[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
Ed Alt
ed_alt at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 30 17:35:16 AKDT 2009
This suggestion solves the judging problem in a less than equitable way. The difference is that you would be requiring all of the Advanced & Intermediate guys trying to close the deal on the Championship to judge. This is not really the same as what happens on the Masters and FAI lines in the finals.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
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
_______________________________________________
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