[NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

Wed May 13 10:40:37 AKDT 2009

Gotta agree with Mark on that one. I went from winning the district championship in Intermediate to bringing up the rear in Advanced. Other than being a hack of a pilot it was a matter of circumstance. I started and finished graduate school, we lost my primary and conveniently located flying field, I changed jobs, and then when I thought I was all set for a great come back year, I lost my primary competition plane early in the spring. This was all over the course of 5 or 6 seasons and the sequence changed at least once during that time. 

Mind you, I have not quite pointed out of advanced but I can certainly understand how a change in circumstances can change a person's ability to be competitive in a certain class.

Anthony
NSRCA #759

--- 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: "'nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 12:27 PM

Has this caused a problem beteen FAI and Masters?  People are free to move about
there and it works well.  I doubt there would be constant movement. 

Regarding moving back, it has less to do ith ability or age (though those are
both factors) than situation.  Simply changing jobs can take you from being able
to practice 3-4 times a week, to 3-4 time a summer. Add a new sequence to that
mix and suddenly your ability to participate in the higher class is gone. 

I just don't see the problems with movement. There's so little in
FAI/Masters that's its hard to believe there would be a lot in lower
classes. 
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed May 13 12:12:56 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

I disagree that we should make it so that people can move from class-to-class
on a contest-by-contest basis.  If we remove forced advancement, then we
elimitate the problem of people being forced into a class they feel they are not
ready for.  That, by itself, solves the problem that may cause someone to
"need" or "want" to move back a class after
"trying" it out and finding they are not "ready" (meaning
they cannot win it on the first try????).  Folks will know if they are ready to
fly the next level, the sequences are not secret and can be practiced/flown by
anyone on their own time.  In order to cause them to consider their decision
carefully, they should be required to stay a minimum of a season in their chosen
class (move up if they like, not down)...If after that seaon, they want to
swallow their pride and move back, so be it....a season, even in the southern
districts is only 5 or 6 contests at most for most pilots.

Now if we are considering an older flyer who may not have the skills/ability to
compete in Masters any longer, that's a different story, and what I've
read and heard from MAsters pilots, once a person flies for some time as a
Masters pilot, they are just not gonna swallow their pride and move back to
Intermediate, no matter how easy it may be...

If we are considering the flier who tops out at Advanced and want to stay there
permanently.  No forcred advancment solve that one too....

   _____  

From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:26:50 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement

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 <http://www.avg.com/> 
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09
07:04:00

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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090513/303ec1fb/attachment.html>