[NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

[Snaproll4 at aol.com]

CD's used to have the ability to have Sportsman fly twice which isn't in  
the rule book.  They now can have an Expert class which isn't in the rule  
book.  Can CD's suspend the advancement rule?  Just thinking out  loud.
 
Steve 
 
 
In a message dated 5/11/2009 11:43:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
derekkoopowitz at gmail.com writes:

We can put some explicit written policies in place for the NSRCA that  
state that schedules will be changed only when deemed necessary or in the  event 
that a maneuver/schedule presents a problem such as safety, difficulty,  
length, etc.  This would prevent the NSRCA from willy-nilly changing the  
schedules.  I do think we should pull them out of the rulebook just  because it 
would be much easier for us to control what happens to them versus  being 
held to AMA's timetable of change.
 
Mark:  To answer your question on how we go about this?  These  need to be 
presented to the membership as part of the survey to determine if  this is 
in fact the best route to go for the membership.  If someone  would like to 
put this in writing and send to me two (2) paragraphs for the  rules survey:
 
1.  First paragraph is the question being asked.  For example -  Should the 
NSRCA remove all wording from the rule book as it pertains to class  
advancement?
2.  Second paragraph is a clear description of why voting YES  would be a 
good thing and also a clear description of why voting NO would be a  good 
thing as well.  We need to hear reasons why both a YES and NO would  work.


On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:05 AM, <_verne at twmi.rr.com_ 
(mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com) > wrote:

I'm in agreement with removing the advancement rules or at  least turning 
them into an unenforceable guideline.

I have  reservations on removing the schedules from the rulebook for a 
variety of  reasons. First of all, AMA should be an integral part of the process 
much  like FAI is for their respective schedules. There needs to be some 
stability  to the posted schedules and maneuver descriptions/downgrades and I 
think the  AMA Rulebook is the best place for that. The NSRCA website can 
certainly  provide that in addition to AMA, but the AMA Rulebook should be the 
first  stop for someone seeking the rules who may or may not even know 
about the  NSRCA. I'm not against making the changing of schedules a simpler 
process in  the event we discover something wrong with a schedule, but I see 
inherent  danger in creating a "moving target" with schedules that get changed 
 frequently. If this discussion has shown anything, it's shown that a  
concensus of what the ideal schedule would be at each level is not an  
attainable goal. Kinda like the poor sap that takes his fiance along to pick  out her 
engagement ring
("I'll never make THAT mistake again) In  any event, I think it's a 
dangerous path. The key component in all of this  is stability and the assurance 
that we're all practicing what will actually  be flown at the next contest.

Verne Koester


---- "Atwood wrote:
> Not that the debate on 2 vs 3  rolls isn't fascinating, but....
>
> Can we wrap up the original  discussion regarding advancement?
>
> I heard a semi consensus  on 2 things that I think we should aggressively 
pursue
>
> 1)  Removing any forced advancement rules (possibly changing to a 
guideline, or  possibly eliminating the language altogether)
>        Reason: Forced advancement simply harms more people than it helps. 
 Very few if any abuse the system, while many have been compelled to  fly 
in a class inappropriate to their skills or comfort, discouraging some,  
causing others to quit, and overall reducing the level of enjoyment contrary  to 
what the rule was intended for.   A guideline would still be  valuable to 
help those who are trying to make the advancement decision,  however that may 
be better placed outside of the Rule Book (such as the  NSRCA web site)
>
> 2) Removal of the pattern schedules from the  rule book, in an effort to 
simplify the change procedure.
>    Reason: In conjunction with the change above, virtually every  class 
is a "destination" class for some, and as such, some variety is  desirable at 
every level.  De-coupling the sequences from the rule book  would allow 
greater ease in changing the schedules, and greater ease of  change also 
reduces the critical nature of "getting it right" the first  time, which would 
allow for more creativity and  experiementation.
>
>
>
> Thoughts??
>
>  How do we get this done...
>
> -Mark
>  _______________________________________________
> 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_ 
(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_ 
(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

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585010x1201462743/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=May
Excfooter51109NO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090511/1a8ef48d/attachment.html>