[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Thu Jul 30 21:05:38 AKDT 2009

Welcome to the Nats. I've never been to one yet where there weren't some
large discrepancies. I had one maneuver this year that was scored 5, 8, and
9. Don't dwell on it, it'll ruin your week, especially if you start
wondering who was right.

Verne

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Hansen
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:51 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

I agree Mark, after seeing the scoring spread in Intermediate and
Advanced (many 2+ point differentials between judges) I would have to
say that including intermediate pilots in the judging pool for Advanced
certainly would not hurt.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood,
Mark
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:48 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Ron, 

Do we know why so few Intermediate pilots were asked to judge?  I
realize that they're the "least experienced" per say, but we do ask them
to get certified, so it's a little bit of a slap if we make them do that
and then pass on their help.  Also, per my previous message, many of
them are not beginners and actually have a fair amount of judging
experience.  With 3 judge panels, it's a perfect time for them to get
more experience since you can sprinkle them in amongst more seasoned
judges.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van
Putte
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:20 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Two minutes per airplane may result in a job five hours long.  The  
other half of the equation is that assigning several pilots to do the  
job means that they wouldn't have to judge, depleting the judging  
pool.  We had several individuals who did a LOT of judging this  
year.  Dave Guerin was pulling his hair out, until the volunteers  
came up to offer to do extra judging sessions.

Ron VP

On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Archie Stafford wrote:

> I think that part is easy. Dont give them a choice. It becomes part  
> of what is required. If everyone starts early it wouldnt be that  
> bad. Only takes a max of 2-3 minutes a plane.
>
> Arch
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
>
>> If all airplanes that compete will be weighed/measured on the day  
>> of checkin, there had better be a non-flying group to do the job.   
>> Competitors are not likely to be willing to spend the whole day  
>> weighing/measuring up to 150 airplanes (many pilots have backup  
>> airplanes) when they could be out practicing.
>>
>> Ron VP
>> .
>> On Jul 30, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for responding.  The board discussed a lot of these ideas  
>>> the week after the Nats and we've been working on a list of stuff  
>>> that we're going to ask Dave to implement next year.  Pretty much  
>>> what you've outlined below is in that list with some variations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We're also going to fully enforce weight/size on all planes that  
>>> compete - everyone will be weighed and measured on the day of  
>>> check-in - each plane will be "stickered" as they qualify and if  
>>> anyone fails to make weight or size then they'll have the whole  
>>> day on check-in day to make modifications but will need to be  
>>> weighed and measured again before the check-in period ends (and  
>>> pass) before they'll be allowed to fly.  Random weight checks  
>>> will also be made throughout the event (random process to be  
>>> determined later).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Derek
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 5:30 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4134 (20090605) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion