[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
mike mueller
mups1953 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 30 17:29:25 AKDT 2009
I agree I want to see the Intermediate flyers get a finals.
Let the finals Advanced flyers judge the Intermediate and vise versa. That solves the judging issue. Mike
--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Rusty Fried <completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com> wrote:
> From: Rusty Fried <completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 2:36 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is not about equal exposure
> it about giving proper recognition
> to all AMA classes. These guys deserve the same recognition
> as Masters or F3A.
> They pay their money let’s give them a good
> showcase.
>
> As far as judging you can use
> the class members to judge their
> own finals. I feel if this is really an AMA National
> let’s treat it that
> way. Rusty.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 8:40 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list