[SPAM] Re: 2005 Nationals Reminder

[Grow Pattern]

Jerry,
           I believe that is the plan for 2005. We will try it and then 
assess the pros and cons after the Nats.

I will be putting a Nat's Survey in the pilot's packets this year as well as 
the usual equipment survey. I thought it was about time we captured what 
all, or at least all who fill the form in, think is good and bad. It is also 
a great way to capture new ideas from those people who actually made the 
trip and are into the whole experience.

Regards,

Eric.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Budd" <jerry at buddengineering.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: 2005 Nationals Reminder


> Eric,
>
> Does that mean that prelim's scores will not be carried into the Masters 
> finals this year?
>
> Thx, Jerry
>
>
>>Jerry,
>>          I agree with you. The exposure for finals should be equitable 
>> and not based upon the vagaries of qualifiers that are run using the 
>> matrix system.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Eric.
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Budd" 
>><jerry at buddengineering.com>
>>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 11:20 AM
>>Subject: [SPAM] Re: 2005 Nationals Reminder
>>
>>>Eric,
>>>
>>>The changes to the matrix system you describe below are an improvement 
>>>over what has been used in the past, but there are still places where a 
>>>small change in process can yield a big improvement in fairness and 
>>>equity.
>>>
>>>The most significant of these for Masters would be to not carry over 
>>>qualifying scores into the finals.  Since the constraints presented by 
>>>the preliminaries don't allow for equal exposure of judges, it is simply 
>>>wrong to carry the preliminary scores into the finals.  Think of it this 
>>>way, the way we handle the scoring now is akin to taking one measurement 
>>>in thousands of an inch and another measurement in millimeters and then 
>>>adding them together.  They are similar measurements but are not directly 
>>>relatable.
>>>
>>>The most basic requirement for normalizing is that you have equal 
>>>exposure across judging sets.  Comparing scores between pilots who have 
>>>flown in front of different sets of judges is fundamentally wrong.  I 
>>>fully realize that given the number of Masters competitors some 
>>>compromises have to be made.  However, carrying flawed preliminary scores 
>>>into the finals is completely unnecessary and corrupts the results.
>>>
>>>FAI starts with a fresh slate in the finals, I see no reason why Masters 
>>>shouldn't be doing the same.
>>>
>>>Thx, Jerry
>
> -- 
> ___________
> Jerry Budd
> Budd Engineering
> (661) 722-5669 Voice/Fax
> (661) 435-0358 Cell Phone
> mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com
> http://www.buddengineering.com
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the 
> list.
> 

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.