[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Jay Marshall
lightfoot at sc.rr.com
Fri Oct 23 13:15:39 AKDT 2009
Just hold the gun in the opposite direction....
Jay Marshall
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:57 PM
To: 'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Interesting.
Is there a mechanism for the shooting that will lower you back down if your
scores wane for whatever reason?
-M
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri Oct 23 17:00:56 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
We each have the same belief in this matter. I know it would take some
organizing, and a lot of data input, but possibly the computer gurus could
figure out a way for the CD's to input the information in a manner that
would allow it direct entry into the database.
I'm sure that AMA probably only uses those contest reports to satisfy the CD
requirements, and other things to which we're not privy.
But, it sure works in rifle shooting. I remember well looking in my
scorebook and thinking "Gee, I've shot myself into the next class!" A few
days later, my new card was in my mailbox. Worked every time.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: John Gayer <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:46 PM
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 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> <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]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
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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list