<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #8000ff; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What about letting him start in any class he feels comfortable in with the
stipulation that his first year back he will not be eligible and will not
accumulate points for the DC in that class if it is a class that is a
lower class than the one he left. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I think there is also merit in letting someone move up for a contest
to test their skills without loosing the option of moving back down, If they
have gained the skill required for the higher class they will most likely stay
there but if they havent and are forced to stay in the higher class they may
become discouraged and quit.</DIV>
<DIV>Buddy</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2><FONT
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Mark, although most people don't park in a class, I have experienced
a couple instances where a guy actually wins the DC in his class one
year, takes the next year off for whatever reason, then he returns back in his
old class. I appreciate the fact that he returned and like the added
attendance, but some of his fellow competitors may not agree.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What I am saying is a Checks and Balances system needs to be in place
such that this type of situation is controlled. I admit it doesn't happen
often and may not be viewed as a big deal by the higher class pilots, but it
raises the eyebrows of the guys it affects. At present the policing is
supposed to be done by the DVP. As a past DVP, I didn't care for the idea of
telling someone when to move. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The DVPs need a better tool. At the same time, the tool needs to be
flexible enough so that that the guys without enough skill aren't forced up.
I've seen this situation also. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Careful schedule design and more frequent change may alleviate some of
the concern. The parkers could, in effect, start fresh every year, just as the
new guys entering a class. That places different burden on the group designing
schedules and on the AMA CB approving them. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>regards</DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/8/2005 8:38:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
DaveL322@comcast.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Mark,<BR><BR>It is rare and an exception - I guess I don't see the
harm in keeping a rule<BR>around that would give "us" some teeth to prevent
a trophy hog.<BR><BR>I am a little concerned (as MattK) that if we totally
deleted the point<BR>system, we might encourage a trophy hog.<BR><BR>I'm
thinking we have room to adjust the point system without deleting
it.<BR><BR>Dave<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Atwood,
Mark" <atwoodm@paragon-inc.com><BR>To:
<discussion@nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:07
PM<BR>Subject: RE: Rules Changes----Advancement<BR><BR><BR>Dave,<BR><BR>Have
you actually experienced any "trophy hogs"? Maybe I'm naïve, but
I<BR>haven't really experienced this. We've on rare occasion had
someone "hang"<BR>in a class for an extra half season in hopes of doing well
at the Nats<BR>before moving up, but even that's been rare.<BR><BR>We always
talk/worry about the trophy hog, but I guess I see that as a<BR>hollow fear
from my end. Just curious what you've actually experienced in<BR>the
sandbagging ranks.<BR><BR>Mark<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]
On<BR>Behalf Of David Lockhart<BR>Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:42
PM<BR>To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>Subject: Fw: Rules
Changes----Advancement<BR><BR>I agree with Matt that changes in this area
should be made with caution.<BR><BR>I like the idea that a pilot could fly a
higher class for fun and to test<BR>the waters, and then drop back to their
regular class.<BR><BR>I like the idea that somebody having an off year
(reduced time or equipment<BR>in a given year) can drop back a class to make
it easier for them to compete<BR>and have fun.<BR><BR>I have no problem with
a pilot "demoting" themselves to stay in the event<BR>and have fun (so long
as they don't end up perpetually at the top of their<BR>new chosen
class).<BR><BR>I think very few people are interested in forcing a pilot to
"move up"<BR>simply because they accumulated enough points - pilots should
move up when<BR>they have aquired the skills to fly in the next class, and
when they are<BR>clearly superior to others in their class - ie, they are
sand-baggers /<BR>trophy hogs which I don't think are good for the
event.<BR><BR>The point system is rarely used - but I think it would be easy
enough to<BR>enforce - most NSRCA Districts track points for the annual
District Champs<BR>using some kind of system. It wouldn't be too hard
to use data captured in<BR>the District Champs tracking to figure out AMA
advancement points. I think<BR>we are fortunate that most pilots do
move up at appropriate times, but<BR>having a mechanism in place to pressure
a few exceptions is a nice option to<BR>have. I would absolutely
support using the AMA advancement point system to<BR>force a pilot to move
up who clearly belonged in a higher class, but stayed<BR>put to be a trophy
hog.<BR><BR>To that end, I think the point system should remain on the books
- and maybe<BR>we could modify it such that it would be more likely to force
trophy hogs to<BR>move up, and less likely to ever push a career guy out of
his class. There<BR>are a number of ways that could be
done.<BR><BR>Dave<BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From:
Rcmaster199@aol.com<BR>To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>Sent: Tuesday, March 08,
2005 5:08 PM<BR>Subject: Re: Rules Changes----Advancement<BR><BR><BR>I
believe that this may open a different can of worms. It's true that
some<BR>guys attend contests simply for the fun and camaraderie of the
flying, but<BR>there is a whole nother set of troops that attends to
compete. In my<BR>opinion, this is the largest of the two, by wide margin.
These folks want to<BR><BR>win, place or show and really try hard to do
their best. The former group<BR>may not care as much about doing its best;
just being there is good enough.<BR>But it is still an extremely important
group nontheless.<BR><BR>It seems to me that there are a bunch of guys,
(Masters in D3 is a good<BR>example) that are very good in their present
class(most of us are quite<BR>evenly matched), and some of these may decide
to drop down a class and park<BR>for a while. Taking that skill level down
to Advanced could demoralize the<BR>Advanced level guys that want to really
compete, and could actually have the<BR>exact opposite effect from that
desired. I wouldn't want any Advanced<BR>competitor to leave the sport
because of an infusion of Masters class guys<BR>re-entering the
class<BR><BR>We agree on the fact that the points system is silly and
unenforceable.<BR><BR>Having said all that, I wouldn't be aversed to a trial
run of such a rule.<BR>Reconvene after the trial period was over and make a
decision on its<BR>success--failure. Then make a final decision and have
buy-in from the CB up<BR>front to either make a change, or not. Having CB
buy-in up front will<BR>alleviate some of the acremonious debate we have
seen in past issues.<BR><BR>I recommend caution either way. This indeed is
unchartered territory, at<BR>least in my 27 years, and demands careful
thought. I like the fact that the<BR>committee is thinking in different and
challenging ways to improve the sport<BR>for everyone, eventhough THIS
committee's charter is to build schedules and<BR>not
rules.<BR><BR><BR>MattK<BR><BR>PS- one more thought on this: it may turn out
that no self respecting<BR>Masters competitor will move down to Advanced, or
Advanced down to<BR>Intermediate. Then this suggested approach could work.
Convincing the AMA CB<BR>will be the trick<BR><BR><BR><BR>In a message dated
3/8/2005 4:20:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,<BR>patternrules@earthlink.net
writes:<BR>From: Troy A. Newman<BR>To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>Sent:
3/8/2005 2:18:31 PM<BR>Subject: [SPAM] Rules changes
Advancement<BR><BR><BR>Buddy,<BR>I have been really quiet lately. I don't
think the changes you are looking<BR>at are going to increase pattern
participation. The weight and box limits<BR>in my opinion are good and don't
need jacking with......<BR><BR>I know you and Don are working hard at it. We
on the sequence committee are<BR>as well. I don't think changing the box is
going to help us. I really don't<BR>think changes to the weights or sizes is
going to help us....<BR><BR>I want to weigh in here so to speak on something
that I feel will help<BR>pattern grow in changes to the rule book. I feel
most changes to the rule<BR>book are going to make us more elite or a more
secret way you have to do<BR>things. Guys that are even in our ranks don't
read the rules so why make<BR>them even more specialized..and so
on.<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>