[NSRCA-discussion] More flexibility in class selection?

[Glen Watson]

John Gayer quote "As a competant advanced pilot of somewhat advanced years,
I have very little interest in moving to Masters in order to spend the rest
of my pattern years trying to break 900 against the parkers."

 

I fail to see the logic in this statement.  This same statement can be
applied to a Masters competitor when first entering FAI, especially at the
NATS.

 

Actually there is benefit to having quality competition within any class.
How else does one become better unless the bar is set high?

 

~Glen

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:11 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] More flexibility in class selection?

 

how about changing the AMA advancemant rule and keep it very simple? 
Your first contest of the year will determine your class for the year. You
may go up one class at any time during the year but may not go back down
during the year. At the start of the next year you may drop back one class
at your option, stay where you are or go up a class.
This is simple enough that your fellow competitiors will know if you are
following the rules. It will also be up to your fellow competitiors to
insure that you are not sandbagging.
I also feel strongly that sandbagging in Masters should not be allowed. If
you disregard Sportsman, then half of the classes allow parking. Obviously,
F3A has to be a parking lot but I see no reason to allow this behavior in
Masters. As a competant advanced pilot of somewhat advanced years, I have
very little interest in moving to Masters in order to spend the rest of my
pattern years trying to break 900 against the parkers.
I fail to see the logic in having two destination classes. Shouldn't we all
aspire to progress to FAI? The current Masters schedule is designed as a
stepping stone to Masters. Let's use it that way.

John Gayer
NSRCA 632


BUDDYonRC at aol.com wrote: 

There was a proposal on the last rules cycle that would allow a person to
move up and test his ability then move back if he had not attained the
skills required for the higher class.  I personally think it is a good idea
and I also see no need for the point system like someone said if someone
abuses the privilege we can solicit Earl and four other guys his size to
take him behind the barn and splain to him why he will be moving up. I
believe peer pressure is all the control we need.

I think this is worth a try. 

For those who have the ability and desire to achieve a spot at the top I
don't see that we have a problem.

Buddy    





  _____  

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .

 





  _____  



 
_______________________________________________
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/20070815/605d0d18/attachment.html