[NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea

Tue Aug 20 12:12:04 AKDT 2013

Nap time. . . . definitely need to schedule nap time . . . And first place trophies for all. 

From: Chuck Hochhalter 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:08 PM
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea

I like ice cream.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 20, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

  Trophies and ice cream for everyone on Sundays.. WooHoo!!

  Richard 
  Sent from my mobile device.

  On Aug 20, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

    I’ve also submitted rules proposal to eliminate the whole points/advancement process. Got nowhere! I won’t do it again!

    I’ve decided I’ll fly whichever class I think is appropriate for me regardless of the rules. If a CD wants to disqualify me, please let me know ahead of time so I can save travel cost.

    This a set of rules that serve no purpose and probably actually drives down participation. Why some want to keep it is beyond me.

    Dave

    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lewis
    Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:03 PM
    To: General pattern discussion
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea

    I wrote an official rules proposal last cycle to allow declaration of class at the beginning of each season... 

    Competitors typically fly in 3 to 4 contests per season.. Plenty of time to test one's self in another class and then choose the appropriate class for the next season...No forced advancement, no one stuck in an inappropriate class...

    It was whole-heartedly rejected in favor of the suggestion method that ultimately passed...

    Richard

    Sent from my mobile device.

    On Aug 20, 2013, at 12:00 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:

      Mike,
      Thanks again for the loan of a very nice airplane for the Fat Lake Pattern Meet. Glad Russ was able to buy it, it will be a very good airplane for him. 
      The contest was very well run by Bob Wilson and John Hoelscher and other members of the Peoria R/C Modelers. I had a great time flying, meeting new folks and hanging out at the field in Russell Shavitz' new RV parked in the middle of all that corn.

      As Scott McHarg has pointed out in this thread and we discussed during the contest, the rule change we proposed last year addressed the problem of being able to move down a class at the end of the year. Others have pointed out that there is a mechanism for doing this now. It involves petitioning the AMA for a change in class. There are two problems with this system. One is that there are some who quit rather than go through the process. Those flyers are lost to us for long periods of time and may never return. I know about that, I was one of them for a decade.
      The second issue is that the AMA VPs seldom(ever?) reject these petitions. They do not know the flyer and his abilities, may(or may not) do a bit of research, and then approve the petition. If they are always approved, what is the function of this process? Why should we waste the time of the DVP? Leave it up to the competitor to recognize that a move back one class would be good for him. Peer pressure will take care of  abusers - as it does now, not the AMA.
      John

      On 8/19/2013 12:16 PM, mike mueller wrote:

        At the Peoria contest this weekend we had the pleasure of having John Gayer from New Mexico attend and fly with us.

        We got into a discussion about ideas to grow the sport.

        One I brought up and it's nothing new is a one time only Amnesty period.

        It would allow any flier who has been a consistent low placer in their class the ability to drop down at the end of a season.

        It seems clear to me that this really needs to happen and the residual benefit from such a program could very well help to get some guys back into the sport.

        What would it take to get such a program instituted? 

        What are the barriers that would stop this from being put into the rules?

        Is there a potential downside to this that would make it worse than what we have now?

        Mike Mueller

        Customer Services 

        F3aunlimited

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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

    _______________________________________________
    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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20130820/4f5d21ad/attachment.html>