[NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

[Ed Alt]

I think the problem here is that receiving approval for interrupting a 
flight for near collisions would be based on 90% guesswork.  If the judges 
are really watching what they are supposed to be watching, they are not in a 
very good position to objectively determine if a collision was really 
imminent.  For that matter, even the pilot isn't in a good position to do 
this most of the time.  Some callers can probably handle this chore, others 
may not be able to.  Do you want to have a situation where the caller blows 
it for you through a well intentioned, but totally inaccurate "avoidance" 
call that the judges can disagree with?  Do the judges base things on what 
they hear and from who they hear it, do they base it on what they see (like 
an obvious ditch from the flight path) or is it a combination of both? The 
rules don't say a thing about this, so it opens up more issues.

I think that it all happens too fast most of the time, except when two 
models get in synch in the same general direction and eventually try to 
mate.  You might find that it's a dispute that the CD can't easily settle, 
because he/she probably wasn't watching and the judges probably didn't see 
it well enough to decide properly in many cases.  If there was going to be a 
real, purposeful avoidance rule for Pattern, I think it would have to be 
more explicitely stated to require the discretion of the pilot or suggestion 
by the caller to be the expresed verbally and for that matter, allow the 
pilot to declare whether or not they are actually following the callers 
suggestion or just plowing ahead.  You could perhaps allow the judges to 
perform a smell test if they really thought it was bogus, but just as you 
shouldn't downgrade for errors you didn't see, you probably shouldn't 
question the pilot discretion on avoidance calls, if they are made a formal 
rule.

All-in-all, I think it's probably not a real effective rule to adopt.  I'm 
not sure that following the "If it saves just ONE airplane, it's worth it" 
line of thinking is good for competition.  Maybe it is better left to CD's 
as to whether they want to make this a standard practice at their contests.  
That would be my suggestion anyway - if the locals think this is the way to 
go and can encourage CD's to make it standard practic through a rules waiver 
for the sanctioned event, then go for it.

Ed


>From: Jeff Hill <jh102649 at speakeasy.net>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:11:32 -0600
>
>All -
>
>Below is the rule from the AMA 2005 Competition Rulebook. IMHO it  requires 
>you to interrupt the maneuver and not fly any subsequent  
>maneuvers--otherwise they are scored. In this case it appears the CD  would 
>have to make a ruling. In actual practice the CD would probably  rely on 
>the judges' opinions for guidance. This would most likely  mean that you 
>would have to bail and land and wait for the CD to  rule. If you bailed and 
>your request was denied then you cannot  complete the flight; whereas if 
>you ruin one maneuver and complete  the flight the rest of the flight is 
>scored but you lose your right  to appeal.
>
>In 2007 a new rule, 6.8, might also be used as grounds for a reflight.
>
>Both rules are printed below.
>
>Jeff Hill
>
>10.2. Each competitor is entitled to one (1)
>attempt for each official flight. An attempt may be
>repeated at the judges’ discretion only if, for some
>unforeseen reason, the model fails to make a start
>(i.e., safety delay due to other aircraft traffic, etc.).
>Similarly, an attempt may be repeated at the discretion
>of the Contest Director if it has been interrupted
>due to a circumstance beyond the control of the competitor,
>but only the maneuver affected and the
>unscored maneuvers that follow will be scored. The
>Contest Director shall have sole discretionary authority
>to grant a single repeat attempt, if, in his/her opinion,
>the competitor has encountered radio interference
>during the course of an official attempt.
>• 10.3. In the case of a collision during a
>Pattern flight, the contestants must immediately
>recover their aircraft. They may resume their flights
>with the same aircraft if the aircraft are judged to be
>airworthy or with a backup or repaired aircraft. They
>will begin with the maneuver that was in progress or
>with the next scheduled maneuver if the collision
>occurred between maneuvers. The previously
>defined starting times will apply for a resumed flight
>and the contestant will be allowed no more than two
>(2) passes in front of the judges for the purpose of
>trimming the plane. Scores of the previous maneuvers
>will be added to the scores of subsequent
>maneuvers in the resumed flight. The flight must be
>completed by the end of the round being flown, or
>within a time frame designated by the CD.
>
>
>6.8 The contestant may ask the CD for a flight delay or reflight due  to 
>unsafe conditions; if the judges concur the delay or reflight must  be 
>granted.  However, the contestant’s won aircraft cannot be the  cause of 
>the unsafe condition.  A contestant’s own aircraft can only  have an 
>equipment malfunction.  A flight delay or reflight shall not  be granted 
>for equipment malfunctions at 4A and 5A contests.  The CD  may make 
>exceptions at other contests.
>


>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion