[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
Mark Hunt
flyintexan at att.net
Thu Jul 30 16:58:25 AKDT 2009
You would need 9 pilots to cover three rounds of judging...3 judges for each round....9 finalists and it works.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Hochhalter
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 19:54
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
Why cant the finalists from advanced judge intermediate and vice versa.
Seems it would work to me.. long day but worth it cause they are in the FINALS.
Chuck
--- On Thu, 7/30/09, michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 3:55 PM
The advanced, as I said in my initial proposal is self supportive. It does not require recruiting additional judges per say. It comes from the intermediate pool and those that did not make the finals.
Mike
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:40 AM
To: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
I have not read everyones comments to thoroughly to digest this.
But, we already have a problem with getting judges for the Masters and FAI finals already. Getting judges for the other classes on top of that really makes it difficult. This years Nats was a prime example, there was an imbalance of judges district wise in the Masters finals. Don't know how FAI panned out.
Do we really need a finals for Intermediate and Advanced? They get equal exposure already. If there is a finals for Advanced and Intermediate, it really only needs to be the top 5. I had the opportunity to judge Advanced this year and that is what I see from this experience. Another option for Masters finals is top 8 with the the 8th being determined by a one round sudden death flyoff between numbers 8 through 11 or 12 at the end of day 3.
Also, for this to really work properly, there is a need for a pool of say, at least, 6 paid full time judges available. Not to mention more volunteers or paid individuals for various other duties if there is a plan to weigh every plane, etc.
What really messed up this years Nats was the fact that no shows did not bother to contact Dave early enough or at all for him to fix judging assignments. No shows are what really screw things up for the contest management. No shows screw up flight order exposure, create an imbalance in matrix seeding and sends contest management scrambling to fill judging assignments vacated by the no shows. We were short about 10 or so judges from the FAI and Masters pool. This is the critical pool of judges to make things work. This does not include the Advanced and Intermediate no shows. This all gets amplified when there is a year with lower than usual attendance which this year was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:29:38 -0500
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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/20090731/057fbf6d/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list