[NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

[Atwood, Mark]

I'm in favor of it being a guideline, but I don't think that verbiage belongs in the rule book.  That's best left for the NSRCA web site or some other medium to describe.

As for moving down, that's sort of the whole point.  To allow people to choose where they want to fly, up or down the classes as their time, skill, etc allows.   By nature you have to be competitive to enjoy this facet of the hobby.  If you find yourself in a situation where you are no longer competitive, (again, lack of time, money, skill, etc) then most will simply get frustrated and quit.  I'd much prefer to see someone take a step backward, and continue to have a rewarding experience, than to lose them from the sport.



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:01 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
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<mailto: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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09 07:04:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090513/56216c11/attachment.html>