<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18702"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=3 face=Arial>
<DIV>Mark, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> For the last ten years I've been
telling anyone who will listen that the current advancement system is
flawed. I can name you at least 5 pilots that have dropped out of pattern
because of forced advancement. Is that what the rules are meant to
achieve? In my first year of Masters, another Masters pilot came to me and
said "I'm sick of finishing last". I never saw him again. My first
year of Masters was the biggest eye opener. Everyone has top equipment,
practices and wants to win. The worst aspect of the current rule is not
being able to test a higher class.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Steve Miller</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 5/8/2009 9:10:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
atwoodm@paragon-inc.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>I think
you're both right. <BR><BR>Arch, the vertical upline does have some merit,
just judging by how many struggle to get full vertical and then push out
straight. My son is doing it with a big stik 40 with an old KB 40 and its ok.
Not a huge vertical, but workable. He actually struggles more with power with
the loops.<BR><BR>As for the rest of the maneuvers in sportsman, they simply
deserve more time to fly. There old sequence was so short we often had
them fly through it twice. This is effectively the same thing. <BR><BR>As for
three rolls, I completely agree. If you can't do 3 rolls by the time you've
mastered Intermediate you have no hope of slow rolls or 4pts in advanced.
<BR><BR>Let's keep in mind that these maneuvers are to be mastered when
LEAVING the class, not entering it. They're supposed to be a challenge
when you start a new class. <BR><BR>Eliminating forced advancement would allow
people to remain in the lower class until they could at least fly the maneuver
safely if not judge worthy. <BR>--------------------------<BR>Sent
from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message
-----<BR>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
<nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org><BR>To: 'General pattern
discussion' <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Fri May 08
08:59:29 2009<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
System<BR><BR>Richard,<BR><BR><BR><BR>So your answer about the 3 rolls is lets
not put it in, because it is hard? It was a maneuver that was done for
years with no problems, but it did make you learn to fly through the
rolls. <BR><BR><BR><BR>The vertical upline doesn’t really teach
much. Try it with a .40 size sport plane. You are right, it
doesn’t have to be a certain height. But you better be starting high as the
next maneuver is a split S. Those last 5 maneuvers don’t really teach
anything. Sportsman should be about introducing people to pattern and
allowing the guy with the .40 sport plane a chance to compete.
<BR><BR><BR><BR>Arch<BR><BR><BR><BR>From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Lewis<BR>Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:47 AM<BR>To: General pattern
discussion<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
System<BR><BR><BR><BR>Arch,<BR><BR><BR><BR>The vertical upline is a great
teaching maneuver for sportsman and requires no more power than a stall
turn. There is NO criteria for the length of this line, and a box entry
just before it. I tell every sportsman pilot I meet, no matter what they
are flying this: Enter the box as high as necessary to do as short an upline
as possible or that the plane is capable of and setup for the split-S.
Overall, it's a quick and easy lesson in airspace management. The radii
are also not specified, just need to be equal. So often we see sportsman
approach center and pull a radically tight radius and expose nasty attitude
changes. This ia another opportunity to teach. It is also an easy,
low risk lesson in aircraft attitude and trimming, as transitioning through a
radius from horizontal to vertical directly in front of you requires decent
trimming (right thrust, etc...) and also a degree of confidence that the wings
are level. Also a opportunity to teach.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Put three rolls
in intermediate and watch the intermediate pilots drop like
flies........<BR><BR><BR><BR>Richard<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>From:
Archie Stafford <astafford@swtexas.net><BR>To: jpavlick@idseng.com;
General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Sent:
Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:42:50 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Advancement System<BR><BR>I think one thing we need to really get back to
basics on is designing the schedules based around the skills necessary to be
able to move on to the next sequence. I think we have picked a bunch of
maneuvers, but are missing out on what skills are needed. The current
sportsman sequence is way too long and requires a lot more power than a
beginner sequence should. There was a time when you could fly a .40
sport plane and be competitive, but those days are gone. What is gained
by the vertical upline on center maneuver? You have to have a plane with
a reasonable thrust to weight ratio as the next maneuver is a split s.
There are 2 half reverse Cuban eights. You could conceivably get rid of
the last 5 maneuvers and not be missing anything. You would also allow a
true .40 size first low wing plane a chance at being competitive. I
understand the argument that theoretically those planes are already
competitive, but in reality they aren’t. <BR><BR><BR><BR>The biggest
thing that people in sportsman need is the basic understanding of a contest
and the ability to learn to fly a straight line and maintain altitude.
Then as you progress you can add other maneuvers. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Two
maneuvers I think need to be put back into intermediate are the 3 horizontal
rolls…3, not 2. With 3 you have to learn to fly through them.
Also, the double stall turn was a great maneuver for that sequence.
