[NSRCA-discussion] More flexibility in class selection?
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Wed Aug 15 15:30:13 AKDT 2007
Glen,
yes I won all three contests I have entered in the past two seasons by
narrow margins against some good competition. However, there was not
very much of it. the three contests had a total of nine advanced entries
and that includes me.
From the current point method of advancement that is 4*3+3*3+2*3 = 27
points in two years.
The Lubbock contest is coming up. Is eastern D6 going to show?
John
Glen Watson wrote:
> According to the current rules there is no mandatory move from Masters
> to FAI.
>
>
>
> John, I looked up results for the western D6 contest posted on Don
> Ramsey's web site. Appears you're the guy in Advanced in that area
> the other guys wish would move up...hmmmm. Trust me I felt the same
> way you did about Masters when I made the move from Advanced.
>
>
>
> Wish our geography was different so we could compete together. As
> Arch stated in his post we all improve from pushing each other.
>
>
>
> ~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 4:35 PM
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] More flexibility in class selection?
>
>
>
> Arch,
> your statement that the two patterns(FAI and Masteres) are not related
> is unsupported. I would contend that the only difference in difficulty
> between them is in the rolling elements.
>
> You seem to be proving my point for me.
> You are not willing to move to FAI until you win the NATS in Masters.
> That's one hell of a promotion criteria. There certainly wouldn't be a
> lot of movement between classes if we all took that approach.
> On the other hand, I am supposed to move up and take my lumps at sub
> 900s in Masters?
>
> I suggest that if some of you eastern D6ers moved to FAI, you would
> then have two hotly contested classes where a number of flyers could
> win a round....
>
> John
> western D6
>
> rcpattern at stx.rr.com <mailto:rcpattern at stx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I take exception to this. FAI and Masters are not related. I have
>
>been flying masters several years, finishing as high as second this
>
>year at the NATS. Yes, I'm coming back next year in Masters. I have
>
>a goal of winning the nats before I move up. I can be realistic...at
>
>some point with enough practice I might be able to crack the finals in
>
>FAI at the NATS, but I'm smart enough to know that realistically
>
>winning FAI isnt going to happen. I would also argue that the guys
>
>that have been flying masters for years, just raise the bar. I know
>
>in different areas I've flown around the country, these are the guys
>
>that make guys fly better. Show up in District 6 sometime, and fly
>
>Masters...you'll definitely get better. 6 of the top 10 at the NATS
>
>were D6. The means, guy that finished in the top 10 at the NATS in
>
>what is probably top to bottom the most competitive class have trouble
>
>getting wood at a local contest. I can promise you though, the guys
>
>that fly here have greatly
>
>improved their flying than they would have in other parts of the
>
>country. Glen has set the bar here for a while, and I know the other
>
>guys are pushing to catch him, and if you look now at local contest
>
>scores, it is getting closer. At any given time down here in D6, I'd
>
>say 6 or 7 guys can take a round in masters. Now that makes it fun. I
>
>know when I was flying in D4 last year. Every contest I went to, was
>
>Verne K, and Steve Miller....I knew I'd better put up great flights
>
>every flight and this makes you a better pilot. I think you should
>
>try moving up...take a year of the low 900's, and then see where you
>
>are the following year. I bet you start moving up and before you know
>
>it you would be right there in the mix. This is a competitive
>
>activity and the only way you improve is flying against people who are
>
>better than you.
>
>
>
>Arch
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>
>
>Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:41 pm
>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] More flexibility in class selection?
>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>>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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <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 <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/a1c6d840/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list