[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Sun Feb 3 18:47:11 AKST 2008
Yeah, me too. I agree with Joe and Joe agrees with Del. Geez!
What's this world coming to?
Ron Van Putte
On Feb 3, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Bob Kane wrote:
> My sentiments are in line with Joe's . . . . . .
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2008 1:20:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
> We've voted on this several times already in the past and the
> answer is always NO.
>
> You will lose half the Masters pilots. Guarantee I'll be gone. We
> need to limit the creep in sequence difficulty that has been
> occuring. I don't know about you guys, but I don't like having the
> international community dictating to us what we fly here in the US.
> You want to fly FAI sequences, go fly FAI and take your lumps. You
> know we have beaten this subject to death a number of times
> already. I'm tired of it already.
>
> As far as the so called professional pilots willing to participate
> in local contests, as a CD, if they don't support the local level
> contests, you just eliminate the class an save some money. That
> should send a clear signal. I really don't think making changes
> for getting more of the so called professionals involved will
> amount to anything. The vast majority of top pilots do participate
> in local events. There are very few who chose not to. I think I can
> count them on one hand. Heck, maybe a couple of fingers.<g>
>
> Why is there such a huge Masters class? Most Masters pilots either
> don't have the skill or time to master rolling circles and
> integrated rollers in a sequence to move up to FAI. Face it, we
> like to consider ourselves perfectionists at what we do. Who wants
> to go to a contest and hack through a manuever that could
> potentially be a crash experience. Masters is a great success as
> it is. Leave it alone.
>
> There was mention of sequence length. We can adjust Masters if we
> wanted to to shorten the sequence. By the way the current sequence
> is a little long, but the 09' sequence is definitely shorter in
> time length.
>
>
> From: GAA at owt.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 08:43:58 -0800
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
> 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
> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
> 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
>
> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>
> 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
>
> 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] 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-
> get your "fix". Check it out.
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080204/69c97042/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list