[NSRCA-discussion] More flexibility in class selection?

[John Gayer]

Ron,
I take exception to those rules. There should be only one destination 
class. Why shouldn't there be a mandatory move from Masters to F3A? They 
are just two patterns with a natural progression as there is between 
Advanced and Masters.
Parking and sandbagging is a mental state, not a rules violation.
john

Ron Van Putte wrote:

> The Master class is the top AMA class and there is no mandatory move 
> from the Master class to F3A, so how can there be "parkers" or 
> "sandbaggers"?  
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 2:10 PM, John Gayer wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <mailto: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/20070815/8b831272/attachment-0001.html