[NSRCA-discussion] If you don't score by the rules.... don't advertise a rulebook event

[Fred Huber]

Clear DayThis has been annoying me for a long time....

At Sportsman level the K=1 takeoff and landing scores can significantly 
affect the contest results.

The all too common practice of changing the rules at the last minute, to 
give Sportsman 0 or 10 on take-off and landing,  is inappropriate. 
(Inappropriate to chane the scoring system for any maneuver at ANY level!) 
Of course all the higher level pilots will agree to it... it does not affect 
them.  ANY ONE PILOT in Sportsman (or whatever other class is affected) 
contesting the change without it having been advertised as a rule 
modification in advance should prevent the change.

Yes, the takeoff and landing scoring is something that I think has affected 
my outcome at contests.  I flew a plane that had a large problem with stall 
turns... with a 6 being a good result for that maneuver.  Full opposed 
aileron wasn't enough to prevent the plane from rolling when rudder was 
applied.  But I figured my quality of takeoff and landing would more than 
make up for the poor stall turns, so I showed up for the contests.  And 
every contest I showed up at... they on the spot said "Sportsman gets 0 or 
10 takeoff and landing"  When all the marginal takeoffs of the other pilots 
in my class got 10's (Many deserved 5's... or 2's...  and I was consistantly 
getting complimented on the smoothness of my takeoffs and landings.) it took 
away the ability for me to make up for my known problem with the stall turn.

Next contest I go to... if they decide to change the rules on the spot... I 
want my entry fee back. (applies to some other events I have been to 
also...)
If they advertise in advance that the scoring won't be by rulebook... I 
won't show up.

I kept quiet about it (except discussing it with a couple of local flyers) 
when it occured.  Too many much more accompished pilots were in favor of the 
change.  IT HAD NO EFFECT ON THEM!  They shouldn't have been part of the 
discussion at all.

You want to change a rule that affects only one class at the pilots' meeting 
before the first flight... ANY ONE PILOT in that class opposing the change 
prevents it.  And pilots in other classes have no vote.

If the wind is too much for the pilot to think he wants to risk getting a 
bad score on takeoff and landing... maybe its too much wind for that pilot 
to bother making a takeoff.  All of the other pilots in the class will be 
dealing with the same wind.  It has just as much chance of preventing them 
from getting a 10.

Any contest that decides to give Sportsman 0 or 10 for takeoff or landing 
should list it as non-rulebook in advance.  If you are going to do the 
2-passes through the sequence without the full stop landing and another 
takeoff... you need to advertise that too.

I oppose the flying of 2 "flights" of Sportsman with one takeoff and one 
landing...  The takeoff and landing are scored maneuvers, suppposed to be 
able to get a score other than 0 or 10, therefore cutting half of the 
opportunities to do well or poorly on them is changing the scoring vs the 
rulebook. (see above... I  moved this paragraph due to changes in the below 
from the original version)

Also... the Sportsman sequence is relatively short for a reason.  This is an 
introductory class.  The contestants are not used to competing... not used 
to getting judged.  They need the ability to do one competition round... go 
back and talk with others about what they did right, what they did wrong and 
how to improve.  They also need a bit of timne to RELAX between the scored 
flights.

Considering how nervous some people are in thier early competition rounds... 
its a wonder to me that a first time Sportsman level competitor ends up with 
thier airplane in the air by the end of a second sequence within one flight.

The first contest someone flys in, they typically fly too close in, and 
because of this ALL maneuvers are extremely rushed.  By the end of the 
flight some contestants are so frazzled that they have severe problems doing 
the double-immelman AT ALL.  Then you want them to immedately turn around 
and run the sequence again?  Why not just tell them to land at the judges 
feet so the judges can stomp on the model?

Thats not a formula to promote  more participation... its a formula to scare 
off beginners.  If the pilot is ready to run the sequence twice in a row FOR 
THE JUDGES.. they are probably ready to start working on Inermediate.

Most people I have seen move up from Sportsman, its been due to seeking the 
higher challenge of Intermediate... not due to getting the points forcing 
the move up.  "Sandbagging" Sportsman is rare.

Also... it is justifiable for someone competing at Sportsman to set up thier 
plane for one round flight durration.  If they average 4 minutes to do a 
round... and put in a tank which gives 6 minute fuel supply, then the 
2-rounds in one flight is a guaranteed dead-stick before completion of the 
second round.  Do you force Master's level pilots to carry enough fuel for 2 
passes through the sequence?  Would they tollerate that?

Forcing a competitor to carry the DEAD WEIGHT of the fuel for a second round 
through the first round is inappropriate.  At Sportsman level... the type 
models which are competitive include models which would have severe CG 
change with the fuel depletion...

If you think a Sportsman competitor needs to be able to run 2 times through 
the sequence nonstop, you probably also think everyone needs to buy a $3000 
plane, capable of flying the Masters sequence, in order to try out 
Sportsman.  Its totaly unnecessary, inappropriate and shuts out beginners.

FHH 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061002/572be1d3/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5675 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061002/572be1d3/attachment.jpe