[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
John Pavlick
jpavlick at idseng.com
Fri Oct 23 17:50:15 AKDT 2009
Right. That's why I don't really see a reason to make major changes. No one
is going to send you home from a local contest if your plane is 2 oz.
overweight but I'll bet that most guys won't even bring a "heavy" plane to a
contest if they're serious about competing.
By the same token, I think most guys move up before they poiint out. I've
never seen anyone sandbag just to take home awards. The very nature of what
Pattern is all about prevents you from doing that. So that's why I said not
to worry so much. In all honesty, if we completely abolished the advancement
rules, I don't think it would make much difference.
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
> The reality is that these rules, while not enforced, are almost always
> followed. That's the nature of the person that competes. Follow the rules.
>
> That's why the current advancement rule is a problem. Honest people follow
> it, anyone that would abuse NOT having a rule would do so today anyway. So
> we only see the negative side, and receive virtually no benefit.
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Fri Oct 23 21:22:11 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
> 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 <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 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 <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>
> To: NSRCA Discussion List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> ________________________________
>
> Windows 7: I wanted more reliable, now it's more reliable. Wow!
> <http://microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default-ga.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_myidea:102009>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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