[NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation

[joncarter60]

The NSRCA BoD does NOT decide on pattern rules changes. That is under the complete control of the AMA as represented by the AMA Contest Board. The NSRCA asks it's membership for input on rules changes and writes up proposals for the contest board. Sometimes they pass and sometimes they fail. It is their decision completely.
Jon Carter


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Dave Burton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date: 11/5/16  9:45 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: Snaproll4 at aol.com, 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 thingsDave 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/20161105/1d71b2bc/attachment.html>