[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman Option
Archie Stafford
astafford at md.metrocast.net
Thu Sep 23 06:36:25 AKDT 2010
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } I
would much rather them enter both rounds and have the computer drop
it. Having a score keeper look for and compare scores is just adding
extra work. Most can almost blindly enter scores and do it very
quickly and efficiently. Having to make them look at and compare
scores definitely adds to an already slammed workload.
On Thu 09/23/10 10:29 AM , Dowayne Gould iflyrc24 at gmail.com sent:
As a CD if I opted to fly back to back Sportsman rounds I would set
my scoring up as single round flights. Then have my score keeper enter
the highest score of the two maneuvers. That way the pilots get the
best of the two rounds.
On Sep 23, 2010 10:17 AM, wrote:
I agree, hence why I stated it in parenthesis at the end of my
comment. My opinion is that a Sportsman pilot would only fly 1/2 of
the rounds as the rest of the pilots. Pro's and Con's with this...When
I flew Sportsman, I can say I felt a little cheated not flying on a
Sunday because all my rounds were complete by the third round on
Saturday. I also believe the intent was to allow for more flight
maneuvers at a contest to increase the learning curve of the Sportsman
and reward the best sequence of the flight. I would find it difficult
to believe the intent of this rule was get them done faster. As a CD
I would never use the Sportsman Option to count as two rounds. Larry
Diamond
--- On THU, 9/23/10, JON LOWE __ wrote:
From: Jon Lowe
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
and beyond
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [4]
Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 10:04 AM
The rule for sportsman only says "suggested procedure". Where the
suggested procedure leaves off and the requirement restarts is
unclear. We've used the tow rounds per fligh
Jon Lowe
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Maurice
To: ldiamond at diamondrc.com [6]; 'General pattern discussion'
Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 8:48 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
and beyond
"BTW, the rules also state that a CD can have Sportsman fly their
sequence back-to-back if they'd like to fly a little longer." It's a
little vague, but I don't interpret the Sportsman Option to be
considered as two rounds. I have seen this done in the past (albeit
not recent). The scoring is the best sequence of the flight with TO/L
counting the same for both. PACSS doesn't solve for this, so it's
difficult to produce scores for this (suggested procedure). I’m
working on it, but, as you said, “it’ difficult to
produce……….” AND difficult to program. Part of the problem is
the statement in the rules that “The Contest Director may use this
option on a round by round basis.”. The scoring can be handled
in the system today by changing the Scoring Parameters to “Throw Out
0 High Rounds and Throw Out 0 Low Rounds”, produce the standing for
all 12 rounds and manually determine the ‘keepers’. I would
like to hear how you would like to see this presented in the system.
Thanks, Gene Maurice gene.maurice at sgmservice.com [8] Dallas, GA AMA
3408 NSRCA 877 PACSS.sgmservice.com [9] FROM:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [10]
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [11]] ON BEHALF OF
ldiamond at diamondrc.com [12]
SENT: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:12 PM
TO: General pattern discussion
SUBJECT: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
and beyond
"BTW, the rules also state that a CD can have Sportsman fly their
sequence back-to-back if they'd like to fly a little longer." It's
a little vague, but I don't interpret the Sportsman Option to be
considered as two rounds. I have seen this done in the past (albeit
not recent). The scoring is the best sequence of the flight with TO/L
counting the same for both. PACSS doesn't solve for this, so it's
difficult to produce scores for this (suggested procedure). OK,
back on topic... Masters Short Vs Long...I haven't compared the
two...However, IMHO keep the length and K-Factor constant in terms of
flight time and difficulty for every AMA Class. If the Masters Class
is subjected to a "Feature Creep" process to challenge those that have
been in the class many moons, then the gap between Advanced and
Masters grows. Not a good thing for all AMA classes as this gap will
surely be distributed to the lower classes for balance. Using this
philosophy, if a Master Pilot feels that the sequence is too easy and
no longer a challenge to them, I say...Move up to FAI... Looking
forward, into the future, seriously...If Masters Pilots do not move up
to FAI and see the Masters Class as a Destination Class, what
competition will our prospective US Team Pilots face to get ready?
