/Sportsman?

At the end of the day, if you can't beat the guy, you have room for
improvement.   I think the concern about abuse is speculation at best.
Worst case, we eliminate the points system, we have MASSIVE sandbagging (I
know Jason is probably studying the 2011 advanced pattern as we speak.though
he can fly that under the CURRENT rules since he never flew masters) and we
change the rule back.

Let's give "open class movement" a try.
Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com <mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>   |
www.paragon-inc.com <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:17 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I disagree. If were to have any kind of mandatory advancement, it needs to
be based on the individual's performance not contest placement.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of michael s
harrison
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:44 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

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 1st, 3 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd 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 1st 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


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4534 (20091022) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091022/61f00877/attachment.html>