<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18702"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=3 face=Arial>
<DIV>CD's used to have the ability to have Sportsman fly twice which isn't in
the rule book. They now can have an Expert class which isn't in the rule
book. Can CD's suspend the advancement rule? Just thinking out
loud.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Steve </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 5/11/2009 11:43:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
derekkoopowitz@gmail.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>We can put some explicit written policies in place for the NSRCA that
state that schedules will be changed only when deemed necessary or in the
event that a maneuver/schedule presents a problem such as safety, difficulty,
length, etc. This would prevent the NSRCA from willy-nilly changing the
schedules. I do think we should pull them out of the rulebook just
because it would be much easier for us to control what happens to them versus
being held to AMA's timetable of change.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mark: To answer your question on how we go about this? These
need to be presented to the membership as part of the survey to determine if
this is in fact the best route to go for the membership. If someone
would like to put this in writing and send to me two (2) paragraphs for the
rules survey:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. First paragraph is the question being asked. For example -
Should the NSRCA remove all wording from the rule book as it pertains to class
advancement?</DIV>
<DIV>2. Second paragraph is a clear description of why voting YES
would be a good thing and also a clear description of why voting NO would be a
good thing as well. We need to hear reasons why both a YES and NO would
work.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:05 AM, <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
title=mailto:verne@twmi.rr.com
href="mailto:verne@twmi.rr.com">verne@twmi.rr.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>I'm in agreement with removing the advancement rules or at
least turning them into an unenforceable guideline.<BR><BR>I have
reservations on removing the schedules from the rulebook for a variety of
reasons. First of all, AMA should be an integral part of the process much
like FAI is for their respective schedules. There needs to be some stability
to the posted schedules and maneuver descriptions/downgrades and I think the
AMA Rulebook is the best place for that. The NSRCA website can certainly
provide that in addition to AMA, but the AMA Rulebook should be the first
stop for someone seeking the rules who may or may not even know about the
NSRCA. I'm not against making the changing of schedules a simpler process in
the event we discover something wrong with a schedule, but I see inherent
danger in creating a "moving target" with schedules that get changed
frequently. If this discussion has shown anything, it's shown that a
concensus of what the ideal schedule would be at each level is not an
attainable goal. Kinda like the poor sap that takes his fiance along to pick
out her engagement ring<BR> ("I'll never make THAT mistake again) In
any event, I think it's a dangerous path. The key component in all of this
is stability and the assurance that we're all practicing what will actually
be flown at the next contest.<BR><BR>Verne Koester<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>---- "Atwood wrote:<BR>> Not that the debate on 2 vs 3
rolls isn't fascinating, but....<BR>><BR>> Can we wrap up the original
discussion regarding advancement?<BR>><BR>> I heard a semi consensus
on 2 things that I think we should aggressively pursue<BR>><BR>> 1)
Removing any forced advancement rules (possibly changing to a guideline, or
possibly eliminating the language altogether)<BR>>
Reason: Forced advancement simply harms more people than it helps.
Very few if any abuse the system, while many have been compelled to
fly in a class inappropriate to their skills or comfort, discouraging some,
causing others to quit, and overall reducing the level of enjoyment contrary
to what the rule was intended for. A guideline would still be
valuable to help those who are trying to make the advancement decision,
however that may be better placed outside of the Rule Book (such as the
NSRCA web site)<BR>><BR>> 2) Removal of the pattern schedules from the
rule book, in an effort to simplify the change procedure.<BR>>
Reason: In conjunction with the change above, virtually every
class is a "destination" class for some, and as such, some variety is
desirable at every level. De-coupling the sequences from the rule book
would allow greater ease in changing the schedules, and greater ease of
change also reduces the critical nature of "getting it right" the first
time, which would allow for more creativity and
experiementation.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> Thoughts??<BR>><BR>>
How do we get this done...<BR>><BR>> -Mark<BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> <A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT><DIV CLASS="aol_ad_footer" ID="378a3f08be492e52e02c13b1b994d48c"><br/><font style="color:black;font:normal 10pt arial,san-serif;"> <hr style="margin-top:10px"/><B>An Excellent Credit Score is 750. <A HREF=http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585010x1201462743/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=MayExcfooter51109NO62>See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!</A></B></font></DIV></BODY></HTML>