<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3243" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=667190123-04022008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>More fuel for discussion. If there are now
to many in Masters, rank Masters pilots into two groups based on
the last years District standings. Then judge each other. Top 2 move
up the next year. bottom 2 move down. Or some ratio based on numbers
of Masters pilots.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Dave
Burton<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 04, 2008 1:08 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'NSRCA
Mailing List'<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Exper
Class??<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Scrapping
the mandatory advancement rule is an excellent approach. Where you when I
submitted rules proposals in two different cycles to do just this? I could have
used the support as it was soundly shouted down. I won’t do that again. But it
needs to be done. I’m one of those 67 year old flyers trapped in
Masters/FAI who can’t move down where my present skill levels would be more
appropriate. Don’t know if I would choose to back a class, but anyone should
have the option of flying the class most appropriate for them IMO. I think peer
pressure would keep the trophy hounds from staying. One reason Masters is so
crowded is ex FAI flyers who can’t hack it with the top FAI guys anymore and
move back to Masters where they can compete.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Dave
Burton<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Derek
Koopowitz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, February 04, 2008 1:47 PM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA
Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Exper
Class??<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>There is a discussion going on the District 7 list at the
moment about not forcing people to move up a class (using points). Case in
point is a pilot that was forced out of Intermediate into Advanced and has
crashed 2 Angels Shadows due to "pilot error" (he admits it). He is 67
years old and his skill levels just don't warrant him being in
Advanced.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Eric Henderson's last article in Model Aviation about the
points system in the NSRCA just proves this issue - I'm in full agreement with
Eric on this and would like to see the points system scrapped. We
definitely need to cater to the pattern pilot that is very uncomfortable flying
a new class (they've pointed out of their current class) and would like to
stay put until they feel more comfortable. This can also happen if a new
sequence is developed for their class and the pilot is uncomfortable flying
it as well in a contest. Shouldn't we allow them to move back a class
until they feel comfortable with the new sequence (as Chris and Mike
suggested)?<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt">I would hate to lose a pilot to
pattern (and a long time supporter of pattern) because the system forced
them to do something that they just aren't comfortable with
doing.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>On Feb 4, 2008 10:33 AM, chris moon <<A
href="mailto:cjm767driver@hotmail.com">cjm767driver@hotmail.com</A>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>I think Mike hit the nail. The real problem is that there are
too many <BR>guys that advance then hit a wall or drop out briefly without an
easy <BR>way to move back. Adding another class is just bad. WIth the average
<BR>attendance at a contest probably around 20, probably less, if we add
<BR>another class to make 6, then that means essentially 3 people per <BR>class.
Not really a competitive atmosphere. My vote would be to allow <BR>a system for
guys to move BACK more easily, only for those who have <BR>moved up voluntarily
and did not point out in their last class or have <BR>failed to excel in their
new class. The peter principle applies to <BR>flying also.<BR><BR>But that's
just my opinion, I could be wrong<BR><BR>Chris <o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><BR>mike mueller wrote:<BR>> I've flown both classes
in the last 3 years. I don't think that this <BR>> discussion is going to get
the rules changed.There are way too many <BR>> Masters guys who are content
with the way things are. I would like to <BR>> see the guys that are stuck at
the bottom of their respective classes <BR>> have an easier time going back a
class. The main reason we have so <BR>> many Masters flyers is we advanced
guys thru the system before they <BR>> were ready to compete due to a lack of
competition. It's sad to see <BR>> guys hit a brick wall and end up quiting
the sport due to frustration.<BR>> I like the idea that I can fly Fai or
Masters based on my own <BR>> volition. In the midwest we always have large
fields in Masters and <BR>> it's pretty hard to beat the field.<BR>>
Mike<BR>><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>> */"Woodward, Jim" /*
wrote:<o:p></o:p></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>