[NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

[Lance Van Nostrand]

Why not let give the judges the ability to call avoidance.  Pilot option to listen or not.  May not catch all, but can't be worse then letting a pilot who's focused on what hes doing to see it and react.
--Lance

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jay Marshall 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:12 PM
  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 is the way to 
    > go and can encourage CD's to make it standard practic through a rules waiver 
    > for the sanctioned event, then go for it. 
    > 
    > Ed 
    > 
    > 
    > >From: Jeff Hill 
    > >Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    > >To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    > >Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance 
    > >Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:11:32 -0600 
    > > 
    > >All - 
    > > 
    > >Below is the rule from the AMA 2005 Competition Rulebook. IMHO it requires 
    > >you to interrupt the maneuver and not fly any subsequent 
    > >maneuvers--otherwise they are scored. In this case it appears the CD would 
    > >have to make a ruling. In actual practice the CD would probably rely on 
    > >the judges' opinions for guidance. This would most likely mean that you 
    > >would have to bail and land and wait for the CD to rule. If you bailed and 
    > >your request was denied then you cannot complete the flight; whereas if 
    > >you ruin one maneuver and complete the flight the rest of the flight is 
    > >scored but you lose your right to appeal. 
    > > 
    > >In! 2007 a new rule, 6.8, might also be used as grounds for a reflight. 
    > > 
    > >Both rules are printed below. 
    > > 
    > >Jeff Hill 
    > > 
    > >10.2. Each competitor is entitled to one (1) 
    > >attempt for each official flight. An attempt may be 
    > >repeated at the judges' discretion only if, for some 
    > >unforeseen reason, the model fails to make a start 
    > >(i.e., safety delay due to other aircraft traffic, etc.). 
    > >Similarly, an attempt may be repeated at the discretion 
    > >of the Contest Director if it has been interrupted 
    > >due to a circumstance beyond the control of the competitor, 
    > >but only the maneuver affected and the 
    > >unscored maneuvers that follow will be scored. The 
    > >Contest Director shall have sole discretionary authority 
    > >to grant a single repeat attempt, if, in his/her opinion, 
    > >the competitor has ! encount ered radio interference 
    > >during the course of an official attempt. 
    > >. 10.3. In the case of a collision during a 
    > >Pattern flight, the contestants must immediately 
    > >recover their aircraft. They may resume their flights 
    > >with the same aircraft if the aircraft are judged to be 
    > >airworthy or with a backup or repaired aircraft. They 
    > >will begin with the maneuver that was in progress or 
    > >with the next scheduled maneuver if the collision 
    > >occurred between maneuvers. The previously 
    > >defined starting times will apply for a resumed flight 
    > >and the contestant will be allowed no more than two 
    > >(2) passes in front of the judges for the purpose of 
    > >trimming the plane. Scores of the previous maneuvers 
    > >will be added to the scores of subsequent 
    > >maneuvers in the resumed flight. The flight must be 
    > >compl! eted by the end of the round being flown, or 
    > >within a time frame designated by the CD. 
    > > 
    > > 
    > >6.8 The contestant may ask the CD for a flight delay or reflight due to 
    > >unsafe conditions; if the judges concur the delay or reflight must be 
    > >granted. However, the contestant's won aircraft cannot be the cause of 
    > >the unsafe condition. A contestant's own aircraft can only have an 
    > >equipment malfunction. A flight delay or reflight shall not be granted 
    > >for equipment malfunctions at 4A and 5A contests. The CD may make 
    > >exceptions at other contests. 
    > > 
    > 
    > 
    > >_______________________________________________ 
    > >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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061006/2c8b8a17/attachment.html