[NSRCA-discussion] More flexibility in class selection?

[Ron Van Putte]

Well, it's your prerogative to take exception to the existing rules  
and it's also your prerogative to submit a rule change proposal  
(soon) for a rule doing what you want to do.  If passed by the R/C  
Aerobatics contest board, the rules would go into effect in January  
2009.

Ron Van Putte

On Aug 15, 2007, at 3:36 PM, John Gayer wrote:

> 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.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070815/9d6856d8/attachment.html