Currently, there are few people flying FAI at local contests. This can
only mean that the level of competition for FAI is down in the USA. If
the level of competition is down, how can one become consistent and
reach their potential as a World USA Team Member? If the Masters
Class is not held at a constant level of difficulty, then there is No
Incentive to move up to FAI. The US will suffer for it in World
Competition as pilots or not challenged on a regular basis and
practicing for the Worlds is not the same as Competition Experience at
a contest. For the argument of a Masters Pilot to say, “I
don’t have and never will have a desire to fly FAI”, I say, "no
problem"…Just don’t expect the level of Masters to become more
difficult to challenge you. Now that you read all this, I don’t
have skin in the game, or do I…If a pilot wants to fly, I will judge
no matter how long the sequence is. Many of the guys at the top
have invested their time in me to become a better pilot. I would never
turn my back and say, "I don't want to judge because the Masters Class
is too long". That, IMHO, would be a slap in the face to every pilot
that called and coached me to be a better pilot. I don't know of
anybody that has learned to fly Pattern on their own. My .02,
flame suit on!!! Larry “No Skin in the Game” Diamond
Intermediate Pilot, Bottom Feeder NSRCA 3083 AMA 5024
--- On WED, 9/22/10, DEREK KOOPOWITZ __ wrote:
From: Derek Koopowitz
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
and beyond
To: "General pattern discussion"
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 7:10 PM Pattern length for
each class has been a design criteria for a number of years and it has
been used very successfully to build current and past sequences.
Since we are using each of the classes as a building block to the next
higher class, it makes sense to use each sequence to work on and build
flying skills. One can only do so much with maneuvers in a class
before it becomes too intense for the pilot and wears them out (in the
lower classes) - that's why Sportsman has box entry/exit breaks during
the sequence. BTW, the rules also state that a CD can have Sportsman
fly their sequence back-to-back if they'd like to fly a little longer.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:53 PM, John Gayer wrote: Derek,
When it comes to the pattern length we should all have a say. Why
should the Masters pattern have more maneuvers and take longer than
any other pattern? You cannot say there is no impact on other flyers
and their judging duties when Masters is often the largest class and
use more than their share of the contest time as well. You _could_ say
that the "content" of each class pattern should be up to those with
"skin" in the game.
There was nothing in the survey that stated "Vote only for the
patterns in the class you are flying or may fly next year". Nor do I
believe that such a statement should be added.
John
On 9/22/2010 4:30 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote: Dave, After
writing my reply to you I got to thinking again and I don't agree with
your assessment. This is about selecting a sequence that matter to
the people that fly it not to the people that judge it or to the
people that may have to wait around to fly again because of a large
Masters turnout. Flame away... -Derek On Wed, Sep 22,
2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave Burton wrote: Derek, I really object to your
definition of who has “Skin in the game” - WE ALL DO IF WE PAY
OUR DUES AND ATTEND CONTEST. The “skin” is the impact of a long
vs. short sequence for every Masters flyer, Flyer who will be flying
Masters in the next two years, every flyer/non flyer who judges at a
contest, and every other flyer in all the other class who have to wait
until the typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequence
they fly. So, whether I fly Masters in the next two years or not, I
intend to let my opinion be known to my district VP and I expect him
to give my view the same weight of any other opinion from
“Masters” flyers or others. This is an issue that should not be
decided by only “Masters” flyers. Dave Burton FROM:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [18]
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [19]] ON BEHALF OF
Derek Koopowitz
SENT: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:31 PM
TO: General pattern discussion
SUBJECT: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
beyond Over 10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed its
work on the new sequences. These were posted on the NSRCA website for
review and comment - see below:
http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html [20] Included
in all this material was a draft document that outlined the process on
how sequences are developed, tested and approved and the
makeup/content of the sequences based on the class it is meant to
serve. This document is titled "NSRCA Procedures, Standards and
Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Sequence Development". A
mouthful, but it does outline a lot of information. It details the
charter for the Sequence Committee, sequence development standards and
guidelines for all classes, catalog of maneuvers for all classes and
the process that the NSRCA will follow in designing, testing and
approving changes to sequences, or for proposed sequences. These
sequence development standards and guidelines have been in place for
about 4 years now and have been used very successfully to build the
current set of sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to
the prior Masters sequence (and the new one as well). Overall we
received positive comments on the proposed sequences from Sportsman
through Masters. As you know, there were two sequences developed for
Masters, a long sequence using the standard 23 maneuver count and a
short sequence using 19 maneuvers. In the time since we posted the
sequences, some informal surveys were also made on the NSRCA website
as well as on RCU asking for a preference of either the short or long
Masters schedule. The overwhelming majority of respondents chose the
short sequence. However, these surveys were a little flawed in that
we didn't really know who was voting for them - were they all
judges/pilots who voted because they didn't want to judge a long
sequence, or were they really current and/or future Masters pilots
that really did want to fly a shorter sequence. Since the release
of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats comments, the sequence
committee has been hard at work making some tweaks to the short
schedule with a view to increasing the difficulty level of the short
Masters sequence to bring it into line with the long Masters sequence
and also to ensure that we weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by
introducing a shorter sequence. Bear in mind that the short sequence
is only 19 maneuvers (17 of them flyable) so raising the difficulty
level is a challenge if one is to avoid using some existing F3A type
maneuvers, or "airplane killers", and to only use maneuvers that match
the philosophy that we've embraced for a number of years. Since we've
never developed a short Masters sequence, we need to make sure we get
it right and that it not only provides a challenge to those that fly
it but that it still provides a somewhat relatively higher jump for
those pilots that are moving up from Advanced. We realize that
creating a perfect schedule is not going to happen - we won't be able
to please every pilot that moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able
to please some former F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy
and isn't enough of a challenge. There has to be a balance. The
Sequence Committee came up with some good positive changes and these
are being vetted/tested as I write this. They've received extremely
positive feedback from everyone that has either flown the newer short
sequence on a simulator or using their pattern plane at the field. By
the end of this weekend we'll know for sure whether it is a keeper or
not. When we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you
that have "skin in this game", meaning you are a current Masters pilot
or will be moving to Masters in the next year or two, to please
contact your NSRCA District VP and let them know what your preference
is - short or long sequence. The reason they need to know is that the
NSRCA board will vote in the next couple of weeks to approve all the
proposed sequences and also to select which sequence the Masters class
will be flying in 2011/2012. The Sequence Committee is comprised
of Joe Lachowski, Dave Lockhart, Verne Koester, Bill Glaze, Archie
Stafford, and Richard Lewis. They've put in an extraordinary amount
of work on these sequences and documentation and deserve huge kudos
from everyone! Thanks guys - your work is very much appreciated!
We've also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA website
which will have more information soon. It will contain the updated
draft documentation and all the proposed sequences in one location.
You can get to the new section from the main menu - just look for
Sequence Committee - it is near the bottom of the menu. No virus
found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com [21]
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date:
09/22/10 02:34:00
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [22]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [23]
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [24]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [25]
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [26]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [27]
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [28]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [29]
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion
mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [30]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [31]
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [32]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [33]
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [34]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [35]
Links:
------
[1] mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com
[2] http://metromail.metrocast.net/MAILTO:JONLOWE@AOL.COM
[3] mailto:jonlowe at aol.com
[4] mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
[5] mailto:gene.maurice at sgmservice.com
[6] mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com
[7] mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
[8]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gene.maurice@sgmservice.com
[9] http://pacss.sgmservice.com/
[10]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[11]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org&
[12]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ldiamond@diamondrc.com
[13]
http://metromail.metrocast.net/HTTP://US.MC11.MAIL.YAHOO.COM/MC/COMPOSE?TO=DEREKKOOPOWITZ@GMAIL.COM
[14]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com
[15]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[16] http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jgghome@comcast.net
[17] http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=burtona@atmc.net
[18]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[19]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[20] http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html
[21] http://www.avg.com/
[22]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[23] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[24]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[25] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[26]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[27] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[28]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[29] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[30]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[31] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[32]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[33] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[34] mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
[35] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100923/5b4e8ee0/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list