[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

[Ron Van Putte]

If all airplanes that compete will be weighed/measured on the day of  
checkin, there had better be a non-flying group to do the job.   
Competitors are not likely to be willing to spend the whole day  
weighing/measuring up to 150 airplanes (many pilots have backup  
airplanes) when they could be out practicing.

Ron VP
.
On Jul 30, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:

> Mike,
>
>
>
> Thanks for responding.  The board discussed a lot of these ideas  
> the week after the Nats and we’ve been working on a list of stuff  
> that we’re going to ask Dave to implement next year.  Pretty much  
> what you’ve outlined below is in that list with some variations.
>
>
>
> We’re also going to fully enforce weight/size on all planes that  
> compete – everyone will be weighed and measured on the day of check- 
> in – each plane will be “stickered” as they qualify and if anyone  
> fails to make weight or size then they’ll have the whole day on  
> check-in day to make modifications but will need to be weighed and  
> measured again before the check-in period ends (and pass) before  
> they’ll be allowed to fly.  Random weight checks will also be made  
> throughout the event (random process to be determined later).
>
>
>
> -Derek
>
>
>
> 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 5:30 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion