[NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance

Thu Oct 5 18:16:14 AKDT 2006

Having only one pattern contest and many scale aerobatic contests behind me, 
I will offer this.  As has been discussed, avoidance has always been used in 
Scale Aerobatics - at least for as long as I can remember and that's a 
number of years.  I cannot ever recall a single time when an issue of any 
type resulted from someone calling avoidance.  As a matter of fact, I have 
personally had to avoid more than once on a single sequence- sometimes you 
just get in sync with the other fellow and you are constantly in each 
other's way.  When you have as much as $10K occupying the same airspace good 
sense prevails and the benefit of the doubt is given.

Some points that I haven't seen in the other posts:
1) noone wants to break sequence.  It really can throw you off your rhythm- 
usually, when someone has to avoid, they come back from the flight 
complaining about it.  You're in "the zone" and all of a sudden you have to 
break and bam- you are trying to get reset mentally all over again.
2) many times the conditions when pilot A is flying are not the same as when 
pilot F flies later on.  Sun goes behind a cloud, sun comes out from behind 
a could in front of you, wind picks up, it starts raining, there's a crash 
on the runway in front of you, etc.. (all have happened to me and probably 
most of you, too).  Having a fellow competitor call avoidance is small 
compared to these other changes in condition from one flyer to the next that 
we already accept.

I consider it an advantage if my competitor is having to call avoidance- not 
a disadvantage that he can.  So why penalize him further?  Let him start 
over again after the last scored manuever.

Dave Michael
Avoiding all the way  <G>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Bad sportsmanship - was Avoidance

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