[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Thu Jul 30 09:54:14 AKDT 2009

Stop teasing… you know I like it when you talk dirty…

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Pritchett
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:52 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

I'll help Mark......  he needs it, and I know just how to handle him.

Bill Pritchett
Souled Out Entertainment
www.souledoutentertainment.biz<http://www.souledoutentertainment.biz>
765-744-9322

________________________________
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:39:17 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Agreed.  This is no different than attending the pilots meeting.  Check in, weigh in, etc.  I would argue you could get one or two people willing to facilitate and monitor it in exchange for their judging duties (I would be one! )

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:01 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

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<mailto: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> [mailto:nsrca-
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<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<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date: 07/30/09 05:58:00
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

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/20090730/309e6d87/attachment.html>