[NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

Wed May 13 05:17:37 AKDT 2009

Guidelines do not belong in rulebooks.  If you are gonna be rid of advancement wording then do it, but don't clutter up the rulebeook with useless verbage that has no power of enforcement, we have enough of that already with the S&G BS.

The current rules address the move down and give a person the ability to petition a CD and their district contest coordinator for a move down for "various reasons".  Examples of various reasons are listed as a long break in flying or change in ability, but are NOT explicitly limited to these reasons.  Now, just because a pilot "tries" Master and finds himself not competitive it does not mean that they are not "ready" to fly Masters and should be allowed to move back.  It just means they need more practice to get a trophy.  It's not like the Masters sequence is a secret until you get to see it at the first contest you sign up for it...:)

IMO....Get rid of forced advancement and add wording for that forces a class declaration at the begining of the calendar year (first contest) that does not allow moving down during the season.

Richard

________________________________
From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:01:02 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

I’m in favor of making advancement a guideline.  Perhaps we need to cover advancement as part of good sportsmanship and maybe include the ability for the district to vote on whether someone is abusing the absence of a mandatory advancement rule.  For example, leave it to the discretion of the District VP or a majority vote of the district members.  If the district decides someone needs to move up the competitor would have the option to stay where he or she is and not qualify for prizes and district points or move up at the end of the year.

What about the ability to move down?  For example, someone tries Masters for one or two contests and then decides they are still not ready and wants to move back down.  Do the current rules properly address this?

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of ronlock at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:12 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

Years ago when the Sportsman sequence was rather short, some CD's were doing the sequence twice.   A rule was written to codify the practice, and provide suggested procedures on exit/entry between the sequences, and handle scoring of one take off & landing, but two sequences.  It's still in the book,  para 14.8.   Given current length of Sportsman sequence, it's rarely used.

Ron Lockhart

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 7:37:29 PM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

Snaproll4 at aol.com wrote: 
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 
Interesting question. The AMA gives CDs broad powers to waive rules as they see fit, but those usually pertain to the safe operation of a contest. The caveat is that the CD must publish any variations within 30 days of the event and it is best to list them in the sanction application. Changes can be made on the spot due to weather, etc., but it would be hard to see how advancement fits into that. So I suspect taht it would be difficult for a CD to do waht you suggest. What a CD could do I suppose is to allow a certain individual to fly a lower class, but again, that might be a stretch.

_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4065 (20090511) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090513/40d46301/attachment.html>