[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Thu Jul 30 19:58:21 AKDT 2009
It's always good to treat talented Advanced class pilots well; they
might be whipping your butt in the Master class next year.
Amen on kudos to Melissa Hester.
Ron VP
On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:49 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
> Cool.
>
> A huge thanks to Mellisa! She owns site 4!!!! Awesome for you to
> have such a cool wife Mike! I can't wait for these guys to have a
> finals day! They deserve it!
>
> I was glad to be able to go down and watch as they announced the
> places down there this year. I think it's something we all should
> at least try to do. I got to judge advanced and it was fun to be
> able to see all the talented flyer's there!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> From: Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 8:25 PM
>
> I agree totally, and I'm all for it.
>
> FWIW Melissa said she'd be happy to score it, no problem.
>
> I really don't think it'd be that hard to do. Every intermediate
> and advanced pilot I have asked said "hell yeah!" so I think it's
> viable.
>
> -Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chris Moon
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
>
> Bill:
>
> I agree 100% with you. Everyone pays the same entry fee and should
> have a similar experience. The Intermediate or Advanced Champion
> is no less excited than the Masters or FAI Champ I'm sure. Giving
> them a comparable event is the right thing to do and I will
> volunteer now to help judge their finals next year if they are
> short of judges. I understand the logistical issues but we need to
> have one event with 4 classes and not 2 events with the have and
> have nots.
>
> Chris
>
> Bill Glaze wrote:
>>
>> <!-- #yiv149009642 _filtered #yiv149009642 {font-
>> family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered
>> #yiv149009642 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
>> _filtered #yiv149009642 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5
>> 4 4 2 4;} #yiv149009642 #yiv149009642 p.MsoNormal, #yiv149009642
>> li.MsoNormal, #yiv149009642 div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-
>> bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",
>> "serif";} #yiv149009642 a:link, #yiv149009642 span.MsoHyperlink
>> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv149009642 a:visited,
>> #yiv149009642 span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-
>> decoration:underline;} #yiv149009642 p {margin-right:0in;margin-
>> left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";}
>> #yiv149009642 p.ecmsonormal, #yiv149009642 li.ecmsonormal,
>> #yiv149009642 div.ecmsonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:
>> 0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";}
>> #yiv149009642 p.ecmsolistparagraph, #yiv149009642
>> li.ecmsolistparagraph, #yiv149009642 div.ecmsolistparagraph
>> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-
>> family:"Times New Roman", "serif";} #yiv149009642
>> p.ecmsochpdefault, #yiv149009642 li.ecmsochpdefault, #yiv149009642
>> div.ecmsochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:
>> 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";} #yiv149009642
>> span.ecmsohyperlink {} #yiv149009642 span.ecmsohyperlinkfollowed
>> {} #yiv149009642 span.ecemailstyle18 {} #yiv149009642
>> span.ecemailstyle19 {} #yiv149009642 span.ecemailstyle20 {}
>> #yiv149009642 p.ecmsonormal1, #yiv149009642 li.ecmsonormal1,
>> #yiv149009642 div.ecmsonormal1 {margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
>> 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-
>> family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";} #yiv149009642
>> span.ecmsohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
>> #yiv149009642 span.ecmsohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-
>> decoration:underline;} #yiv149009642 p.ecmsolistparagraph1,
>> #yiv149009642 li.ecmsolistparagraph1, #yiv149009642
>> div.ecmsolistparagraph1 {margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-
>> left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-
>> family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";} #yiv149009642
>> span.ecemailstyle181 {font-family:"Calibri", "sans-
>> serif";color:windowtext;} #yiv149009642 span.ecemailstyle191 {font-
>> family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;} #yiv149009642
>> span.ecemailstyle201 {font-family:"Calibri", "sans-
>> serif";color:#1F497D;} #yiv149009642 p.ecmsochpdefault1,
>> #yiv149009642 li.ecmsochpdefault1, #yiv149009642
>> div.ecmsochpdefault1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:
>> 10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";} #yiv149009642
>> span.EmailStyle34 {font-family:"Calibri", "sans-
>> serif";color:#1F497D;} #yiv149009642 ..MsoChpDefault {font-size:
>> 10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv149009642 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
>> #yiv149009642 div.Section1 {} -->
>> Glad that you recognized that not everyone has the capability or
>> ambition to be a Master or FAI pilot. For whatever reason. I
>> feel that fact doesn't make their membership in NSRCA an less
>> valuable, nor does it make them a second-class member. IMHO.
>> However, my feeling is that, if you want them to stick around,
>> that they should be given (granted?) the same consideration as all
>> other classes. Not venting, or ranting; just stating a belief.
>> Bill Glaze
>> NSRCA 2388
>> AMA 2221
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Atwood, Mark
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
>>
>> Excellent idea.
>>
>>
>> Also, I think we do the intermediate pilots a disservice by
>> assuming they’re overwhelmed. There are as many destination
>> Intermediate pilots as there are Masters. They’re not all
>> beginners and would appreciate some respect for their level of
>> accomplishment.
>>
>>
>> Honestly I think we currently do the same for the Masters pilots.
>> They’re finals is almost an afterthought compared to FAI. We
>> need to celebrate and respect each level somewhat equally. We all
>> know the top dogs are the FAI finalists… but that shouldn’t
>> diminish the accomplishment of the lower class victors.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Konneker
>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:18 AM
>> To: Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
>>
>>
>> Why not let the NSRCA ask this year's Nats Intermediate pilots how
>> they feel about a finals being added?
>> JLK
>>
>>
>> From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:09:18 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
>>
>> I agree with Earl that intermediate is in a big learning curve and
>> coming to the nats ,competing at that level, learning the ropes,
>> taking it all in, seeing all the other flyers, competing for 3
>> days,etc. should be more than enough for these newcomers.
>>
>>
>> The banquet can make that night sort of special for these
>> intermediate pilots as well. They can give out the trophies and
>> prizes for these pilots. There wonderfully are many young and new
>> pilots that can celebrate at this time. The finalists for the
>> next day can be announced also.
>>
>>
>> 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 7:30 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
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.37/2273 - Release Date:
>> 07/30/09 18:09:00
>>
>
>
>
>
> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
> Database version: 6.12940
> http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
> Database version: 6.12940
> http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
>
>
>
>
> E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.1.441)
> Database version: 6.12940
> http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
>
> -----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