[NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance

Thu Oct 5 14:10:33 AKDT 2006

If I start using it, I'll probably never make it through a flight..... :)

Verne  (8 mid-airs and a kazillion close calls)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Atwood, Mark 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:40 PM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance

  I'm sorry.I have to jump in here.  Are we REALLY worried about someone using this to bail out of a bad maneuver and cheat??  I mean really.  I'm not saying it won't happen.  I'm saying do the rest of us care??    It's the same argument that goes to the whole issue of the points system and sandbagging.  I know it happens.and I'm sure some idiot wins A contest because of it.  But that's just what it is.an idiot.and A contest.  Is it a little frustrating??  Sure.  but it's not something I think we should revamp all our rules to try and avoid.    I'm as competitive as the next person in this sport, but if someone wants to win a model airplane contest sooooooo badly that they have to cheat??    Whew.they have WAY bigger problems to deal with.let 'em win.   The same goes for people throwing a hissy fit at a local contest because someone was allowed to move to the bottom of the order because of a technical problem or something.  Same issue.if they're really doing to that to garner an advantage.they have issues.  And if the person complaining is that afraid of having them fly against them.well.they have issues too.       BTW, the Nats are a slightly different story.the stakes are a little higher, and the rules as we have them need to be fairly strictly enforced.  But most of the time.this is supposed to be fun/friendly competition.  

  On that same note though, I'm not sure an Avoidance rule would help us much.   I think it creates a number of issues, and would save very few airplanes if any.    I see more damage done to aircraft on horrible landings because the pilot tried to force a bad approach rather than go around and take the zero.  

  -Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jay Marshall
  Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:13 PM
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

  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 
    > 
    > 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20061005/96e826a2/attachment-0001.html 