[NSRCA-discussion] If you don't score by the rules.... don'tadvertise a rulebook event
John Ferrell
johnferrell at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 3 05:33:35 AKDT 2006
Clear DayI agree with most of your concerns. I have been trying to deal with these "issues" since I started in pattern.
If there is to be an unadvertised change in the rules I feel the pilots are entitled to a vote and that vote must be UNANIMOUS!
The sequence is too short: I think it places way too much emphasis on each maneuver. Every flight becomes a sudden death scenario. I abandoned the entry level class way to soon simply because it seemed pointless to travel to a weekend contest that would take less than a 20 oz tank of fuel.
Opponents of a longer sequence feel that the current length is enough to wring out a beginner. They have a point. A local compromise is to fly two flights back to back without rotation.
The only solution I see is to get out of the class as soon as your nerves will allow and you can safely fly the next class up.
TO & LANDINGS: I prefer that one who cannot execute a reasonable. departure/arrival not fly a contest. It presents a terribly unsafe environment. I believe the move toward unscored landings is a concession to aircraft with primitive landing gear. I DO NOT think overly harsh downgrades are wise.
Those who choose to fly airplanes with hard, narrow gear deserve the downgrades that come with them.
The matter of flying airplanes that cannot fly certain maneuvers is a competitors problem. It is not a rule book problem. You can learn a lot with a marginal airplane but it won't take you all the way.
Btw, in my several years of working the Nats I have come to believe the number 1 disaster in Master's class is the stall turn or some variant of it!
John Ferrell W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Huber
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 12:45 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] If you don't score by the rules.... don'tadvertise a rulebook event
This 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061003/518cf263/attachment-0001.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/20061003/518cf263/attachment-0001.jpe
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list