[NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

Atwood, Mark atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Wed May 13 06:49:55 AKDT 2009 

I agree completely.

No issue that it's currently in place and should be taken advantage of.  I would just like to see the rule changed when possible to eliminate the hoop jumping that has to be done now.  It's a burden, and a hit to self esteem to have to "petition" to fly in the lower class.  Easier to just quit...which is the problem.

And let's be honest, this isn't a daily problem, or we would have already addressed it.  But if it helps even a small few, then it will be a good thing.

We basically do it now with Masters and FAI.  I realize those are two different governing bodies, but there's no illusion that FAI isn't the next step above Masters.  We have no real problems with people moving between them at will.  I would like to see the same freedom for those who's skill and/or time has them "stuck" between Advanced and Masters...or between Intermediate and Advanced, etc.



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:43 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement


 While I agree with the spirit of what your saying Mark there is a rule in place and we have to abide by it until it's officially changed.
 As the interim NSRCA D5VP I will work within the system to accomodate anyone who wants to drop down a class in D5. John's email conveys the system that exists in black and white. We want to help those that need it here. Kind of like our version of a stimulus package.
 I hope that the rule can be changed sooner than later. Mike

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 9:26 AM
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
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

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list