[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Wayne Galligan wgalligan at att.net
Fri Jul 31 09:17:45 AKDT 2009 

Verne,

What about the occasional 9-0-8.5 score

ooops!!!  Did I just open up a snap controversy?

Wayne Galligan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Verne Koester" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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