[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
Gordon Anderson
GAA at owt.com
Sun Feb 3 07:42:48 AKST 2008
I disagree with Master flying the FAI P schedule. I think we should let the
membership vote on this issue and implement what the majority want.
--Gordon
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of
vicenterc at comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:18 AM
To: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com; NSRCA Mailing List; 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
I think the idea is that the destination class (if we changed to FAI-F3A) will
fly the F-Schedule also. I see very strong advantages from judging point of
view. Both classes Masters and FAI-F3A will know the P schedule really well
since both are flying the same maneuvers. I expect that the judging level is
going to be improved. Yes, the Masters pilots will need to learn the
F-Schedule. Finally, I think more professional pilots will be willing to
participate in local contests because we will have more competition at the
FAI-F3A level. I think if we do this could be fun that is the general
agreement.
Regards,
--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
I have been following this discussion with some relutance to jump in. As a
current Masters pilot and old time F3A flyer I to once pushed to have the Master
schedule be the P schedule. But you guys need to look at what FAI has done to
the P schedule. Here is link to the F3A rules.
http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4
FAI has reduced the total maneuvers to 19 including a non scored takeoff and
landing. AMA Master is 23 including a scored takeoff and landing.
Going to FAI would certainly speed things up (which is what FAI intended for
large contests like WC to speed up the prelims and get to the real contest).
Not sure this is what AMA/NSRCA membership wants for a destination class.
John
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del Rykert
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:14 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
Hi Dave..
I never saw anyone suggesting to do away with the Masters class.. I have thought
of another restriction/factor. Some of the FAI maneuvers require a specific
designed plane to do them well. If you don't have such an aircraft in your
stable you can be looking at a prohibitive change to switch to those type of
planes or live with the self imposed handicap. Granted, some of the best can
make a good showing in FAI type maneuvers but when needing the 1 point advantage
in a high K-Factor maneuver it does drive the contestants to seek the best sled
that works for them.
A good friend pointed out something I had lost sight of once. He acquired a
newer designed airplane to his stable that performed the maneuvers he was flying
so much easier. The design choice alone was raising his scores by almost 1 point
per maneuver. With only a little bit of practice with new plane. He never
appreciated the handicap he self imposed until having better equipment. Heck.. I
still have coreless servos and not a digital do I own.. How far behind am I?
LOL.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
Del, Ive never advocated doing away with the Masters class. I only suggested
adopting the most current FAI P maneuver schedule and fly Masters as a separate
class as we do today. Masters pilots would not be required to advance to the FAI
class unless they chose to do so. Seems to me like it solves several problems.
It allows a CD to have more flexibility in arranging flight lines, a larger pool
of knowledgeable judges, eliminates the need for NSRCA (or others) to come up
with a new schedule periodically for the Masters Class. I dont think there is
any difference in the difficulty level of the P schedule and the Masters
schedule today and would not require any greater skill level than Masters does
today IMO.
Dave Burton
From: Del Rykert [mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:09 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
Hi Dave
I'm not trying to imply that I have the correct answer to that question. Not all
people that advance through the AMA classes have the desire or deep pockets to
handle being competitive at the FAI level. Some Master fliers in the past have
told me the time commitment is high to be competitive in FAI class. Higher than
they can accept. That may be the biggest reason. Not certain. But they do enjoy
the difficulty and challenge of flying masters and if told they had to move to
FAI or if pointed out and made to move up to FAI some would choose to leave. I
see it as part of the dues some are willing to commit to play. Some drop out
after making it to intermediate. Others after reaching advanced. Some have
stayed and still fly those classes but real! ize the y don't have the time,
desire, money, to move up and be challenging or at least make a decent showing
they can accept for themselves. I believe the competitive factor varies with us
all and what we are willing to commit to fly pattern.
I'm even suspect their are other issues that escape us and why they are happy to
fly Masters.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
Del, whats the difference between FAI type schedules and Masters
schedules? You are correct about previous proposals not being accepted. I have
submitted a rules change twice for Masters to fly the P schedule and it was
defeated both times. Wont do that again, but I never understood the opposition
to it.
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del Rykert
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:24 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
So it would be acceptable to you to drive some away from pattern as it has been
clearly stated that some Master fliers by choice do not want to fly FAI type
schedules. It has been voted on with surveys and discussed on this list in the
past to not use that approach.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: vicenterc at comcast.net
To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 11:48 AM
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 e! r judgi ng 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 n umber 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
propriet! ary inf ormation. 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]
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us%5d> 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 overs! ized Ma sters 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>
<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>
<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
<http://biggestloser.msn.com/> more.
_____
_______________________________________________
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/20080203/edf272ee/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list