[NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance

[Bob Kane]

I'm with Mark on this one . . . . there are countless
situations that can arise that are not dealt with in
the rule book, trying to legislate them is a slippery
path. I'm all for fewer rules and more integrity on
the part of the participants.

--- "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
=== 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