[NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format

Charles Hochhalter cahochhalter at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 31 14:26:27 AKDT 2009 

This is for finals in BOTH Intermediate and advanced.
 
Chuck

--- On Fri, 7/31/09, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 12:27 PM


How is the judging pool in Advanced self supporting if the intermediate flyers are done after day 3 and basically have no incentive to stay? I do not understand the logic? We need the intermediate guys for the judging pool.
The way I see it you have to run 2 lines at site 4 on Friday to finish in a reasonable time. If a flyer refuses to judge the other class he will be passed up and the next guy in line will take his spot. I can't see any other way to assure enough bodies to judge.
We do however have to allow for a break here and there to allow the judges some time to get there planes and minds ready to compete. Mike

--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Charles Hochhalter <cahochhalter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Charles Hochhalter <cahochhalter at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 7:54 PM
> Why cant the finalists from
> advanced judge intermediate and vice versa.
>  
> Seems it would work to me.. long day but worth it
> cause they are in the FINALS.
>  
> Chuck
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/30/09, michael s harrison
> <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: michael s harrison <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format
> To: "'General pattern discussion'"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 3:55 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The advanced, as I said in my initial
> proposal is self supportive.  It does not require
> recruiting additional judges per say.  It comes from
> the intermediate pool and those that did not make the
> finals.
> Mike 
>  
> 
> 
> From:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:40 AM
> To: NSRCA Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats
> format
>  
> I have not read everyones comments to
> thoroughly to digest this.
>  
> But, we already have a problem with getting judges for the
> Masters and FAI finals already. Getting judges for the other
> classes on top of that really makes it difficult. This years
> Nats was a prime example, there was an imbalance of judges
> district wise in the Masters finals. Don't know how FAI
> panned out.
>  
> Do we really need a finals for Intermediate and Advanced?
> They get equal exposure already. If there is a finals
> for Advanced and Intermediate, it really only needs to
> be the top 5. I had the opportunity to judge Advanced
> this year and that is what I see from this experience.
> Another option for Masters finals is top 8 with the the 8th
> being determined by a one round sudden death flyoff between
> numbers 8 through 11 or 12 at the end of day
>  3.
>  
> Also, for this to really work properly, there is
> a need for a pool of say, at least, 6 paid full time judges
> available. Not to mention more volunteers  or paid
> individuals for various other duties if there is a plan to
> weigh every plane, etc.
>  
> What really messed up this years Nats was the fact
> that no shows did not bother to contact Dave early
> enough or at all for him to fix judging assignments. No
> shows are what really screw things up for the contest
> management. No shows screw up flight order exposure, create
> an imbalance in matrix seeding and sends contest
> management scrambling to fill judging assignments vacated by
> the no shows. We were short about 10  or so judges from
> the FAI and Masters pool. This is the critical pool of
> judges to make things work. This does not include the
> Advanced and Intermediate no shows. This all gets
> amplified when there is a year with lower than usual
>  attendance which this year was.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:29:38 -0500
> 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
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access,
> and share your photos. See
> how.
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> -----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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090731/605ce4fe/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list