<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Forced Advancement</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The only problem I have with you Mark is I always
find you too easy to agree with. I like to argue and it frustrates me.
;>)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=atwoodm@paragon-inc.com href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">Mark
Atwood</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 04, 2008 2:06
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] Forced
Advancement</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">I will chime in on this one and say I agree completely
that the “forced Advancement” rule should be changed to being merely a
guideline.<BR><BR>A few thoughts, cause I could go on about this all
day...<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<OL>
<LI><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">we
do need a guideline. When I started pattern, it was nice to have a
“measure” to help decide when it was time to move up. I think the
point system works well for that 85% of the time. AS A GUIDELINE...but
not as a rule. </SPAN></FONT>
<LI><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Sandbagging is a myth. My personal opinion.
And while someone will invariable point to one incident in the last 20
years to validate their concern, the reality is two fold. A) VERY VERY
VERY few true sandbaggers exist and peer pressure has always successfully
moved them, and B) who cares. If you can’t beat someone...fine.
They’re better than you. Period. Either move up past them and
smile as you go by, or bust your butt and beat them. What good is it
to say “oooh, I won...because so in so didn’t show up!” (or moved up).
Seems like a rather hallow victory. </SPAN></FONT>
<LI><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">There are a million reasons why people who are
competitive (winning) at one level, can’t enjoy competing at the next level.
This is mainly in the upper levels, but even applies to the lower
levels. Age (eye sight?), Time, Desire, innate skill, etc.
Each level isn’t simply an extension of the prior. Each
level requires a new level of skill, commitment, and equipment to be
competitive. To win masters you need to practice more than you did to
win advanced...and so on. The competition is stiffer, regardless of
the complexity of the maneuvers.<BR></SPAN></FONT></LI></OL><FONT
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR>We have
lost numerous people to the advancement system. Not because it was
strictly enforced...it’s not. But because honest people see a rule and
feel that they’re cheating if they don’t follow it. I can name 5 off the
top of my head locally that have quit because they pointed out of
Advanced...and had no ability to “compete” in Masters. They could fly
it...but coming in last every contest is not being competitive, and if you
have no chance...its just not fun. And yes, had they stayed in Advanced,
they would have won here and there...but so would other people, and they might
be the “guy to beat” in the local area. That’s great. It tends to
stay local. I have a hard time thinking that the guy who wins
Intermediate at the NATs is going to stay in intermediate without a rule to
push him forward. <BR><BR>I would love to see the rule simply altered to say
it’s a guideline. Let people fly where they feel they should fly.
If someone needs trophies so badly that they go back JUST for the
trophy...well, let ‘em have it. They clearly have bigger issues to deal with.
<BR><BR>This would alleviate a lot of problems for a lot of
people. I could give 20 different scenarios, but I think we all know
them. What I never hear is the ACTUAL...not speculative, but the ACTUAL
scenario where not having an advancement rule would have been a big
problem.<BR><BR>Rant complete...exiting the ...text
box.<BR><BR>-Mark<BR><BR><BR>On 2/4/08 1:33 PM, "chris moon"
<cjm767driver@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">I think Mike hit the nail. The real problem is
that there are too many <BR>guys that advance then hit a wall or drop out
briefly without an easy <BR>way to move back. Adding another class is
just bad. WIth the average <BR>attendance at a contest probably around
20, probably less, if we add <BR>another class to make 6, then that means
essentially 3 people per <BR>class. Not really a competitive
atmosphere. My vote would be to allow <BR>a system for guys to move
BACK more easily, only for those who have <BR>moved up voluntarily and did
not point out in their last class or have <BR>failed to excel in their new
class. The peter principle applies to <BR>flying also.<BR><BR>But
that's just my opinion, I could be wrong<BR><BR>Chris<BR><BR>mike mueller
wrote:<BR>> I've flown both classes in the last 3 years. I don't think
that this <BR>> discussion is going to get the rules changed.There are
way too many <BR>> Masters guys who are content with the way things are.
I would like to <BR>> see the guys that are stuck at the bottom of their
respective classes <BR>> have an easier time going back a class. The main
reason we have so <BR>> many Masters flyers is we advanced guys thru the
system before they <BR>> were ready to compete due to a lack of
competition. It's sad to see <BR>> guys hit a brick wall and end up
quiting the sport due to frustration.<BR>> I like the idea that I can fly
Fai or Masters based on my own <BR>> volition. In the midwest we always
have large fields in Masters and <BR>> it's pretty hard to beat the
field.<BR>> Mike<BR>><BR>> */"Woodward, Jim" /*
wrote:<BR>><BR>> Hi Anthony,<BR>>
Nice summary below. Another way to tackle this is to
have the<BR>> top-2 Masters pilots for each
district be required to move to FAI<BR>> for the
next season. This would open up the Masters class a bit<BR>>
and allow for some reinvigoration into the class and
allow some<BR>> new blood to have a shot at some
wood. While it may upset the two<BR>> guys who
would need to move for a season, it would "invigorate" a<BR>>
whole bunch more to practice with some enthusiasm.
