<html><body>
<DIV>I think Ed has provided a good review of the situation-</DIV>
<DIV>And reluctantly agree, there is too much devil in the details to create a</DIV>
<DIV>set of criteria that judges could apply with consistency.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ron Lockhart</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- 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 it 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 <JH102649@SPEAKEASY.NET><BR>> >Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LIS
TS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >To: NSRCA Mailing List <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >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>> >completed 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>> </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>