[NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

Mon May 11 15:23:46 AKDT 2009

If the takeoff and landing were not scored, then it may be possible to have
a couple of classes fly the sequence twice which would really speed up a
contest. Probably no one would carry enough fuel to fly Masters twice.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
Snaproll4 at aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 7:14 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

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> 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
> 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

  _____  

An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585010x1201462743/aol?redir=htt
p://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=May
Excfooter51109NO62>  Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090511/13be7008/attachment.html>