[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Ron Van Putte vanputte at cox.net
Thu Jul 30 11:46:51 AKDT 2009 

Certainly several of the Intermediate pilots were qualified to  
judge.  In the past, the Nats entry form had a place to check whether  
the pilot did/did not feel qualified to judge.  In fact, a couple of  
years ago, several Intermediate pilots judged Advanced more than  
once.  However, John Fuqua, Greg Grigsby and I assisted a pilot  
attending his first Nats and only his third contest.  The Nats was  
his first competition in Intermediate.  He definitely should not have  
judged Advanced.

Ron VP

On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Atwood, Mark wrote:

> Ron,
>
> Do we know why so few Intermediate pilots were asked to judge?  I  
> realize that they're the "least experienced" per say, but we do ask  
> them to get certified, so it's a little bit of a slap if we make  
> them do that and then pass on their help.  Also, per my previous  
> message, many of them are not beginners and actually have a fair  
> amount of judging experience.  With 3 judge panels, it's a perfect  
> time for them to get more experience since you can sprinkle them in  
> amongst more seasoned judges.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:20 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
>
> Two minutes per airplane may result in a job five hours long.  The
> other half of the equation is that assigning several pilots to do the
> job means that they wouldn't have to judge, depleting the judging
> pool.  We had several individuals who did a LOT of judging this
> year.  Dave Guerin was pulling his hair out, until the volunteers
> came up to offer to do extra judging sessions.
>
> Ron VP
>
> On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Archie Stafford wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> Checked by AVG - 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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list