[NSRCA-discussion] If you don't score by therules....don'tadvertise a rulebook event
Joe Lachowski
jlachow at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 3 10:52:46 AKDT 2006
Having to sit still on the pavement was the problem and that has been
eliminated.
>From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>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
>therules....don'tadvertise a rulebook event
>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:17:31 -0400
>
>Another excuse given was to speed up the time it took for the scored
>takeoffs and landings supposedly took which was supposedly contributing to
>long running contests. As the fruit has shown that is not the case.
>
> Del
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: brian young
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] If you don't score by the
>rules....don'tadvertise a rulebook event
>
>
> Sorry you got a bad impression. From past experience and when the
>landings were scored incrementally the reason they were changed to 0 and 10
>at the pilots meeting is frequently less than perfect conditions, or small
>runway.
>
> Landing is normally where planes get broken, and takeoffs are normally
>where people get ran out of judges chairs. So in bad conditions it makes
>sense to modify the scoring. So if you bother to travel to a contest and
>the weather is crummy it makes it a little easier for some if they dont
>have so much pressure to make a landing. We dont want anyone to break a
>plane and possibly end their season, we need everyone thats interested in
>pattern to stay interested. Hope you get back in the mood to hit some
>contests.
>
> Im with ya on the scoring of the TO and landings though, landings can be
>tough to get right and if you do them well you want them scored no matter
>the k factor.
>
> Fred Huber <fhhuber at clearwire.net> wrote:
> This wasn't this year... I didn't go to a contest this year partly
>because of the bad feeling left over from the previous rules deviations...
>which were made at the pilots meeting propr to the first flight... and I
>would have been the sole opposition.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Verne Koester
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] If you don't score by the
>rules....don't advertise a rulebook event
>
>
> Fred,
> They WERE scoring by the rules at the contests you attended this
>year. Under the current rules, takeoffs and landings are scored EITHER 0 or
>10 for all classes.
>
> Effective January 1, 2007, Takeoffs and landings will be FROM 0 to
>10 in half point increments for all AMA classes.
>
> You're right, deviations from the rule book are supposed to be
>advertised in advance of the contest date.
>
> Verne Koester
> ----- 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't advertise 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
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date:
>10/1/2006
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
>rates starting at 1¢/min.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>_______________________________________________
>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