[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Fri Oct 23 11:57:32 AKDT 2009
Jim,
I still like the proposal I made in that thread....
/ how about changing the AMA advancemant rule and keep it very simple?
Your first contest of the year will determine your class for the year.
You may go up one class at any time during the year but may not go back
down during the year. At the start of the next year you may drop back
one class at your option, stay where you are or go up a class.
This is simple enough that your fellow competitiors will know if you are
following the rules. It will also be up to your fellow competitiors
through peer pressure to insure that you are not sandbagging.
/
The National database proposal is actually in:
[NSRCA-discussion] [Fwd: Proposal]
<http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/2007-August/054406.html>
John Gayer
J N Hiller wrote:
>
> We got into this back in August 2007. Here is a link
> http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/2007-August/subject.html
> Drop down to "[Fwd: Proposal]". While there look at "Advancement:
> let's wrap it up".
>
> I was very interested in this at the time but the logistics of
> collecting the data and maintaining a database were overwhelming and
> would likely be incomplete. The data would need to be voluntarily
> submitted by the CD in a downloadable format. Yes it could be done but
> would it? I agreed that eliminating mandatory advancement would be a
> more workable solution. I still think the concept of classification
> based on raw score average would be great. I had raw score info from
> an old NATS (1987) and loaded a spreadsheet to get an idea what the
> raw score percentages might look like in order to try to come up with
> a an appropriate range to participate in a given class, above which
> the competitor should be advanced and below which he could go back.
> Obviously we would need current info to come up with hard numbers,
> probably requiring that data be collected for a year prior to
> detailing a proposal.
>
> In any case you may wish to revisit the previous discussion.
>
> Jim Hiller
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of *John Gayer
> *Sent:* Friday, October 23, 2009 10:47 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> I believe that we can put together a team to address a national
> database. I am quite willing to work on belling that cat.
> However, first we need buyin from the NSRCA that it would be used for
> advancement/relegation or some other useful specified purpose. Second,
> the results reporting is required only to the AMA as part of the
> contest sanction. It appears that at the moment they are not organized
> enough to keep track of rules proposals. Since they have no
> requirement to do anything with those results you know they are ending
> up thrown in a file, circular or otherwise.
>
> John Gayer
>
> Bill Glaze wrote:
>
> I would also, as you suggested, like to see a system that, nationally,
> keeps track of all scores and, when the rules (what ever they may be
> established at) say to do so, that person moves. It works very well
> indeed in the rifle shooting sport.
>
> Problem: Like the mice who decided that they would put a bell on the
> cat, so he couldn't sneak up on them, were stopped in their tracks by
> the elderly mouse who said, simply, "good idea. But who's going to
> put the bell on the cat?"
>
> The logical place would be the AMA, but that won't happen. According
> to Tony, they don't even want to have the Nats; they'd go nuts at the
> idea of collecting and collating all the contest scores from
> throughout the nation..
>
> Bill Glaze
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *
> From: John Gayer <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>
> *
>
> **
> To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> **
>
> ***
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:28 PM
> ***
>
> ****
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
> ****
>
> **** ****
>
> ****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>
> [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>
> <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto: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>
> [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>
> <mailto:schale at optonline.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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/20091023/5d0f3707/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list