[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
J Shu
jshulman at cfl.rr.com
Fri Jul 31 04:45:32 AKDT 2009
Me too... Only thing I learn the day before is how to judge. Rather weigh and process than judge (gets confusing when I watch 40
Masters routines then try and fly mine...lol).
Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
> Agreed. This is no different than attending the pilots meeting. Check in, weigh in, etc. I would argue you could get one or two
> people willing to facilitate and monitor it in exchange for their judging duties (I would be one! )
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:01 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
>
> 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 c
>>> ompete – 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 da
>>> y on check-in day to make modifications but will need to be weighe
>>> d and measured again before the check-in period ends (and pass) be
>>> fore 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 2
>>> 0 pilots, using the prelim score as a 1000 normalized score. Ther
>>> efore, the 2 F patterns can be combined to be a score carried over
>>> into the finals event. The finals then becomes a single F patter
>>> n and 2 unknowns. Count 3 of 4 scores. I would recommend doing
>>> the F schedule first, then the 2 unknowns. I believe all the othe
>>> r 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
> 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list