[NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance

Thu Oct 5 17:27:01 AKDT 2006

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance


>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.13/463 - Release Date: 10/4/2006
>
>