After 1 season<BR>> of FAI they could move back
to Masters if they want.<BR>> Thanks,<BR>>
Jim<BR>> CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any<BR>>
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and<BR>> may contain confidential
and proprietary information. Any<BR>>
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is<BR>> prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), please<BR>> contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the<BR>>
original message.<BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
*From:*
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.f3a.us<BR>> [<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.f3a.us]">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.f3a.us]</A>
*On Behalf Of<BR>> *Anthony Romano<BR>>
*Sent:* Monday, February 04, 2008 10:29 AM<BR>>
*To:* NSRCA Mailing List<BR>>
*Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Exper Class??<BR>>
HMMM. Ponder this<BR>>
Masters is the largest class at just about any
contest in the country.<BR>> Masters presents a
large judging load.<BR>> Many want to leave
Masters as it stands.<BR>> Many Masters pilots
are frustrated by the extreme depth and<BR>>
competitiveness of the Masters class.<BR>>
A number of pilots want to fly FAI but are not ready
for F sequences.<BR>> Many FAI pilots don't have
the resources to prepare for 2 sequences.<BR>>
Many of the top FAI pilots don't participate because
we don't fly<BR>> F sequences.<BR>><BR>>
Adding an expert class that flies the current P
could help.<BR>> Sequence development and rules
are already done. It would<BR>> increases the
judge and competitor pool while improving the level<BR>>
of flying and judging. Really no more work in
scoring. So other<BR>> than an extra set of
awards, which most would gladly waive, what<BR>>
harm would it cause?<BR>><BR>>
If my club would let me CD a contest again I would
try it. Once<BR>> again I agree with Jason.
Should I be worried?<BR>><BR>>
Anthony<BR>><BR>><BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
From: jshulman@cfl.rr.com<BR>>
To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:49:09 -0500<BR>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to
killing Masters?<BR>> Sorry Doug, that makes too
much sense and follows the basis of the<BR>> way
pattern is supposed to be. That's unacceptable...lol.<BR>>
**8.2.5.** //There is no mandatory/// ///advancement
into FAI from<BR>> the Masters class.///
///Contestants may enter their current AMA<BR>>
class/// ///or the FAI class at/// a///ny contest
but not both.//<BR>> If a pilot does not like the
way FAI is flown, he does not have to<BR>> fly
it. An Expert class seems like a logical "solution" , but I<BR>>
believe it has been shot down many times before.
Wouldn't this be<BR>> a great way to get the
one's who want more of a challenge than<BR>>
Masters, but don't want to fly F, a class of their
own? It could<BR>> even be an "FAI type" of class
where Masters is still the highest<BR>> class to
advance into but pilots can jump into and out of Expert<BR>>
at any time. Establish a rule, written or not, that
the pattern<BR>> can not have any integrated
rolling loops or circles. This would<BR>> allow
the FAI pilots to continue to fly FAI, not just half of it.<BR>>
Masters and Expert pilots could judge FAI, FAI and
Expert judge<BR>> Masters, FAI and Masters judge
Expert.<BR>> Sportsman- gets feet wet<BR>>
Intermediate- likes wet feet<BR>>
Advanced- ready to learn more<BR>>
Masters- ready to fly more of what was
learned<BR>> *Expert- the imaginary perfect
in-between class<BR>> FAI- wants to be challenged
beyond what was learned<BR>> I really hope that
here locally (D3) we don't do away with the F<BR>>
sequence. But if that is what the majority decide is
best for the<BR>> class, so be it. I know of 4
pilots that want to continue to fly<BR>> F, and
they already compete in FAI.<BR>>
Regards,<BR>>
Jason<BR>>
www.jasonshulman.com<BR>>
www.shulmanaviation.com<BR>>
www.composite-arf.com<BR>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>>
*From:*
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> [<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]*On">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]*On</A>
Behalf Of<BR>> *Doug Cronkhite<BR>>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2008 4:14 PM<BR>>
*To:* 'NSRCA Mailing List'<BR>>
*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to
killing Masters?<BR>> Actually, I think the
solution is to just decide once and for all<BR>>
that Masters will not be the training ground for FAI
and make the<BR>> Masters sequence the
destination difficulty. I suspect that's<BR>>
actually been done several times and people just
keep trying to<BR>> change it.<BR>>
If people want to fly FAI, then they have to just
deal with the<BR>> problems that go along with
it. No more complaining that the jump<BR>> from
Masters to FAI is too hard or they don't have the right<BR>>
airplane, because well.. too bad.<BR>>
Seems like this topic goes around the list AT LEAST
once a year.<BR>> *From:*
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> [<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]</A>
*On Behalf Of<BR>> *vicenterc@comcast.net<BR>>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2008 12:43 PM<BR>>
*To:* NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List<BR>>
*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to
killing Masters?<BR>> Jason,<BR>>
I agree. Another solution is get the Master class
the level that<BR>> was 8-10 years ago. It was
between Advanced and FAI-F3A. It was<BR>> natural
for pilots wining Masters to move to FAI and not like we<BR>>
see now more moving from F3A to Masters. It is clear
to me that<BR>> the new Master schedule is equal
or harder than the new P schedule.<BR>>
--<BR>> Vicente "Vince"
Bortone<BR>><BR>>
-------------- Original
message --------------<BR>>
From: "JShulman"<BR>>
So if FAI pilots, that are
flying FAI now, want to fly FAI (P<BR>>
and F), and Masters pilots,
that are flying Masters now, want<BR>>
to fly Masters, what are we
really "discussing"? Are we<BR>>
looking for a middle class
to call Masters + for the guys that<BR>>
want to fly P and not F or
Masters? Sounds like the addition<BR>>
of an Expert class in AMA to
give the fliers in Masters, that<BR>>
want a P type of sequence, a
place to go?<BR>>
Regards,<BR>>
Jason<BR>>
www.jasonshulman.com<BR>>
www.shulmanaviation.com<BR>>
www.composite-arf.com<BR>><BR>>
--------------
Original message<BR>>
--------------<BR>>
From:
"John Fuqua" <BR>>
I
have been following this discussion with<BR>>
some
relutance to jump in. As a current<BR>>
Masters
pilot and old time F3A flyer I to<BR>>
once
pushed to have the Master schedule be<BR>>
the
P schedule. But you guys need to look<BR>>
at
what FAI has done to the P schedule.<BR>>
Here
is link to the F3A rules.<BR>>
<A
href="http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4">http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4</A><BR>><BR>>
FAI
has reduced the total maneuvers to 19<BR>>
including
a non scored takeoff and<BR>>
landing.
