[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
Doug Cronkhite
seefo at san.rr.com
Thu Jul 30 17:08:37 AKDT 2009
The Nats should be the same format for every class flown.
-Doug
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Charles Hochhalter
<cahochhalter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 th
> e 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 fi
> nals event. The finals then becomes a single F pattern and 2 unknow
> ns. Count 3 of 4 scores. I would recommend doing the F schedule f
> irst, then the 2 unknowns. I believe all the other pilots would lov
> e 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/ded32944/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list