[NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation

[James Hiller]

Dave, rule changes are NOT shot down by the NSRCA BOD. They are approved or
disapproved by the AMA rules committee.
RC aerobatics is an AMA rulebook event and we fly to their rules.
Jim
 
 
From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Dave Burton via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 9:46 AM
To: Snaproll4 at aol.com; 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation
 
I agree with almost everything here and would add elimination take off and
landing as scored maneuvers as well for AMA classes. Refusal to adopt
similar changes are why I dropped out of NSRCA a few years ago. 
I think the only limitations on airframe should be max 2 meter dimensions
but remove the weight limit. All the weight limit does is drive up the cost
of airplanes.
If  rules changes like these aren't implemented pattern will continue to die
out and the only people flying will be the few FAI flyers who can contend
for the US team. 
Most of these ideas have been submitted as rules changes in the past but
were shot down by the NSRCA BOD. You would hope the drastic drop in
participation would force considerations of changing some things
Dave
 
From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Snaproll4--- via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 12:12 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation
 
I do not want to be NSRCA president, but If I were NSRCA King, this is what
I would do:
 
  1.  Eliminate ALL mandatory advancement rules.  In fact, as King, I would
ban all conversation about advancement.  I've been saying this for 20 years,
but every time this gets voted on, the proposal gets soundly defeated.
Can't we all name a pilot who moved up to Masters and then dropped out?  We
should never have rules that discourage participation.  This includes the
rule about trying higher classes and not being able to move back down.
 
 
2.  Sportsman and Intermediate should be non-turnaround. Turnaround was the
death of the casual competitor. No 2 meter planes will be allowed in
Sportsman.  You're not going to get a club flyer to compete when there are 4
Allures and a Proteus in his class.  This is not supposed to be a money
competition. 
 
 
3. Advanced should be 50% turn-around and somewhat less difficult than it is
today.  The emphasis here should be on the slightly more committed pilot and
NOT as a building block for Masters.  This should become the new destination
class.
 
 
4.  Masters should fly all rounds of FAI P, but not compete directly against
FAI pilots.  I can put up a respectable P, but I don't want to fly against
Team members. (besides, who would judge?)  The sequence would still change
every 2 years. Think of the advantages in judging as FAI pilots and Masters
usually judge each other.  This would eliminate the need for development of
a new Masters schedule and let the sequence committee concentrate on the
other 3 classes.
 
5.  It would be nice if we could make Sportsman two 1 day contests,
consisting of 4 rounds each day.  Perhaps they could fly two rounds within
each flight.  Yes, that would mean 3 more awards, but you can't expect
Sportsman pilots to spend the time and money to go to 2 day contests.  This
way, a pilot could do family stuff on Saturday and compete on Sunday.
 
Steve Miller, NSRCA #673
 
 
 
 
 
  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13342 - Release Date: 11/03/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20161105/ab75f784/attachment.html>