[NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

[Jay Marshall]

It probably wouldn't do to allow the pilot call out "Avoidance" - too much
of a chance or using it to bail out of a bad maneuver. It could be set up,
however, for the caller to call it out ? They also probably have a better
vision of the total sky.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
ronlock at comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:57 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance
 
I think Ed has provided a good review of the situation-
And reluctantly agree, there is too much devil in the details to create a
set of criteria that judges could apply with consistency.
 
Ron Lockhart
-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com> 

> 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 i! t on wh at 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 t he 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 
> >Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List 
> >To: NSRCA Mailing List 
> >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 ! encount ered 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 
> >compl! eted 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 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061005/ed9a00e8/attachment.html