[NSRCA-discussion] Removing FAI F from local contests

[DaveL322]

Trigger warning..... I am going to use all caps for emphasis.... Not yelling. 
The discussion points below are exactly why you DON'T (emphasis, not yelling) require F at any local contest.  Let each FAI pilot optionally choose to fly F rounds 5 and 6.  If judges can't /won't judge F, take away the option to fly F or fill in all zeros.
For FAI pilots that want to fly F, it is too see how their F compares to others and to get feedback from a larger audience.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
-------- Original message --------From: rixsweeney--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date: 7/19/17  3:54 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Removing FAI F from local contests 
Right… Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Scott McHarg
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:50 PM
To: rixsweeney at gmail.com; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Removing FAI F from local contests Rick, He did say that one decent means they wouldn't fly F but I agree, I wouldn't want to be "that guy" that said no when all the rest wanted to fly F. Scott
Scott A. McHargVSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research PilotTexas A&M UniversityPPL - ASELRemote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107 On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:34 PM, rixsweeney--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:Then you can bet, not one Masters flyer will consider moving to FAI to fly P if they know a vote could force them to fly F.   Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:11 PM
To: DaveL322; Earl Haury; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Removing FAI F from local contests As a CD, I will not offer F to be flown unless everyone flying FAI agrees to flying it. Period! One decent, means no. That is the way it should be done on a local level. From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Earl Haury via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 11:35 AM
To: DaveL322; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Removing FAI F from local contests  The options for F3A being discussed are available to the CD for any contest, decide what the local folks want and announce it beforehand as per the rules. No reason to “legislate” the F sequence away, I suspect that the F3A pilots in the Gulf Coast D6 region (average of 6 for 12 contests, high of 8 & low of 3) would rather fly all F. Certainly a larger range of scores and easier to differentiate. For those uncomfortable with taking on F (real skill builder), then Masters is probably best for them – whatever sequence they hammer out. It wasn’t that long ago that Masters was a huge class. Where’d everyone go? Life changes? Dissatisfied with sequences? Pretty sure very few moved to F3A which had a much shorter P sequence than Masters and F wasn’t all that tough. BTW – humble brag – my son Lester made the 2018 F2D WC Team last weekend. Interesting that those folks have 32 entries in their TS.  Earl From: DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 12:05 PMTo: rixsweeney at gmail.com ; General pattern discussion Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Removing FAI F from local contests Allow F as an option for rounds 5 and 6 and you get the best of both worlds with the benefit of making it easier to separate top F3A flyers when more than one is at a local contest, which is not uncommon in some parts of the US.  Regards, Dave Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5. -------- Original message --------From: rixsweeney--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date: 7/19/17 11:44 AM (GMT-05:00) To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Removing FAI F from local contests  Perhaps removing FAI F from local contests would solve a few issues discussed on this list:Current Masters flyers who are advocating for the Masters schedules to adopt FAI P as the Masters schedule could just move up and fly FAI knowing they will not be required to fly the F pattern. That makes them happy. Current Masters flyers who think adopting FAI P is a bad idea can rest easy as nbr #1 above takes FAI P for Masters off the table. Current FAI flyers who have no one to compete against at local contests because of F,  will now have a few competitors that will undoubtedly move up.   If even one or two Masters flyers move up it will ease the judging issue. If FAI guys that want to get some F practice for the NATS or Worlds, they can accomplish that at the practice field, and or another option…A CD could optionally add some F demo flights during a contest and have Masters and FAI guys judge and score them. These would be demos and would not count as a contest flight but allows FAI F guys to get some judging exposure. I have no doubt some of the FAI guys who don’t fly F would be willing to Judge the one or two FAI F guys or even a few Masters flyers. These F demo flights could be flown at days end on either day or however a CD wants to fit them in. Lunch break perhaps.   I know first hand that a few FAI guys insist on flying F at local contests so they get judging exposure and as a result they have no one to play with.   For this to work, all CD’s in all districts would need to adopt removing F from all local events. I am seeing many benefits to flying P only, locally.  Rick    Sent from Mail for Windows 10 _______________________________________________
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/20170719/ba7ad19e/attachment.html>