[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Fri Jul 31 03:14:28 AKDT 2009

Melissa you are the best!!!Thanks for all you do.
 Jim Quinn 

________________________________
From: Mike Hester <kerlock at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:25:19 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

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: 
>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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090731/4d473786/attachment.html>