<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:.2in .25in 33.1pt .25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I’m sorry…I have to jump in
here. Are we REALLY worried about someone using this to bail out of a bad
maneuver and cheat?? I mean really. I’m not saying it won’t
happen. I’m saying do the rest of us care?? It’s
the same argument that goes to the whole issue of the points system and sandbagging.
I know it happens…and I’m sure some idiot wins A contest because of
it… But that’s just what it is…an idiot…and A
contest. Is it a little frustrating?? Sure… but it’s
not something I think we should revamp all our rules to try and
avoid. I’m as competitive as the next person in this
sport, but if someone wants to win a model airplane contest sooooooo badly that
they have to cheat?? Whew…they have WAY bigger problems
to deal with…let ‘em win. The same goes for people
throwing a hissy fit at a local contest because someone was allowed to move to
the bottom of the order because of a technical problem or something. Same
issue…if they’re really doing to that to garner an advantage…they
have issues. And if the person complaining is that afraid of having them
fly against them…well…they have issues too. BTW,
the Nats are a slightly different story…the stakes are a little higher,
and the rules as we have them need to be fairly strictly enforced. But
most of the time…this is supposed to be fun/friendly competition. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>On that same note though, I’m not
sure an Avoidance rule would help us much. I think it creates a
number of issues, and would save very few airplanes if any. I
see more damage done to aircraft on horrible landings because the pilot tried
to force a bad approach rather than go around and take the zero. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>-Mark<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Jay Marshall<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, October 05, 2006
2:13 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> 'NSRCA Mailing List'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Avoidance</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>It probably wouldn’t do to allow the
pilot call out “Avoidance” - too much of a chance or using it to
bail out of a bad maneuver. It could be set up, however, for the caller to call
it out ? They also probably have a better vision of the total sky.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>ronlock@comcast.net<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, October 05, 2006
1:57 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> NSRCA Mailing List;
nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Avoidance</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>I think Ed has provided a good review of the
situation-<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>And reluctantly agree, there is too much devil in the
details to create a<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>set of criteria that judges could apply with
consistency.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Ron Lockhart<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 3.0pt;
margin-left:3.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>-------------- Original message -------------- <br>
From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt@hotmail.com> <br>
<br>
> I think the problem here is that receiving approval for interrupting a <br>
> flight for near collisions would be based on 90% guesswork. If the judges <br>
> are really watching what they are supposed to be watching, they are not in
a <br>
> very good position to objectively determine if a collision was really <br>
> imminent. For that matter, even the pilot isn't in a good position to do <br>
> this most of the time. Some callers can probably handle this chore, others
<br>
> may not be able to. Do you want to have a situation where the caller blows
<br>
> it for you through a well intentioned, but totally inaccurate
"avoidance" <br>
> call that the judges can disagree with? Do the judges base things on what <br>
> they hear and from who they hear it, do they base i! t on wh at they see
(like <br>
> an obvious ditch from the flight path) or is it a combination of both? The
<br>
> rules don't say a thing about this, so it opens up more issues. <br>
> <br>
> I think that it all happens too fast most of the time, except when two <br>
> models get in synch in the same general direction and eventually try to <br>
> mate. You might find that it's a dispute that the CD can't easily settle, <br>
> because he/she probably wasn't watching and the judges probably didn't see
<br>
> it well enough to decide properly in many cases. If there was going to be
a <br>
> real, purposeful avoidance rule for Pattern, I think it would have to be <br>
> more explicitely stated to require the discretion of the pilot or
suggestion <br>
> by the caller to be the expresed verbally and for that matter, allow the <br>
> pilot to declare whether or not they are actually following the callers <br>
> suggestion or just plowing ahead. You could perhaps ! allow t he judges to
<br>
> perform a smell test if they really thought it was bogus, but just as you <br>
> shouldn't downgrade for errors you didn't see, you probably shouldn't <br>
> question the pilot discretion on avoidance calls, if they are made a
formal <br>
> rule. <br>
> <br>
> All-in-all, I think it's probably not a real effective rule to adopt. I'm <br>
> not sure that following the "If it saves just ONE airplane, it's
worth it" <br>
> line of thinking is good for competition. Maybe it is better left to CD's <br>
> as to whether they want to make this a standard practice at their contests.