AMA Master is 23 including a<BR>>
scored
takeoff and landing.<BR>>
Going
to FAI would certainly speed things<BR>>
up
(which is what FAI intended for large<BR>>
contests
like WC to speed up the prelims<BR>>
and
get to the real contest).<BR>>
Not
sure this is what AMA/NSRCA membership<BR>>
wants
for a destination class.<BR>>
John<BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
*From:*<BR>>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>
[<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]</A><BR>>
*On
Behalf Of *Del Rykert<BR>>
*Sent:*
Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:14 AM<BR>>
*To:*
NSRCA Mailing List<BR>>
*Subject:*
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed<BR>>
topic
to killing Masters?<BR>>
Hi
Dave..<BR>>
I
never saw anyone suggesting to do away<BR>>
with
the Masters class.. I have thought of<BR>>
another
restriction/factor. Some of the<BR>>
FAI
maneuvers require a specific designed<BR>>
plane
to do them well. If you don't have<BR>>
such
an aircraft in your stable you can be<BR>>
looking
at a prohibitive change to switch<BR>>
to
those type of planes or live with the<BR>>
self
imposed handicap. Granted, some of<BR>>
the
best can make a good showing in FAI<BR>>
type
maneuvers but when needing the 1<BR>>
point
advantage in a high K-Factor<BR>>
maneuver
it does drive the contestants to<BR>>
seek
the best sled that works for them.<BR>>
A
good friend pointed out something I had<BR>>
lost
sight of once. He acquired a newer<BR>>
designed
airplane to his stable that<BR>>
performed
the maneuvers he was flying so<BR>>
much
easier. The design choice alone was<BR>>
raising
his scores by almost 1 point per<BR>>
maneuver.
With only a little bit of<BR>>
practice
with new plane. He never<BR>>
appreciated
the handicap he self imposed<BR>>
until
having better equipment. Heck.. I<BR>>
still
have coreless servos and not a<BR>>
digital
do I own.. How far behind am I? LOL.<BR>>
Del<BR>><BR>>
-----
Original Message -----<BR>>
*From:*
Dave Burton<BR>>
<BR>>
*To:*
'NSRCA Mailing List'<BR>>
<BR>>
*Sent:*
Saturday, February 02, 2008<BR>>
7:33
PM<BR>>
*Subject:*
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at<BR>>
locals?<BR>>
Del,
I've never advocated doing away<BR>>
with
the Master's class. I only<BR>>
suggested
adopting the most current<BR>>
FAI
P maneuver schedule and fly<BR>>
Master's
as a separate class as we do<BR>>
today.
Masters pilots would not be<BR>>
required
to advance to the FAI class<BR>>
unless
they chose to do so. Seems to<BR>>
me
like it solves several problems. It<BR>>
allows
a CD to have more flexibility<BR>>
in
arranging flight lines, a larger<BR>>
pool
of knowledgeable judges,<BR>>
eliminates
the need for NSRCA (or<BR>>
others)
to come up with a new schedule<BR>>
periodically
for the Masters Class. I<BR>>
don't
think there is any difference in<BR>>
the
difficulty level of the P schedule<BR>>
and
the Masters schedule today and<BR>>
would
not require any greater skill<BR>>
level
than Masters does today IMO.<BR>>
Dave
Burton<BR>><BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant
messaging. You<BR>> IM, we give. Learn
more.<BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>
<A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>><BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. <BR>> <BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR><BR>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we
give. Learn more. <A
href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join"><http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join></A>
<BR>
<HR align=center width="95%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT face="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10px">_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
size=2><FONT face="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10px"><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>