[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Thu Jul 30 08:25:08 AKDT 2009

Some more volunteers will be needed to make this all work . . . . .  

 Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

________________________________
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:25:07 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Excellent idea.

Also, I think we do the intermediate pilots a disservice by
assuming they’re overwhelmed.  There are as many destination Intermediate
pilots as there are Masters.  They’re not all beginners and would appreciate
some respect for their level of accomplishment.

Honestly I think we currently do the same for the Masters
pilots.  They’re finals is almost an afterthought compared to FAI.    We need
to celebrate and respect each level somewhat equally.  We all know  the top
dogs are the FAI finalists… but that shouldn’t diminish the accomplishment of
the lower class victors.

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 10:18 AM
To: Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Why
not let the NSRCA ask this year's Nats Intermediate pilots how they feel about
a finals being added?
JLK

________________________________

From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:09:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
I agree with Earl that intermediate is in a big learning curve
and coming to the nats ,competing at that level, learning the ropes, taking it
all in, seeing all the other flyers, competing for 3 days,etc. should be more
than enough for these newcomers.  

The banquet can make that night sort of special for these
intermediate pilots as well.  They can give out the trophies and prizes
for these pilots. There wonderfully are many young and new pilots that can
celebrate at this time.  The finalists for the next day can be announced
also. 

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 7:30 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: 07/30/09
05:58:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090730/ff467f76/attachment.html>