[NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

Sat Feb 2 12:25:46 AKST 2008

OOPS, I guess my sarcasm was taken seriouslyJim,
I really responded to your term "recreational competitors".   I wonder if there isn't a large majority of participants that might also be very comfortable with this title?

Would I like to be able to beat Jason? SURE !!!!!, but I'm also realistic enough to realize that it's probably not going to happen 'til whichever of us reaches the age of  93 first.
Georgie

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: J N Hiller 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

  OOPS, I guess my sarcasm was taken seriously. I expect to point out of advanced this year and am looking forward to flying the 2009 masters sequence (I didn’t like the current one). I don’t have a problem with masters adopting a previous FAI schedule, which has been done in the past. What I fear is if this becomes policy, masters is likely to adopt schedules of ever-increasing difficulty, beyond what some of us are willing to commit to. I don’t expect to ever fly masters competitively and would never point out, if it were to be included in the rules. There are recreational competitors regularly attending local and regional contests that are unable or unwilling to keep up with the ever-increasing difficulty necessary to separate the few top-level world-class competitors competing under common rules. The rules as they presently exist offer masters as a destination class and allow for a cap in masters class difficulty more compatible with the majority of the class competitors. Those desiring a greater challenge can fly FAI at will relative to their personal compatibility with each new schedule.

  I went through this many years ago when the IMAC class I was competing in adopted rolling circles. Yes I could probably learn to stumble my way through it but the effort, time and risk wasn’t compatible with enjoyment of this hobby / sport. I will always remember my flying buddies comment one practice day, “I aint got enough airplanes to learn how to do that”.

  If rules are proposed and approved that don’t include revisions to mandatory advancement that allow flying in a class compatible with an individual’s personal level of ability and commitment it is likely they will explore other interests. 

  I came back to pattern competition after about 7 years and have place high flying classes I could fly comfortably with very low risk and limited practice. I am about an 80% flier, which I don’t consider exceptional or sandbagging (I wish raw score averages were posted for major contests). Keep the $%^7 trophies, I don’t need them. I just want to join in the fun and fly with old and new friends.

  Jim Hiller

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Kane
  Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 5:39 PM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

  There is an advancement point system defined in the AMA competition regulations. For Intermediate and Advanced class, once a pilot earns 100 advancement points they must move up to the next higher class at the end of the season. 1st place earns points eqaul to 3 times the number of pilots you beat, 2nd place earns you 2 times the number of pilots you beat, 3rd place and beyond you earn 1 point for every pilot you beat. For eample, you place 2nd in advanced ahead of 2 other pilots you would earn 2x2 or 4 points.  The first place pilot in the same contest would earn 9 points.  Tracking of points is the pilot's responsibility. The AMA does not track them, the NSRCA does not track them. You can read the details in the regulations found here: http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/rulebooks/RC%20Aerobatics.pdf

  Bob Kane
  getterflash at yahoo.com 

  ----- Original Message ----
  From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
  To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Friday, February 1, 2008 12:20:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

  “Masters not a destination class” How long can I stay in advanced before dropping out of pattern?

  Jim Hiller

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of vicenterc at comcast.net
  Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:48 AM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

  I believe that FAI rules states that it is required more than 2 days event to fly F schedule.  I am sure that someone out there is going to be able to find if I am correct or not.  Of course, we can use the AMA rules and the CD can override this if he announces the change with time.   

  I agree that in Masters we should fly the current P schedule.  This will make a natural transition when moving Masters to F3A.  The rules should be changed to make the F3A class the final destination of AMA classes.  In other worlds,  Masters should not be the final destination as it is now.

  --
  Vicente "Vince" Bortone

  -------------- Original message -------------- 
  From: "Tony" <tony at radiosouthrc.com> 

  Those are the very reasons that I stopped flying FAI.  The FAI rules state that the F patterns are for Regional, National and International events, and are not designed to be flown at a local contest.  

  Tony Stillman, President

  Radio South, Inc.

  139 Altama Connector, Box 322

  Brunswick , GA   31525

  1-800-962-7802

  www.radiosouthrc.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
  Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 8:36 AM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

  Another good point Jason. The more that the F is flown and judged the better we all get at it. I can fly Masters or the P with equal mediocrity but the F always just scared me off. Maybe one of my goals for this year will be to learn it. Now if everyone promises no laughing I might try it.
   From comments I have hear a lot of guys just don't want to deal with rollers.

  Anthony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:08:38 -0500
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging by committee?

  Problem with that is that we're finding that enough FAI guys don't want to fly F... so why hold 2 FAI- P classes? I understand getting to know 1 sequence is easier to judge, but the Masters and FAI guys should be able to have a handle on the other class without much work. Its probably just me, but if FAI were to fly both P and F, then having "Masters" fly P might be a more Masters class this way. Then again, I may be off in left field, or is this right? And since now both the Team Trials and Worlds pick the winning teams at the end of the contest (after F) it would make more sense to start flying F locally so it's not a shock come Nats time.

