[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Fri Oct 23 17:22:32 AKDT 2009

 Jeez, John,

I weigh everything on my planes. I've designed many of my own components because I can shave ounces. You think.... maybe...... I should stop? (bg)

MK

-----Original Message-----

From: John Pavlick &lt;jpavlick at idseng.com&gt;

To: General pattern discussion &lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;

Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2009 9:05 pm

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Not to sound like a malcontent: The "Advancement" rule   carries about as much importance as the "weight" rule as far as I can see. At   least at most local contests. When was the last time you had to weigh your   airplane and / or tell the CD how many Advancement points you had accumulated?   

Don't sweat this stuff guys. Unless you're trying to win   the NAT's, just have fun playing with your toy airplanes. Jeez.

John Pavlick

http://www.idseng.com

----- Original Message ----- 

From:     Joe     Lachowski 

To: NSRCA Discussion List   

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:25     PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules     proposal 11-6 question

You know we have a 4 yr sliding scale in effect     from the last rules cycle. Has anybody looked at how it has affected     oneself in this regard. Just curious. It maybe good enough without makng     anymore changes?

        From: jnhiller at earthlink.net

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

Date:     Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:16:37 -0700

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     &lt;jnhiller at earthlink.net&gt;

To: General pattern discussion     &lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;

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     &lt;schale at optonline.net&gt;

To: General pattern discussion     &lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;

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

        Windows 7: I wanted more reliable, now it's more reliable. Wow!     

_______________________________________________

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/20091024/0dfe0b02/attachment.html>