[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

[Archie Stafford]

I think that part is easy. Dont give them a choice. It becomes part of  
what is required. If everyone starts early it wouldnt be that bad.  
Only takes a max of 2-3 minutes a plane.

Arch

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> 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 c 
>> ompete – 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 da 
>> y on check-in day to make modifications but will need to be weighe 
>> d and measured again before the check-in period ends (and pass) be 
>> fore 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 2 
>> 0 pilots, using the prelim score as a 1000 normalized score.  Ther 
>> efore, the 2 F patterns can be combined to be a score carried over 
>>  into the finals event.  The finals then becomes a single F patter 
>> n and 2 unknowns.  Count 3 of 4 scores.   I would recommend doing  
>> the F schedule first, then the 2 unknowns.  I believe all the othe 
>> r 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion