<html 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" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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 link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I’m not really arguing with you on that point. There’s little
need to change more than once a season. Like I said, there’s little need to
change period. This only happens once in a while. So seldom in fact, I just
feel that there’s no need for a rule at all. Rather than try to anticipate all
the likely scenarios that may or may not occur, just let people fly what they
want to fly, and see what happens. I think you’ll find that the VAST VAST
majority do nothing different than today, a few will do as you suggest…change
the class they’re in for the season. But there could be some odd circumstance
that warrants something different. Is this “Sport” so critical to anyone
that we need to legislate against it?? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Like I said earlier…it’s working well for FAI/Masters. Fewer
rules are better in my opinion and this is one that’s just not needed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard
Lewis<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:23 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> aabdu@sbcglobal.net; General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>You're supposed to go from winning Intermediate to bringing
up the rear in Advanced, that's the basic idea of moving up. If everyone
stayed in Intermediate until they could win Advanced, then we'd be arguing to
keep forced advancement......Do you want/need to go back to Intermediate?
If the rule was that you had to fly a declared class or higher for a
season, how would circumstances of life changes over "5 or 6
seasons" come into play.....Without forced advancement, you could
start the season in Sporstman every year if you need to.....I'm still not sure
what scenarios could occur within a single 5 or 6 month contest season
that would necessitate someone moving from Advanced to back to Sportsman in the
middle of that season.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>If you've practiced all winter 3-4 times a week in Advanced,
flown two contests, and then change jobs, or lose an airplane mid-season and
can no longer practice regulary, is anyone going to move back to
Intermediate? Sequences only change in the off-season, not sure why that
would cause anyone to have to move down during a single season? If I flew
Masters last year, and was scared to fly a new Masters sequence for some
reason, then I could declare for Advanced in the upcoming season....<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
<hr size=1 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Anthony Abdullah
<aabdu@sbcglobal.net><br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:40:34 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Gotta agree with Mark on that one. I went from winning the
district championship in Intermediate to bringing up the rear in Advanced.
Other than being a hack of a pilot it was a matter of circumstance. I started
and finished graduate school, we lost my primary and conveniently located
flying field, I changed jobs, and then when I thought I was all set for a
great come back year, I lost my primary competition plane early in the
spring. This was all over the course of 5 or 6 seasons and the sequence
changed at least once during that time. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Mind you, I have not quite pointed out of advanced but I
can certainly understand how a change in circumstances can change a person's
ability to be competitive in a certain class.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Anthony<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>NSRCA #759<br>
<br>
--- On <b>Wed, 5/13/09, Atwood, Mark <i><atwoodm@paragon-inc.com></i></b>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>From: Atwood, Mark
<atwoodm@paragon-inc.com><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<br>
To: "'nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org'"
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 12:27 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Has this caused a problem beteen FAI and Masters? People are free to move about<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>there and it works well. I doubt there would be constant movement. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Regarding moving back, it has less to do ith ability or age (though those are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>both factors) than situation. Simply changing jobs can take you from being able<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to practice 3-4 times a week, to 3-4 time a summer. Add a new sequence to that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>mix and suddenly your ability to participate in the higher class is gone. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I just don't see the problems with movement. There's so little in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>FAI/Masters that's its hard to believe there would be a lot in lower<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>classes. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>--------------------------<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>----- Original Message -----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Wed May 13 12:12:56 2009<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I disagree that we should make it so that people can move from class-to-class<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on a contest-by-contest basis. If we remove forced advancement, then we<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>elimitate the problem of people being forced into a class they feel they are not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ready for. That, by itself, solves the problem that may cause someone to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"need" or "want" to move back a class after<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"trying" it out and finding they are not "ready" (meaning<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they cannot win it on the first try????). Folks will know if they are ready to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fly the next level, the sequences are not secret and can be practiced/flown by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>anyone on their own time. In order to cause them to consider their decision<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>carefully, they should be required to stay a minimum of a season in their chosen<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>class (move up if they like, not down)...If after that seaon, they want to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>swallow their pride and move back, so be it....a season, even in the southern<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>districts is only 5 or 6 contests at most for most pilots.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Now if we are considering an older flyer who may not have the skills/ability to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>compete in Masters any longer, that's a different story, and what I've<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>read and heard from MAsters pilots, once a person flies for some time as a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Masters pilot, they are just not gonna swallow their pride and move back to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Intermediate, no matter how easy it may be...<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>If we are considering the flier who tops out at Advanced and want to stay there<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>permanently. No forcred advancment solve that one too....<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> _____ <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm@paragon-inc.com><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:26:50 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I’m in favor of it being a guideline, but I don’t think that verbiage<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>belongs in the rule book. That’s best left for the NSRCA web site or some<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>other medium to describe.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>As for moving down, that’s sort of the whole point. To allow people to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>choose where they want to fly, up or down the classes as their time, skill, etc<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>allows. By nature you have to be competitive to enjoy this facet of the hobby.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> If you find yourself in a situation where you are no longer competitive,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>(again, lack of time, money, skill, etc) then most will simply get frustrated<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and quit. I’d much prefer to see someone take a step backward, and continue<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to have a rewarding experience, than to lose them from the sport.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:01 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: 'General pattern discussion'<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I’m in favor of making advancement a guideline. Perhaps we need to cover<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>advancement as part of good sportsmanship and maybe include the ability for the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>district to vote on whether someone is abusing the absence of a mandatory<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>advancement rule. For example, leave it to the discretion of the District VP or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a majority vote of the district members. If the district decides someone needs<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to move up the competitor would have the option to stay where he or she is and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not qualify for prizes and district points or move up at the end of the year.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>What about the ability to move down? For example, someone tries Masters for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>one or two contests and then decides they are still not ready and wants to move<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>back down. Do the current rules properly address this?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Ron<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ronlock@comcast.net<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:12 PM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: General pattern discussion<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Years ago when the Sportsman sequence was rather short, some CD's were<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>doing the sequence twice. A rule was written to codify the practice, and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>provide suggested procedures on exit/entry between the sequences, and handle<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>scoring of one take off & landing, but two sequences. It's still in the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>book, para 14.8. Given current length of Sportsman sequence, it's rarely<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>used.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Ron Lockhart<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>----- Original Message -----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: "Bill's Email" <wemodels@cox.net><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: "General pattern discussion"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 7:37:29 PM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Snaproll4@aol.com wrote: <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>CD's used to have the ability to have Sportsman fly twice which isn't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in the rule book. They now can have an Expert class which isn't in the rule<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>book. Can CD's suspend the advancement rule? Just thinking out loud.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Steve <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Interesting question. The AMA gives CDs broad powers to waive rules as they see<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fit, but those usually pertain to the safe operation of a contest. The caveat is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that the CD must publish any variations within 30 days of the event and it is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>best to list them in the sanction application. Changes can be made on the spot<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>due to weather, etc., but it would be hard to see how advancement fits into<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that. So I suspect taht it would be difficult for a CD to do waht you suggest.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>What a CD could do I suppose is to allow a certain individual to fly a lower<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>class, but again, that might be a stretch.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>database 4065 (20090511) __________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>http://www.eset.com<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>No virus found in this incoming message.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Checked by AVG - <a
href="http://www.avg.com/" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a> <http://www.avg.com/> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>07:04:00<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>No virus found in this incoming message.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>07:04:00<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>No virus
found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<br>
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.27/2112 - Release Date: 05/13/09
07:04:00</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>