Straight inverted flight is another important element that gets missed, even
with the inverted exit. As you progress into Advanced maybe
introduce snaps and a spin, with a couple more inverted exits to actually
prepare someone for Masters. <BR><BR><BR><BR>I think if the sequences
get viewed as building blocks, then the maneuvers needed will take care of
themselves. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Just my
.02,<BR><BR><BR><BR>Arch<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>From:
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John
Pavlick<BR>Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:35 PM<BR>To: General pattern
discussion<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
System<BR><BR><BR><BR>Bill,<BR><BR>What district are you in? Maybe Ziggy and I
will take a road trip this summer. That could make things interesting for you
guys. I'm staying in Advanced as long as I can or at least until I lose my day
job. :)<BR><BR><BR><BR>John Pavlick<BR><BR>--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Bill Glaze
<billglaze@bellsouth.net> wrote:<BR><BR> From: Bill Glaze
<billglaze@bellsouth.net><BR> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System<BR> To: "General pattern
discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR> Date:
Thursday, May 7, 2009, 7:36 PM<BR><BR> Joe:<BR><BR>
Advanced last weekend in Winston = 0 contestants. A couple of weeks ago
in Green Sea: Advanced = 1 contestant. I don't believe that we've had
more than 4 contestants in Advanced in a single contest for 2 years--maybe
more. I haven't thought much about just why that might be, but right
now, it's a very unpopular class. I concur that most of the dropouts
seem to be either from the Advanced class, or, from those who are forced into
the Advanced class. No matter how/why they're forced to move up, it's
just the way it is right now.<BR><BR> Bill Glaze<BR><BR>
----- Original Message ----- <BR><BR>
From: Joe Lachowski <mailto:jlachow@hotmail.com>
<BR><BR> To: NSRCA Discussion List
<mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org> <BR><BR>
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:32 AM<BR><BR>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System<BR><BR>
<BR><BR> I'm for getting rid
of advancement in the Advanced class for one. This is the class a number
flyers who stick around seem to hit their skill level wall and
disappear. It also appears to be the smallest class attended at local
contests these days. At least in D1 it is.<BR>
<BR> I'd also like to see the option of
being able to move back after one year in the next higher class. This would be
a allowed one time only.<BR> <BR>
To make frequent sequence change doable, instead of having to
come up with new ones every 4 years or so, maybe we should just come up with a
good set of say 4 for each class. You can rotate through them every 2 years
and start from the first one all over again after they've cycled through. This
could easily be done for Intermediate and Advanced. Probably even Masters.
After about 8 years the pool of flyers for the most part will have changed in
each class anyway. Establishing these sequences will probably take a well
thought process of about two years by some dedicated people willing to take it
on. You could also just change a handful of maneuvers in these sequences after
the 8 year cycle to keep things a little fresh for those that are still flying
a particular class after the 8 year cycle. This is a lot of work up front but
in teh long run it is easier. <BR> <BR>
As far as Sportsman goes, you just need one good sequence
that teaches the basic skills to get you to Intermediate. The one we have now
is pretty close if not good enough.<BR> <BR>
Just some ideas.<BR>
<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>
From: anthonyr105@hotmail.com<BR> To:
nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR> Date: Thu, 7
May 2009 10:48:08 -0400<BR> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System<BR>
<BR> Good idea Earl. I think peer pressure alone
will suffice but if we want an organize system this has merit. <BR>
Do we realize if we allow the other classes to become
destinations then the sequences should change more frequently. <BR>
<BR> Anthony<BR>
<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>
From: ejhaury@comcast.net<BR> To:
nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR> Date: Thu, 7
May 2009 09:24:18 -0500<BR> Subject:
[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System<BR><BR> In
the discussion regarding the Masters sequence / length a few competitors
mentioned that increasing the difficulty would cause them to stop competing.
Folks, this needs to be addressed! We can't tolerate a system where folks are
forced to a level where they can't enjoy pattern and/or chose to quit.
<BR><BR> <BR><BR> There
are generally two views of the current system. One is that it is cast in stone
and needed to force the "trophy hound" to move to the proper class. The other
is that peer pressure alone will result in proper classification. I think that
there's a third possibility, some folks prematurely move to a higher class for
the "prestige" of that class. There's likely reality / unreality to each view
which supports that some process is needed. While there have been some changes
to smooth the advancement process, nothing has changed for a person who finds
themselves in a class that exceeds their skills. I know - there's a process to
petition for dropping to a lower class, but it's intended for hardship cases
rather than being uncompetitive.<BR><BR>
<BR><BR> OK - going back to the first paragraph -
how might we fix this? My suggestion is to change the rules so that folks who
gather points in the lower percentile of a class for X number of events (or
rounds, or time span?) have the option to stay where they are, or move back a
class. The current advancement rules would be applied to folks in the upper
percentile. It seems that this would provide an option for the casual
competitor to seek a comfort level and retain a reasonable advancement process
for the serious competitor. Of course there are administrative issues,
probably best to simply use data within each district, as most already track
points for district championships. A district based data set would also best
weight performance within one's local peer group.<BR><BR>
<BR><BR> Just my thoughts - how about the
group discussing this some.<BR><BR> <BR><BR>
Earl<BR><BR>
<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>
Hotmail® goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.
<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009>
<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it
out.
<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009>
<BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><BR>
<BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT><DIV CLASS="aol_ad_footer" ID="26d7232285e7e485d6fa7e384ea6ef78"><br/><font style="color:black;font:normal 10pt arial,san-serif;"> <hr style="margin-top:10px"/><B>A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. <A HREF=http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322931x1201367171/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=115%26bcd=May5509AvgfooterNO115>See yours in just 2 easy steps!</A></B></font></DIV></BODY></HTML>