[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[J N Hiller]

I will encourage my district contest board member to vote against this as a
rule proposal. We don't need a rule change and the ongoing rule maintenance
to fly the FAI sequence. It only needs to be adopted as a proposed sequence
change by the committee tasked with creating new sequences.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Lance Van
Nostrand
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:52 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I know official discussion hasn't started but this list is one of the good
vetting forums.  Vince proposed Masters flying FAI P, which is clear, but if
the logic behind the proposal as written causes confusion it may make a less
convincing case.  For example, it says "there is an evident pile up f pilots
in the Masters class" but never clearly states how flying the same sequence
would change that.  He may be implying that people will more freely move
between classes to balance the lines because they are flying a similar
sequence but the sequences may not be identical and the judging rules are
not identical.  At another point it says "This will make judging of both
classes very accurate" but doesn't address the obvious differences in
judging criteria between AMA and FAI, which is the current burden that
Masters and FAI pilots currently bear when the fly one class and judge the
other.  Finally, there is no exact wording proposed on the form where it is
expected, but later in the logic it refers to the idea of replacing some FAI
manuvers where appropriate.  Without exact wording, its not clear how this
is done, or if the manuver descriptions will be re-written in the AMA rules,
or referenced to the FAI descriptions like the sequence.  Oh, and how does
AMA deal with the fact that FAI changes schedules in odd years?

My intent is simply to point out aspects that detract from it's
thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the issue.

--Lance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091019/bce901d7/attachment.html>