[NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance
Ron Lockhart
ronlock at comcast.net
Fri Oct 6 14:04:10 AKDT 2006
IMHO that is not an appropriate burden to put on judges. And, as someone noted earlier,
assuming judges are watching plane, they likely won't see a potential mid air any
earlier than pilot.
Ron Lockhart
----- 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/bb0f7c2e/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list