[NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance

[Ron Van Putte]

On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Bob Kane wrote:

> 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.

I'm for more common sense.  No matter what the rule, someone will  
figure a way to finesse it.  However, if the CD tells pilots at the  
pilots' meeting to bail out, rather than risk a crash, that's common  
sense.

Ron Van Putte

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