Wrong Maneuver issues

[Tony Stillman]

Rick:

I don't actually think there is a NEED for a rules change to add this.  It is just one way to solve a problem.  If there are pilots that are uncomfortable with it, I wouldn't do it!  It's not that big of a deal, but it does help some judges.  As I said, I've seen it done at LOCAL meets, but I would not be for it at a NATS.
I also would not be for it as a rules proposal.

The CD can use it if he/she likes, but I would not be for a rule to require this!
 
Tony Stillman
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rick Wallace 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:55 PM
  Subject: RE: Wrong Maneuver issues


  I don't see this as an issue of being smart enough or anything else - it's simply my understanding that the purpose of the caller is to support the pilot. As such, he should work with the pilot and give the pilot the level of support he needs. 



  The caller's job is not to talk to the judges. He's there to assist the pilot. 



  When I'm flying I personally find it distracting for my caller to be required to speak loudly enough for people 6-10 feet behind him to hear. I know that when I'm in the box I value most everything my caller says, and quite a lot of it is NOT stuff I'd want the judges to hear - since the rules call for judging to be a visual assessment of the plane's course agains a standard of perfection and nothing else (well, maybe subjective judgement as to the noise level of the plane in flight.) 



  I'm quite willing to (continue to) spend time scribing / assisting other judges if that's what it takes to keep the caller as a pilot's asset as opposed to a show announcer. 



  That said, can we agree to either take it as it comes, or submit a rules proposal to fix this if someone feels strongly enough about it all to make that much of an issue of it? 



  Thanks for listening -- 

  Rick 

  AMA 89045

  NSRCA 2972




  Personally I think we are all smart enough to figure this out, without a national rule.  If we make things too difficult for the CD and judges then no one will be willing to do the job, which is a bigger problem.  Personally I don't see expecting the caller to speak loud enough for the judges to hear as a big issue and if you are "cute" and call a maneuver a train wreck then it might cost you, although I suspect most judges would score what you flew and check after the round was over.  The reality is that MOST pilots have a caller, who is calling the sequence, maneuver, by maneuver and it is very easy to have him speak loud enough for the judges to hear and that simple act eliminates the need to have scribes call the maneuver and eliminates the need for scribes for most judges.  We can come up with lots of reasons that this won't work and I have had pilots refuse to call/have the maneuver called and I dealt with it.  I tried to be fair and not let this effect my judgment, but since I view the refusal as silly, you would have to wonder if I was successful.  It's hard enough to find enough judges to fill the chairs, why do we resist something like this that would reduce the load on the judges and the CD and really adds no REAL load to the pilot.  I may be biased, because I have always done it this way, so I know nothing different, but I view presenting the maneuver/sequence as what this is all about and describing it for the judges is just part of the deal, the better you do it the less chance there is for misunderstanding.  As the pilot, with the most to loose, I choose to take control of the situation, where it is presented.  I realize at the bigger contests, NATs, worlds, etc you (the pilot) don't have that option and personally I view that as a disadvantage.  The other side of this is at these events you generally have more judges so a single mistake is less of an issue.

  Flame suit on :-)

  Bob

  Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20030612/f36465d3/attachment.html