[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Thu Jul 30 09:20:33 AKDT 2009

Practice is overrated especially the day before the Nats is due to start.  I
will personally man the processing for the entire day if need be... see you
there!

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:57 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 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090730/9cbe465a/attachment.html>