[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

[michael s harrison]

From: michael s harrison [mailto:drmikedds at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:45 PM
To: 'Don Ramsey'
Subject: nats format

 

After considerable thought and reflection, I would like to share my views of
the nats and the classes flown.  I believe we have been very fortunate to
have an excellent group of volunteers that work and sacrifice to make the
nats happen.  That group is led by the event director Dave Guerin, who has
worked tirelessly and unselfishly for years at this job.  I believe he has
responded to our desires to make this the best national event possible.
With that in mind, there are some changes I believe we can make that would
be a win-win for everyone and reduce the workload as well. 

 

They are:

1.      Have a finals for advanced

a.      8 finalists

b.      3 rounds

c.      Judged by advanced or intermediate judges(qualified volunteers)

d.      The site is open so it is not a space issue

e.      24 flights would take app 3 hours

f.       Do on 4th day

g.      Count the prelims as a 1000 normalized score

h.      Count 3 of 4 scores for the winner

2.      Modify masters accordingly

a.      3 round finals

b.      Count prelims as a 1000 normalized score

c.      Count 3 of 4 for the winner

d.      10 finalists

e.      30 flights about 5.5 hours

3.      Fai

a.      3 rounds final

b.      F-11 flown 1 time

c.      Each unknown(1&2) flown once

d.      Count the semi-final F-11 scores only as a single 1000 normalized
score

e.      Count 3 of 4 for the winner

f.       10 finalists

g.      30 flights about 5.5 hours

 

Rationale behind changes:

 

Advanced 

This would make for a very exciting and fun event for the advanced class.
It would make the 4th day a very real part of the nats for them.  This
format is totally self contained with no additional personnel required.  It
could be started and finished before the masters and fai is done.  

 

Masters 

Masters is in a real sense an endurance contest.  How many times does
someone have to fly the same sequence to prove he is the best in that class.
The present system is 10 times!  The only argument is the equal exposure
issue-which may have merit.   The system I propose addresses that issue and
takes less time.  I raised the number of finalists to 10 to close the
argument that someone is cutout of the finals because of unequal exposure.
Counting the prelim as one of the 4 scores is, in my opinion a legitimate
score to keep-having been earned over a period of 3 days under a number of
variables.  Assuming incorrect scoring(bias, unequal exposure, etc.), the
competitor has 3 flights to erase that concern.  Any 3 flights count so the
prelims score can be dropped.  

 

FAI

The argument for doing 2 Finals pattern is that at the world event in the
semifinals, there is not equal exposure of the pilots and the pool is so
large that conditions can change substantially over the course of doing the
semifinals.  This rationale wouldn't apply at the nats.  The semifinals at
the nats is only 2 flights with 20 pilots, using the prelim score as a 1000
normalized score.  Therefore, the 2 F patterns can be combined to be a score
carried over into the finals event.  The finals then becomes a single F
pattern and 2 unknowns.  Count 3 of 4 scores.   I would recommend doing the
F schedule first, then the 2 unknowns.  I believe all the other pilots would
love to see FAI unknown finals flown by some of the best pilots in the
world. It would be a showcase event.  

 

To conclude:

 

I believe this is a win-win for everyone.  We would add finals to advanced;
both the Masters and FAI finals would be shortened; the best pilots would be
showcased; more pilots would be in the finals; fewer personnel to do the
finals.  

There is no perfect system.  I am sure there will be objections of some
kind, but I believe this system has real merit and should be implemented. 

 

Respectfully

Mike Harrison

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090730/c17780d1/attachment.html>