[NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance

Thu Oct 5 17:39:44 AKDT 2006

OOps on the other one (if it went through...) double-clicked "reply" and it 
went without my adding my comment.

MY IDEA FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:

As long as the pilot announces he's avoiding a mid-air... and it looks like 
there was a chance of one.. give the guy the bennefit of the doubt and let 
him do whatever was needed to avoid... then whatever is needed to get back 
in track to finish his flight.

Its in keeping with the "safety delay" clause... and less disruptive than 
him having to land and request a refly due to avoiding a mid-air. (following 
letter of the rulebook... risking the refly being denied)

Just to be reasonable... if you are judging and aren't sure if you should 
allow the guy to make the deviation... put down the score for the affected 
maneuvers as  "0 / X" (X being the score if not zeroed for the deviation) 
Then tell the sheet runner that you'll want to talk to the CD and pilot 
after the round is done.
(again, minimizing disruption to the flow of the contest)

You end up with just the one or two maneuvers being disputed... instead of 
the entire rest of the flight.
If there's a dispute about allowing the deviation... and it is ruled 
allowed... you have the score.  If not... you know where the zeros go.

****

That make sense?  Sound reasonable?

----- 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
>
> 