[NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea

mike mueller mups1953 at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 21 05:28:59 AKDT 2013 

  I know a lot of guys who have been coming to just about every contest for years who have never broken into the top half of their classes.
 Some don't seem to care about standings and like flying in their classes. That's OK as long as they participate and have fun doing it.
 I honestly didn't know the rules were in place to accommodate our fliers. So while it's a nice debate it's somewhat moot.
 Now that I  know this rule I will be telling guys about it because I feel many do not know.
 Thanks all for the insightful input. 
 
Mike Mueller
Customer Services 

F3Aunlimited


________________________________
 From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
 


I suspect the main reason for this discussion is to allow our aging pilots to move down.
 
How many CD’s out there and/or competitors would object to a masters pilot as an example moving down to advanced because he can’t see well enough to continue flying masters.
 
I for one would not. I would rather they continue to compete rather than hang it up.
 
Perhaps those pilots that move down could disqualify themselves from District championship contention and/or trophy consideration for local contest (i.e., they would be flying for fun).
 
Ron
 
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of ronlock at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:51 PM
To: Bob Kane; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
 
I suspect that may have been the case.  I think the rule is support for the peer pressure that
generally works well.  I hope the new wording of "should move" doesn't erode the system.  If the class
system goes away....do we then call it a pattern fly in?   <VBG>
 
Ron Lockhart

________________________________

From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:44:05 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
This rule has been in place longer than I have been flying pattern.  There must have been some compelling reason to implement it as the only thing that never changes is resistance to change.   There must have been some glaring examples of sandbagging going on. 
 
 
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
 

________________________________

From:Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
 
AMA has never kept up with points/classes, etc. at least in the 40+ years I’ve been flying pattern. And today’s AMA has almost no interest in any competition other than for whatever dollars may be involved in the Muncie flying sites (if any). Unfortunately most of the membership feels the same way I guess.
Dave
 
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
 
You will note that there is no specific consideration in the rule for the competitor that says " I made a mistake moving up, I was not ready although I thought I was and I would like to move back a class". The examples given would lead one to believe that this "various reason" would not be accepted. And this example is the key missing element that loses us competitors.
You will also note that "various reasons"  could mean anything. I thought the AMA tried to stay away from ambiguous rules like this. 
Quite frankly the AMA has abrogated their responsibility to maintain the class distinctions under their rules. If they want to keep lists of competitors and their classes, advancement points and disqualify results for being in a lower class without waiver, that would be fine. Right now the AMA maintain no lists of competitor classes, points towards advancement or participation levels and should have rules that reflect that lack of interest, leaving the SIG to self-police. 
John
On 8/20/2013 12:43 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
Here is the rule:
>8.1.2: Exception: Consideration will be given to requests for reclassification to a lower class for various reasons, such as disability or breaks from participation of several years. For a contestant to be reclassified to a lower class, the contestant must petition via email (or letter if email is not available) to the contestant's AMA District Contest Board (CB) representative explaining the reasons for the reclassification. The CB representative will forward a recommendation for approval/disapproval to the AMA District Vice President (DVP). The AMA DVP will concur/non-concur and forward the decision to the petitioner and AMA District CB representative with an info copy to the AMA Technical Director.
> 
>Note that the petitioner goes to his CB rep who actually makes the recommendation.    My DVP has always agreed with my recommendation and I see no reason why other DVPs would act differently.   All this is done via email so it should not take more than a week or two at most.  I always info the AMA Tech Director as well just to keep him in the loop.   
> 
>JohnF
> 
>From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
>Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:01 PM
>To: mike mueller; General pattern discussion
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Amnesty idea
> 
>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 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


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8709 (20130820) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8709 (20130820) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8710 (20130821) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 8710 (20130821) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
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/20130821/1dc4483c/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list