[NSRCA-discussion] If you don't score by the rules....don'tadvertise a rulebook event
Joe Lachowski
jlachow at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 3 10:49:42 AKDT 2006
The 2007 is a little longer<g>
>From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] If you don't score by the
>rules....don'tadvertise a rulebook event
>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:36:34 -0400
>
>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
><< ClearDayBkgrd.JPG >>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list