[NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification
Mark Atwood
atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Sun May 6 18:37:13 AKDT 2007
Just my 2 cents, But it¹s actually intriguing to me. Most of us fly for
the challenge of some sort...learning a new maneuver, bettering ourselves,
beating someone else, SOME challenge. That¹s why we fly pattern...otherwise
we¹d be sport flyers like the rest.
I love going to the nats. Did pretty well in Advanced and Masters. But
when I moved up to FAI I lost interest. My position was locked. Local
events had a predetermined rank (not bias...just a large disparity in flying
ability) so the motivation to practice was low. The Nats... Well, for most
of us, making the finals isn¹t really an option, or even a fantasy. I
neither have the time nor the natural ability to fly at that level. Even
if I had the large amount of time necessary to make that ginormous leap in
talent level, I¹d probably choose to spend it other ways (two kids).
Sooooo...long story short, I began attending the nats more as a social
event. Practice was eh...whatever. The only ³Challenge² became how you
placed compared to other locals competitors...similar to a local contest.
THEN came the Semi Finals. Suddenly I have a new challenge. A new goal.
Something to practice for. A reason to go to local contests and be
prepared. I¹m excited about pattern again, because there¹s a reason to
compete.
I think a Nats qualifier would do for SOME...the same thing. Elevate the
status of the competition...give people a goal..to MAKE it to the nats. To
be ³invited² to compete in the National Championship of their event. That¹s
pretty cool.
I¹m not saying it wouldn¹t have down sides...and those may be larger than
the upsides. But it would likely increase local participation (More current
pattern flyers showing up at contests...not necessarily more NEW flyers,
though I think ³prestige² is a big part of why some people take the sport
up, and we¹ve lost that over the years)
-Mark
On 5/1/07 8:55 AM, "Tony Stillman" <tony at radiosouthrc.com> wrote:
> Fred:
> That has always been the draw for the TOCŠ Look how many people worked so
> hard to be eligible?
>
>
> Tony Stillman, President
>
> Radio South
>
> 3702 N. Pace Blvd
>
> Pensacola, FL 32505
>
> 1-800-962-7802
>
> www.radiosouthrc.com
>
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Fred Huber
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:16 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification
>
>
> It may seem backwards... but the harder someone has to work to be ALLOWED to
> compete, the hmore people will want to prove they are good enough to compete.
>
>
>
> NASCAR is a good example... its essentially impossible for "Joe Average" to
> get a chance to drive in the Indy 500. But you'll find thousands of dirt
> tracks with people trying to prove they could outdrive the guys who do get
> there...
>
>
>
> Make something exclusive and people will work to be included.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Rick Wallace <mailto:rickwallace45 at hotmail.com>
>>
>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>
>> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:46 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification
>>
>>
>> Agree with Ron, Mike Hester and others. What's broken here? What's the
>> problem we're trying to fix?
>> For the record, Nats attendance from 1995-2006 has been dropping in all
>> classes except Masters - trend line shows: (based on Nats attendance
>> information from Don Ramsey's website)
>> Sportsman/ Intermediate trends DOWN from 21 to about 16
>> Advanced trends DOWN from 22 to about 19
>> Masters trends UP from abot 36 to about 41
>> FAI trends DOWN from about 39 to about 25
>>
>> So why are we discussing qualifiers? If anything we should be discussing how
>> to prevent the demise of Pattern?
>>
>> My $.02
>> Rick
>> NSRCA 2972
>>
>>
>> From: ronlock at comcast.net
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:13:06 +0000
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification
>>
>> Whatever we are "fixing" with a NATS qualification system, doesn't seem worth
>>
>> the number of things that get broken by the qualification process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron Lockhart
>>
>>
>>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>> From: Gray E Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com>
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> I think any kind of qualifications for the NATS is a bad idea, for several
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> 1. For 99.9% of us this is a hobby. We can call it a sport, but its a hobby.
>>> Why? Because 99.9% of us work a real job, and very very few make any money
>>> from participation in this hobby.
>>>
>>> 2. Elevate the stature of the NATS? To who? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The
>>> Anti AMA organization who does not have a NATS? We have a "Worlds" and it
>>> requires qualification, so in essence this is already what you are asking
>>> for. Right now anyone who goes to the NATS has a higher (false) stature at
>>> the local level anyway.
>>>
>>> 3. Because it is a hobby, with contests run by hobbyist, and most AMA people
>>> are volunteers, I cannot imagine how in the world the AMA or NSRCA could
>>> ever organize and execute and fair qualification system. I derive this
>>> opinion based on the "many" (sarcasm) people within both the AMA and NSRCA
>>> that line up at nomination time to serve as an officer. Local AMA clubs,
>>> AMA regional reps, and especially the NSRCA has a hard time finding anyone
>>> to do day to day work. If you volunteer to be nominated, you can almost be
>>> assured that you can be President.... Heck the NSRCA is so loaded with
>>> politics that officers quit in the middle of terms, and people execute
>>> personal agendas both in the rules formation and even personal aspects at
>>> the NATS. AMA and NSRCA should only promote to increase participation.
>>>
>>> 4. There are some who may only attend the NATS and do well and even win. Why
>>> would we want to make them a! ttend l ocal stuff to qualify when they do not
>>> need it. This applies mostly the top FAI guys. They do not need the local
>>> level to excel, and they can step in at the NATS and kick eveyone's butt.
>>> Why inconvienience them from their job, family or whatever? If they can
>>> show up at the NATS and win is that not still getting the best?
>>>
>>> 5. Last-I used to be much more involved with pattern than I am now. My kids
>>> are of the age that it is more important to spend time doing their
>>> activities than mine, as they will be gone before I realize it. I cannot
>>> make 6-7 contests (in 6 months) like I used to, and making the NATS is tough
>>> too, but if I did decide that I could make the NATS, the last thing I would
>>> want to worry about is having to make 3 contests in a row to "qualify" for
>>> the NATS. Actually this point is the same as #1-its a HOBBY. Those whom want
>>> different move up to FAI and "qualify" for the Worlds.
>>>
>>>
>>> A suggestion.....
>>> Start with the FAI USA team. Why does that selection contest allow whomever
>>> wants to show up fly at that contest? Implement a qualification sytem for
>>> the USA team selection contest first. The Semi-Pros (not so sure we have
>>> 100% "pros" anywhere) in these ranks should love it, because then those top
>>> 6 (who are we kidding... it may only be 5 who truly have a chance)
>>> nationwide flyers going for those 3 spots do not have to sit thru 3 days of
>>> wannabe FAI schmoes.
>>>
>>> I cannot imagine that a qualification system would do anything but hurt NATS
>>> attendence. I do not understand the point of it at all. The NAT is not
>>> overloaded. I agree that it is not bad to discuss anything, but if you
>>> really think this is a #1 priority topic (I have not seen any others tossed
>>> out there), then I think it shows your personal disconnect with the AMA
>>> pattern community,402,403,404.
>>>
>>> < FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Signed,
>>>
>>> Peace, Love and Smarter Missiles.........
>>>
>>>
>>> Gray Fowler
>>> Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
>>> Radomes and Specialty Apetures
>>> Technical Staff Composites Engineering
>>> Raytheon
>>> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
>>> From: gfowler at raytheon.com
>>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:21:39 +0000
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/781 - Release Date: 4/30/2007 9:14
>> AM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070507/f34af05b/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list