<br>
> That would be my suggestion anyway - if the locals think this is the way
to <br>
> go and can encourage CD's to make it standard practic through a rules
waiver <br>
> for the sanctioned event, then go for it. <br>
> <br>
> Ed <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> >From: Jeff Hill <br>
<JH102649@SPEAKEASY.NET>> >Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <br>
<NSRCA-DISCUSS! ION@LIS TS.NSRCA.ORG>> >To: NSRCA Mailing List <br>
<NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG>> >Subject: [NSRCA-discussion]
Avoidance <br>
> >Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:11:32 -0600 <br>
> > <br>
> >All - <br>
> > <br>
> >Below is the rule from the AMA 2005 Competition Rulebook. IMHO it
requires <br>
> >you to interrupt the maneuver and not fly any subsequent <br>
> >maneuvers--otherwise they are scored. In this case it appears the CD
would <br>
> >have to make a ruling. In actual practice the CD would probably rely
on <br>
> >the judges' opinions for guidance. This would most likely mean that
you <br>
> >would have to bail and land and wait for the CD to rule. If you bailed
and <br>
> >your request was denied then you cannot complete the flight; whereas
if <br>
> >you ruin one maneuver and complete the flight the rest of the flight
is <br>
> >scored but you lose your right to appeal. <br>
> > <br>
> >In! 2007 a new rule, 6.8, might also be used as grounds for a
reflight. <br>
> > <br>
> >Both rules are printed below. <br>
> > <br>
> >Jeff Hill <br>
> > <br>
> >10.2. Each competitor is entitled to one (1) <br>
> >attempt for each official flight. An attempt may be <br>
> >repeated at the judges’ discretion only if, for some <br>
> >unforeseen reason, the model fails to make a start <br>
> >(i.e., safety delay due to other aircraft traffic, etc.). <br>
> >Similarly, an attempt may be repeated at the discretion <br>
> >of the Contest Director if it has been interrupted <br>
> >due to a circumstance beyond the control of the competitor, <br>
> >but only the maneuver affected and the <br>
> >unscored maneuvers that follow will be scored. The <br>
> >Contest Director shall have sole discretionary authority <br>
> >to grant a single repeat attempt, if, in his/her opinion, <br>
> >the competitor has ! encount ered radio interference <br>
> >during the course of an official attempt. <br>
> >• 10.3. In the case of a collision during a <br>
> >Pattern flight, the contestants must immediately <br>
> >recover their aircraft. They may resume their flights <br>
> >with the same aircraft if the aircraft are judged to be <br>
> >airworthy or with a backup or repaired aircraft. They <br>
> >will begin with the maneuver that was in progress or <br>
> >with the next scheduled maneuver if the collision <br>
> >occurred between maneuvers. The previously <br>
> >defined starting times will apply for a resumed flight <br>
> >and the contestant will be allowed no more than two <br>
> >(2) passes in front of the judges for the purpose of <br>
> >trimming the plane. Scores of the previous maneuvers <br>
> >will be added to the scores of subsequent <br>
> >maneuvers in the resumed flight. The flight must be <br>
> >compl! eted by the end of the round being flown, or <br>
> >within a time frame designated by the CD. <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> >6.8 The contestant may ask the CD for a flight delay or reflight due
to <br>
> >unsafe conditions; if the judges concur the delay or reflight must be <br>
> >granted. However, the contestant’s won aircraft cannot be the
cause of <br>
> >the unsafe condition. A contestant’s own aircraft can only have
an <br>
> >equipment malfunction. A flight delay or reflight shall not be granted
<br>
> >for equipment malfunctions at 4A and 5A contests. The CD may make <br>
> >exceptions at other contests. <br>
> > <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> >_______________________________________________ <br>
> >NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> >NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <br>
> >http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <br>
> <br>
> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>