<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><P>Yes, add <STRONG>"MOVE UP"</STRONG> to the rulebook. In my case someone one is going to suggest <STRONG>"MOVE DOWN".</STRONG></P>
<P> </P>
<P>Vicente "Vince" Bortone</P>
<P><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua@embarqmail.com><BR>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Monday, February 2, 2009 5:01:38 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement<BR><BR>The only thing that works now is PEER pressure or self honesty because no<BR>one has a clue what the points are. <BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer<BR>Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:30 PM<BR>To: General pattern discussion<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement<BR><BR>The main thing about the Australian system is that it allows comparison <BR>with the rest of your class on a national scale. You can actually get <BR>national rankings for each class out of the system, which everyone <BR>should be in favor of. Advancement could be voluntary under any system. <BR>Perhaps an open system allowing entry in the class of your choice at any <BR>local contest with a NATS requirement that you enter the class you last <BR>competed in.<BR>Based on activity levels in various districts, right now it is quite <BR>possible to be a perennial winner locally, but not pointed out of class <BR>and also struggle to get into the top half if you travel to another <BR>district or the NATS which is much more competitive. Should you be <BR>considered a sandbagger?<BR>This is, of course, leaving out the issue of advancement from Masters to <BR>F3A. :)<BR><BR>John<BR><BR>J Shu wrote:<BR>> I can move back to advanced... never flew a Masters flight outside of <BR>> practice...lol. But don't worry, the only way I'd move back is if <BR>> Blake gets to big of a head <G>.<BR>><BR>> I don't think the points advancement should be removed, just some new <BR>> 'rules' applied to it. I don't want to see a sandbagger stay in a <BR>> class that they clearly don't belong in. But I'd also like to see a <BR>> way for pilots that like to go to many contests stay in a class if <BR>> they still aren't ready for instead of pointing out cause they're a <BR>> die-hard competitor.<BR>><BR>> Regards,<BR>> Jason<BR>> www.shulmanaviation.com<BR>> www.composite-arf.com<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Burton" <burtona@atmc.net><BR>> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:41 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement<BR>><BR>><BR>> I agree with Mark on this. There is no reason to have a <BR>> points/advancement<BR>> system that's not even administered and serves no purpose except to force<BR>> flyers to move beyond their ability in too many cases. Eliminate it all<BR>> together!<BR>> Dave Burton<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark <BR>> Atwood<BR>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:28 PM<BR>> To: General pattern discussion<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancement<BR>><BR>> Does he need one?? I thought he moved directly from Adv to FAI? I would<BR>> think he could go back to Adv....<BR>><BR>> But that's my whole point. The only classes where some type of mandatory<BR>> move makes sense is the only place where we don't have one. AND IT WORKS<BR>> FINE.<BR>><BR>> Let's let people fly where THEY feel comfortable and competitive. If <BR>> I lose<BR>> a contest to a "Sandbagger" than A) I still suck and can get better, <BR>> and B)<BR>> they need to get a life and realize that it's a hobby.<BR>><BR>> How often does this really happen??<BR>><BR>> I think a simple guideline that helps advise people on where they <BR>> should be<BR>> is the better approach.<BR>><BR>><BR>> On 2/2/09 4:12 PM, "Tony Stillman" <tony@radiosouthrc.com> wrote:<BR>><BR>>> Just contact your AMA VP. I have granted 3 or 4 such moves down over <BR>>> the<BR>>> last 3 years.<BR>>><BR>>> Sorry Jason, you WON'T be granted one.... LOL...<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Tony Stillman, President<BR>>> Radio South, Inc.<BR>>> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322<BR>>> Brunswick, GA 31525<BR>>> 1-800-962-7802<BR>>> www.radiosouthrc.com<BR>>><BR>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J Shu<BR>>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:05 PM<BR>>> To: General pattern discussion<BR>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment<BR>>><BR>>> Why not have pilots that wish to move back a class submit a request to<BR>>> (who?) and then that person contact some pilots in the area<BR>>> to find out the scoop if it should be allowed or not.<BR>>><BR>>> I would allow myself to move back to Advanced... I really should... <BR>>> oops,<BR>> I<BR>>> can...hehehehe.<BR>>><BR>>> Regards,<BR>>> Jason<BR>>> www.shulmanaviation.com<BR>>> www.composite-arf.com<BR>>><BR>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>>> From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm@paragon-inc.com><BR>>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>; <BR>>> "Tom<BR>>> Simes" <simestd@netexpress.com><BR>>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:55 PM<BR>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Just one of the MANY scenarios that supports just having a guideline<BR>>> approach. I like the data that PACSS will have, but again, let's use it<BR>> to<BR>>> advise people where they best fit, not force them.<BR>>><BR>>> I don't know of many trophy hounds that are so UN competitive that they<BR>>> would fly beneath themselves just for a plaque. I'm sure they <BR>>> exist...but<BR>>> I'm also sure they have other more serious problems in life than me<BR>> worrying<BR>>> about making them "move up". lol<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> On 2/2/09 3:43 PM, "Tom Simes" <simestd@netexpress.com> wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>> Mark Atwood wrote:<BR>>>>> I¹m coming in very late to this discussion, but regardless of the<BR>> system,<BR>>> I<BR>>>>> really think the primary change needs to be that instead of ANY<BR>> mandatory<BR>>>>> system, we change the key word to be ³Guideline²...meaning it¹s a<BR>>> guideline<BR>>>>> for when to move, but not a fast rule. This is pattern...a hobby. <BR>>>>> Yes,<BR>>> a<BR>>>>> competitive one, but there¹s no huge money riding on it (certainly not<BR>> at<BR>>>>> the levels that are subjected to this) and there will always be valid<BR>>>>> exceptions that no system can take into account. So while we can and<BR>>> should<BR>>>>> work on improving the advancement system to be as accurate as <BR>>>>> possible,<BR>> I<BR>>>>> will likely submit a proposal that simply changes the existing <BR>>>>> system to<BR>>> be<BR>>>>> a guideline, rather than mandatory.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> I personally think that fixes almost everything. (well...with <BR>>>>> regard to<BR>>>>> pattern advancement). :)<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> -Mark<BR>>>><BR>>>> In PACSS, Gene already has the underpinnings built and working for<BR>>>> national results reporting. I'm not advocating one way or another,<BR>>>> just throwing out a data point that one of the hardest parts to<BR>>>> coordinate is already in place.<BR>>>><BR>>>> With regard to mandatory advancement, one aspect that I think deserves<BR>>>> careful attention is how to handle people getting back into pattern<BR>>>> after an absence or people who have reached a point in their lives<BR>>>> where their skills are in decline for one reason or another.<BR>>>><BR>>>> It's sad to see a competitor who progressed into the higher ranks<BR>>>> years ago and feels obligated to stay there but whose skills are<BR>>>> obviously not adequate for the class anymore. If mandatory<BR>>>> advancement is being considered, there should also be a mechanism to<BR>>>> move downward as well - instead of just leaving the hobby.<BR>>><BR>>> _______________________________________________<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> _______________________________________________<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>>><BR>>> _______________________________________________<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>><BR>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>><BR>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>><BR>><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR></P></div></body></html>