  Regards,
  Jason
  www.jasonshulman.com
  www.shulmanaviation.com
  www.composite-arf.com 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave Burton
  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:53 PM
  To: ' NSRCA Mailing List '
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging by committee?

  There is  a way to solve the peer judging and several other problems with changing maneuver schedules for Masters class.

  Let Masters class fly the most current FAI  P schedule as a separate class. This provides a way that FAI class can judge Masters and be completely familiar with the maneuvers and Masters class can judge FAI and be completely familiar with the schedule. Then the rules committee does not have to come up with a new schedule periodically as it changes every other year just like FAI. The schedules (P & Masters) are so close in difficulty that flying the P schedule should not be any problem for masters class flyers.

  OK, Flame suit on!

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:56 PM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?

  For our matrix version, the A& B masters groups, we effectively ran 2 contests.  The scorer set up a second masters only contest for the B panel to enter their scores.  It worked quite well with only a little confusion.  

  It did a great job of picking the top 5 guys and getting them into the top 8.  Im pretty sure you could argue that 7-12th place might have had some variance...but I think thats true regardless of the format.

  -Mark

  On 1/31/08 3:49 PM, "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> wrote:

    I suspected this would require super- human objectivity as well as be a logistical nightmare. However, everyone reall knows the sequence. Really like the matrix system but not sure how much work that makes for the scorer. Anyone have any thoughts on how to score that
    One idea that was kicked around in D1 was fly an extra round in Masters to generate an extra throw away. Each round two masters pilots judge and don't fly rotating through the entire class. It seems like the time required would work out the same because the group had two less pilots but again lot of objectivity ( conscious and unconscious ) required especially as the contest end grew near. 

  Anthony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:14:15 -0500
  From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org; nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?

  Anthony,

  I have to agree with Jim, but for different reasons.  We did this about 4 years back at our district championships with the masters class.  We had 17 pilots in masters, and only one (me) in FAI, and another 6 or 7 in advanced.  So getting any judging at all would have required heavily using the Intermediate and Sportsman classes to judge, OR, heavily burdening the few Advanced guys...and sitting through 17 masters flights is a looooong sentence.

  So we did the peer judging scenario.  Given the options, it worked very well.  But it requires some serious juggling to even try and make it work well.  We ! used pe er judging for 4 of the 6 rounds.  Two flight lines, with a rolling panel of judges.  5 judges on each line, tossed high and low by maneuver leaving 7 pilots not judging at any given time.  This allowed the person before and after each flight some time to prep and decompress before having to jump in the chair for 5 flights and then start over on the second line.

  Its a VERY VERY VERY busy process, not to mention that unless you completely randomly resort the flight line each round, the pilot will be judged but the same group...or maybe more importantly NOT judged by the same group each round.

  It worked...but it was messy.  I would only do it again if we were presented with the same grossly offset numbers of entries.   

  On a related note... A better solution was tried a few years later when we had similar numbers (16 masters pilots)

  We created 2 classes of masters...A and B.   we still used FAI and Advanced j! udges, but we were also able to sprinkle in B judges for A and vice versa.  We did 4 rounds for each group.  Took the top 4 from each group and combined them and they flew the last 2 rounds as a Finalists group (with the other 8 judging and flying in their own group for the bottom 8 spots.)

   This was MUCH more workable, and I think netted a fairer event in the long run.

  -Mark

  On 1/31/08 2:46 PM, "Woodward, Jim" <jim.woodward at baesystems.com> wrote:

  Hey Anthony,

  **** Attempting a 50 words or less approach without too much regard for political correctness *****

  I dont think peer judging works.  I dont think it sends the right message about problem solving or achieving a more accurate score per maneuver for each pilot.   Psychology 101 would predict that it does not foster the right mindset or circumstances for a competitive environment (Reality TV shows like Survivor are based on one form or another of peer judging).  

  The #1 component that must be correct for it to work is that all pilot/judges see and subtract about the exact same number of points per maneuver see the same downgrades.  The situation doesnt compute if one judge is off from the others or uses impression judging.  A bunch of stuff should probably be in place for this to! work l ike:  large number of judges, drop high score, drop low score, etc. The highest caliber of honor, integrity, and judge-education is required by all competitors to make this work.  

  I witnessed this as a Masters pilot watching the FAI contest.  I watched the flying and this scenario VERY close. My opinion is that I would chose not to compete in FAI in a peer judging scenario. 

  Thanks,

  Jim W.

  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, includ! ing any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and proprietary information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:44 PM
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?

  Finally got a chance to read the current K-factor and saw a note on the Tangerine contest. The article mentioned FAI was judged by a commity of the FAI pilots. Could someone please provide details. Do you think you could keep your objectivity? ! For tho se that were there how did it work out? Sound interesting because you would finally be judged by pilots who know the FAI rules and the sequence.
   Could this be a solution for the oversized Masters class? Obvious drawbacks too, but trying to inspire some thought.

  Anthony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. Learn more. <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. Learn more. <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn more.

  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20080202/7542b01b/attachment-0001.html 