[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

[shinden1 at cox.net]

I Agree Mike ,,,
the banquet used to mean something when we announced "who" made the finals in each class ,,, 
 Lets have it at the Site Wed night. I have talked with Ron About Tim Landry cooking for the event ,,,he is willing to do it so, I don`t see a problem providing quality food for everybody as he is used to cooking for very large events. 
Lets put the fun and Excitement back in the event for all of us.

We could also showcase and tally the votes for the "BEST OF SHOW" Award ,there is a lot of work put into this and interest has declined in the last few years this would showcase these models better.
venders could also set up booths like the old days.

Bryan

---- michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> I was going to put off the discussion of the banquet to a later time, but I
> would recommend the banquet be as follows:
> 
> 1.      Do the night before the finals
> 
> 2.      Do on site under a big tent-AMA has those
> 
> 3.      Cater from someone like Outback
> 
> 4.      Keep the sites open for flying
> 
> This would allow competitors to fly and enjoy the company.  There can be and
> meeting and presentations.  It can be a gala affair.  Probably be best to do
> that on site 1.  The banquet has pretty much become a bust and I sacrificed
> my practice time to go and regretted it.  Won't do that again.  
> 
>  
> 
> Too many people leave after the finals because of the long drive or other
> commitments so I would recommend the night before the finals.
> 
>  
> 
> Mike 
> 
>  
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Konneker
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:56 AM
> To: Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
> 
>  
> 
> Good ideas!
> I've flown both Intermediate and Advanced at the Nats and I like the idea of
> a finals added for those two classes...
> a lot!
> I also like the idea of having the banquet at the end of the Nats.  It
> really would be a party then!
> ;-)
> To play the devil's advocate...
> How many more than the final eight for those classes would stay for that
> last evening?
> JLK
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:39:21 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
> 
> I'll let other chime in on the masters /FAI stuff, but I'd like to add to
> Mikes comment on Advanced and say we should add both an Advanced Finals, as
> well as an Intermediate Finals.  Reduce the finalists to 8, and you'll have
> time to fit both in on Site 4 on Finals day.    All the same motivations,
> and it keeps more people around for the last day.  
> 
>  
> 
> I'd really like to see ALL classes finish up on the same day.   IF that day
> can be a Friday, or a Saturday.I'd like to see the Banquet CLOSE the event
> rather than be in the middle.
> 
>  
> 
> I think it would be great if every planned to stay that last day to see
> everyone fly, to help with the final judging, and have a party at the end to
> celebrate everyone's success.  
> 
>  
> 
> As it stands now, the only consolidated social event comes on the evening
> that everyone is MOST concerned about getting in a few rounds of practice.
> We're forced to choose between spending quality time with friends we only
> get to see once a year, or practicing to do our best in THE competition of
> the year that we've spent all year prepping for.  For FAI, it's getting a
> flight or two up on the F pattern.  In the other classes.it's your last
> chance to make the finals. 
> 
>  
> 
> It's a little messed up.
> 
>  
> 
> Thoughts??
> 
>  
> 
> -Mark
> 
>  
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of michael s
> harrison
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:30 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date: 07/29/09
> 18:07:00
>