[NSRCA-discussion] More flexibility in class selection?

[Ron Van Putte]

No.  I am saying that there has not been a survey by NSRCA, so the  
NSRCA leadership has no consensus upon which to base a rule change  
proposal.  Individuals are always able (and encouraged) to submit  
rule change proposals.  It is only in recent history that the NSRCA  
sponsored submitting proposals and even then, the proposals were  
always submitted by individuals.

Ron Van Putte

On Aug 15, 2007, at 4:44 PM, John Gayer wrote:

> Ron,
>
> Are you saying that I since I have no support from the NSRCA  
> leadership, I am entitled to go my own way and submit a rule change  
> directly to the R/C Aerobatics contest board?
> If there is no support for my viewpoint here, then I would be  
> seriously wasting my time taking your advice.
>
> John
>
>
> Ron Van Putte wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20070815/0c3b9fd1/attachment-0001.html