[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
Ed Miller
edbon85 at tds.net
Sun Feb 3 13:08:08 AKST 2008
I second.
Ed M.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ronlock at comcast.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list