[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
ronlock at comcast.net
ronlock at comcast.net
Sun Feb 3 07:54:00 AKST 2008
Agree,
Ron Lockhart
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Gordon Anderson" <GAA at owt.com>
> 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 embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Gordon Anderson" <GAA at owt.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:44:40 +0000
Size: 67829
Url: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080203/43368140/attachment-0001.mht
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list