[NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

Thu Oct 5 13:10:27 AKDT 2006

I find I have less time to watch the plane when I
call, I spending time reading the manuver and insuring
I get FAI stuff like "2/4 of first diagonal, 2/2 on
second diagonal" correct. 

--- Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:

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

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 