[NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

Mon May 11 15:35:49 AKDT 2009

Yes, but that puts the burden on the contestent to ask every CD before they make the trip to a contest.  

Let's face it, the "point police" aren't out there enforcing this rule in the first place. This is self imposed by honest people who don't want to be seen as competing unfairly and often impose unrealistic expectations on themselves to the point where they get discouraged and quit.   

I don't recall anyone being told they can't fly in a class and then having it forcibly enforced.   

I could argue that the rule should be eliminated based solely on its selective  enforcement! :)  

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon May 11 19:13:42 2009
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 Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585010x1201462743/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=MayExcfooter51109NO62> 