[NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals

[Archie Stafford]

Can we please step back from all the rules proposals? Why do we need to
keep adjusting the rules thinking it's going to suddenly fix anything?
Giving bonus points simply adds headache to the CD.  And can we honestly
say that if a guy shows up with a 76" ultra stick it is an advantage over a
62" pattern plane.

We need to quit looking at Sportsman as this overly competitive class and
realize that the ENTIRE purpose of Sportsman is an introduction to
pattern.  Would you rather have 4 pilots show up in Sportsman that have
AS3X is small aerobatic planes or a QQ Cap or have no one show up because
we don't want their planes there.  PATTERN NEVER grow until we get out of
own way and start being inclusive. Every day on this list we make ourselves
seem more and more elitest with more and more rules. We need to look at the
average club and see what they are flying and then allow this people to
participate. I don't think we should change anything in intermediate, but
in Sportsman.... We need to allow ANY AMA LEGAL plane and that would
include anything they put in the plane.

More importantly we need to encourage CDs to try these things for a season
and then look at the results. Why change rules that at the end of the day
we don't know all of the unintended consequences?  We have the ability to
try all of these things before passing rules and let see what the data
shows.

I ran for President because I'm tired of watching us go down the same path
year after year. We always have excuses not to try things outside of what
we've always done. I can easily make the argument that computer radios have
been far more beneficial to pattern for all classes than the advantage
gained by allowing Sportsman pilots to show up with any airplane and
compete, regardless of what is in the plane.

Based on the attendance at contests over the years it seems to me that a
lot people keep talking about fixing pattern on this list, but don't
actually do what is most important... SHOW UP.

Archie

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019, 10:17 PM Daniel Lipton via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org wrote:

> Yes.  For sure. The 71 inch planes should have a much smaller bonus than a
> 60ish inch 6s or lower size.  And the range of 2-4% seems better. And per
> other thread - only if no gyro - if that rule were to change he.
>
> On Jan 18, 2019, at 4:31 PM, Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Right.  The intent should be to equalize the differences that are a result
> of a smaller plane -- it's much more susceptible to wind, etc. and
> "squirrelier". You would still be expected to fly correct geometry, etc.
> I'd apply a 2% bonus to any plane with wingspan 71" or smaller, possibly
> double it to 4% for anything with a wingspan < 50"
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:19 PM Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>> We had a pilot at the Cajun Nats finish second place with a PHOENIX 7
>> against at least 5 other 2 meter planes. With the 10% no one could even
>> have a chance against him.
>>
>> It certainly isn’t right to give a lesser pilot the win over a better
>> pilot like John suggested, just because he flies a smaller plane. That
>> certainly isn’t what our sport or competition is about.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2019, at 6:07 PM, tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> Keep in mind, for analysis below, no consideration is being given to
>> whether pilot 1 and pilot 2's planes were different.  What we don't know is
>> how much 'better' a pilot flies a 2M vs. a 1.75 or smaller airplane to
>> critique the 10%.  We'd be hard pressed, I think, to get a firm, accurate
>> number to represent that difference.  We'd have to have a single pilot fly
>> both sized planes in front of a set of judges, probably multiple times, to
>> know if there was any real difference at all.
>> That said, it's a penalty - something a pilot must choose to work with or
>> around.  If we want to discourage 2M, then pick a high number.  If it's to
>> level the field, pick a lower one.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Underkofler via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> To: John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>; General pattern discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Fri, Jan 18, 2019 5:38 pm
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals
>>
>> I was thinking that 10% was a bit high.  Could also do a lower % or Int
>> than Sportsman.
>>
>> John, I hope the idea of any of these rules proposals is NOT to allow the
>> lesser pilot to win!
>> We just are talking about leveling the playing field to account for
>> equipment.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:32 PM John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> Monte
>> I sort of arbitrarily picked 10%.    Do the math and suggest a better
>> number.   Although I think the idea is that the newcomer should have a good
>> chance of placing/winning even though he/she may not be the best pilot.
>>
>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 18, 2019 3:18 PM
>> *To:* Monte Richard; General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals
>>
>> I just went into one of last years contests in intermediate. Pilot one’s
>> first round scored a raw score of 350 and 331, his average raw score was
>> 340.5 (he won the round). Pilot two’s raw score for round one was 338 and
>> 324.5, his average raw score was 331.25, add in the 10% handicap and it
>> becomes 364.375. This moves him to first place in the round by a high
>> margin. Totally changes the results. Add to that the normalizing and it
>> becomes almost insurmountable, considering pilot one outflew pilot two.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Monte Richard <
>> mrichard at compassengineering.com> wrote:
>>
>> Add in the Kfactors and in Sportsman the total raw score can be 250
>> making the 10% handicap 25 points.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:28 PM, Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> 10% is a lot. sportsman has 18 maneuvers so a perfect flight has a
>> possibility of 180 points in raw score, 10% of that is 18 points. A flight
>> with all 9’s would be a raw score of 162, 10% is 16.2 points. That pretty
>> much means a pilot without the 10% advantage has to beat the pilot with the
>> advantage by 1 point per maneuver on all the maneuvers to beat him, if they
>> tie more than 2 maneuvers, then the handicap beats him. 10% is a high
>> factor to overcome.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Daniel Underkofler via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>  I think you've got a wording problem in your -05 proposal.
>> You say: 10% when "length/width DOES exceed 71in"
>> I think you meant: 10% when" length AND width DO NOT exceed 71in"
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:46 AM John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> FYI for all.
>>
>> There are 3 new rules proposals on the AMA website.    Suggest folks take
>> a look.
>>
>> John Fuqua
>> cell 850-974-6655
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> (c) 2019 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved.
>> This electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only
>> for the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain
>> information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is
>> subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged.
>> If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>> disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
>> on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the
>> sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this
>> electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all
>> printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto.
>> Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be
>> monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.  ­­
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>> (c) 2019 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved.
>> This electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only
>> for the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain
>> information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is
>> subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged.
>> If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>> disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
>> on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the
>> sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this
>> electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all
>> printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto.
>> Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be
>> monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.  ­­
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> (c) 2019 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved.
>> This electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only
>> for the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain
>> information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is
>> subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged.
>> If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>> disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
>> on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the
>> sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this
>> electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all
>> printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto.
>> Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be
>> monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.  ­­
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> --
> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
> Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X
> Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190119/a65476de/attachment.html>