[NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance
george w. kennie
geobet at gis.net
Fri Oct 6 08:46:28 AKDT 2006
Due to the fact that my mouth likes to run more than it should, I'm in favor of giving the judges more flexibility. Somewhere in the "Judges Code of Ethics" it informs us that the judge should have no verbal contact with the contestant. I realize that some contestants don't want advice from the judges. I learned that clearly, but now that we have contestant judging is that to say that we can't talk to each other......c'mawwwwn.
I flew in a recent contest where my caller skipped a maneuver and one of the judges corrected the error in time for me to execute the proper maneuver. I'm aware that there are some rule sticklers that would probably disqualify my flight for such an infraction, but I wanted to kiss the judge. I think that's got something to do with being considerate as opposed to being a rule monger ( yeah, I know, I've probably been guilty of the term and probably will be again ).
Somewhere in the process there has to be room for a little discretion.
G.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Van Nostrand
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20061006/8f47d8cc/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list