[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Jay Marshall
lightfoot at sc.rr.com
Fri Oct 23 12:09:04 AKDT 2009
How about your first contest determines your class for the year.
You may fly any class, but you may only accumulate points for your stated
class.
If you pay two entry fees, you may fly to classes but line 2 applies.
Jay Marshall
-----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 3:57 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
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]
<http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/2007-August/054406.html>
[Fwd: Proposal]
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 <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> discussion
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 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 <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net> <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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 <mailto:schale at optonline.net> <schale at optonline.net>
To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091023/17ac069b/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list