[NSRCA-discussion] Price for a pattern plane...

[Scott McHarg]

Mike,

I've proposed and have had pass multiple rules.  I get it.  Concerning
social media and what not, I wasn't suggesting that an individual do that,
I'm suggesting that we as an organization (which certainly has more pull
than any individual) do so.  Limiting planes is done at the 2M level and
nothing more.  You're suggesting to further limit airplanes in classes that
most people would want to try.  That is why I do not believe your proposal
is better.

Scott

*Scott A. McHarg*

Takeoff is optional.  Landing is mandatory!


On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 11:16 AM Dr. Mike Harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Scott
>
> Thanks for the reply and a suggested solution.
>
> 1.        Limiting planes-that is already done.  It is in place and I am
> simply changing the limits to smaller planes to make the lower classes much
> easier and more affordable is my goal.  I have explained my rationale to a
> considerable extent.  I am not making it more detrimental by doing so.
>
> 2.       If you are for the other bonus system then I strongly recommend
> you submit a rules proposal for such.  Seek your board rep for help.  It would
> give the contest board options.  I believe my proposal is better.
>
> 3.       If you want to get on social media or whatever please do so.  I
> simply don’t have time and it isn’t my thing.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussionu
> *Sent:* Friday, January 4, 2019 11:05 AM
> *To:* james woodward <jimwoodward89 at gmail.com>; General pattern
> discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Cc:* ronlock at comcast.net
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Price for a pattern plane...
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> We don't often disagree but I have to say that limiting planes in any
> class could be more detrimental than some bonus level.  Limiting planes
> limits participation.  If it's true that people don't enter a contest with
> a smaller aircraft that's not 2M because it won't be competitive then they
> should feel overjoyed to know that they receive a bonus with a new rule.
> Heck, I'd buy a smaller aircraft just to get the bonus!  I watched my
> friend Justin compete with one of those foam FMA planes in Intermediate a
> few years ago for his first time ever and finish 4th out of, I believe, 8.
> Give him that bonus and he could of easily placed with how tight the
> contest was.  Again, limiting the choices one can fly is what will limit
> participation.  More importantly, we need to dive into social media and
> expand our horizons and not stay in our comfort box, so to speak.  I'm
> amazed by how many folks that come out to our field that are very good
> pilots that haven't even really heard of pattern before and ogle at the
> planes when they see them.  It's not the good ole days anymore.  We need to
> advance our facet of this hobby by adapting to new generations who
> communicate much differently than we did/do.  Giving a bonus "could" give a
> reason for people to try it and also entice those that want to "try it
> again" or get back in that don't have the skills to fly the higher classes
> by allowing them to fly older 2M ships (or even the latest design).  If we
> want to grow, we have to stop limiting.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
>
>
> Takeoff is optional  Landing is mandatory!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:23 AM james woodward via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> +1 - bonus-up the smaller plane.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:13 AM ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Lets consider; for those choosing to use a plane with the specs Mike
> proposed, adding a 5 or 10% "Bonus" of scored points to the flight score.
> 2 meter planes are still allowed. The smaller plane gets some help,
> hopefully making it more attractive/competitive for an entry level pilot.
> The exact percentage can be tweaked along the way as we gain experience
> with it.
> Ron Lockhart
>
> PS:  The percentage of score concept worked great in the "Lets get planes
> quiet era".  We wanted to establish a noise limit, but not disqualify
> planes that exceeded it. It's still in the rule book.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190104/0cb1e9b4/attachment.html>