[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Anthony Frackowiak
frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
Sun Oct 25 18:13:10 AKDT 2009
Yet it is important that the rules at the Nats be fair and equitable
to all.
Tony
On Oct 23, 2009, at 6:05 PM, John Pavlick wrote:
> 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 <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
> ]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!
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091026/95b8a000/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list