[NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement

[Mark Atwood]

Does he need one??  I thought he moved directly from Adv to FAI?  I would
think he could go back to Adv....

But that's my whole point.  The only classes where some type of mandatory
move makes sense is the only place where we don't have one. AND IT WORKS
FINE.

Let's let people fly where THEY feel comfortable and competitive.  If I lose
a contest to a "Sandbagger" than A) I still suck and can get better, and B)
they need to get a life and realize that it's a hobby.

How often does this really happen??

I think a simple guideline that helps advise people on where they should be
is the better approach.


On 2/2/09 4:12 PM, "Tony Stillman" <tony at radiosouthrc.com> wrote:

> Just contact your AMA VP.  I have granted 3 or 4 such moves down over the
> last 3 years.
> 
> Sorry Jason, you WON'T be granted one.... LOL...
> 
> 
> Tony Stillman, President
> Radio South, Inc.
> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322
> Brunswick, GA  31525
> 1-800-962-7802
> www.radiosouthrc.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J Shu
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:05 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment
> 
> Why not have pilots that wish to move back a class submit a request to
> (who?) and then that person contact some pilots in the area
> to find out the scoop if it should be allowed or not.
> 
> I would allow myself to move back to Advanced... I really should... oops, I
> can...hehehehe.
> 
> Regards,
> Jason
> www.shulmanaviation.com
> www.composite-arf.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; "Tom
> Simes" <simestd at netexpress.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment
> 
> 
> Just one of the MANY scenarios that supports just having a guideline
> approach.  I like the data that PACSS will have, but again, let's use it to
> advise people where they best fit, not force them.
> 
> I don't know of many trophy hounds that are so UN competitive that they
> would fly beneath themselves just for a plaque.  I'm sure they exist...but
> I'm also sure they have other more serious problems in life than me worrying
> about making them "move up".  lol
> 
> 
> On 2/2/09 3:43 PM, "Tom Simes" <simestd at netexpress.com> wrote:
> 
>> Mark Atwood wrote:
>>> I¹m coming in very late to this discussion, but regardless of the system,
> I
>>> really think the primary change needs to be that instead of ANY mandatory
>>> system, we change the key word to be ³Guideline²...meaning it¹s a
> guideline
>>> for when to move, but not a fast rule.  This is pattern...a hobby.  Yes,
> a
>>> competitive one, but there¹s no huge money riding on it (certainly not at
>>> the levels that are subjected to this) and there will always be valid
>>> exceptions that no system can take into account.  So while we can and
> should
>>> work on improving the advancement system to be as accurate as possible, I
>>> will likely submit a proposal that simply changes the existing system to
> be
>>> a guideline, rather than mandatory.
>>> 
>>> I personally think that fixes almost everything. (well...with regard to
>>> pattern advancement). :)
>>> 
>>> -Mark
>> 
>> In PACSS, Gene already has the underpinnings built and working for
>> national results reporting.  I'm not advocating one way or another,
>> just throwing out a data point that one of the hardest parts to
>> coordinate is already in place.
>> 
>> With regard to mandatory advancement, one aspect that I think deserves
>> careful attention is how to handle people getting back into pattern
>> after an absence or people who have reached a point in their lives
>> where their skills are in decline for one reason or another.
>> 
>> It's sad to see a competitor who progressed into the higher ranks
>> years ago and feels obligated to stay there but whose skills are
>> obviously not adequate for the class anymore.  If mandatory
>> advancement is being considered, there should also be a mechanism to
>> move downward as well - instead of just leaving the hobby.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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