<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoNormalIndent, li.MsoNormalIndent, div.MsoNormalIndent
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"E-mail Signature Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.E-mailSignatureChar
{mso-style-name:"E-mail Signature Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"E-mail Signature";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.emailstyle18
{mso-style-name:emailstyle18;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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 1<sup>st</sup>, 3 for 2<sup>nd</sup> and 1 for 3<sup>rd</sup>
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 1<sup>st</sup> 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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Anthony
Abdullah<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Jim,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>So, like the old Saturday Night Live sketch....
Nevermind. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
<hr size=1 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> J N Hiller <jnhiller@earthlink.net><br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:58:49 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I think the right approach is on the way,
dump mandatory advancement and allow moving back and change the advanced
sequence every two years.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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. </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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. </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Jim Hiller </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=emailstyle18><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<b>On Behalf Of </b>Anthony
Abdullah<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>Here is a
silly question:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'><br>
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". </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>Thanks</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>Anthony</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style='margin-left:.5in'>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>
<hr size=1 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'> Stuart
Chale <schale@optonline.net><br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:26:02 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question<br>
</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'><br>
8 to 1 middle of the 9th.<br>
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) :)<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 :)<br>
<br>
Stuart C.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>