<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>This is for finals in BOTH Intermediate and advanced.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chuck<BR><BR>--- On <B>Fri, 7/31/09, mike mueller <I><mups1953@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: mike mueller <mups1953@yahoo.com><BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format<BR>To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 12:27 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>How is the judging pool in Advanced self supporting if the intermediate flyers are done after day 3 and basically have no incentive to stay? I do not understand the logic? We need the intermediate guys for the judging pool.<BR>The way I see it you have to run 2 lines at site 4 on Friday to finish in a reasonable time. If a flyer refuses to judge the other class he will be passed up and the next guy in line will take his spot. I can't see any other way to assure enough bodies to judge.<BR>We do however have to allow for a break here and there to allow the judges some time to get there planes and minds ready to compete. Mike<BR><BR>--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Charles Hochhalter <<A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cahochhalter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:cahochhalter@yahoo.com">cahochhalter@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>> From: Charles Hochhalter <<A
href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cahochhalter@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:cahochhalter@yahoo.com">cahochhalter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format<BR>> To: "General pattern discussion" <<A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 7:54 PM<BR>> Why cant the finalists from<BR>> advanced judge intermediate and vice versa.<BR>> <BR>> Seems it would work to me.. long day but worth it<BR>> cause they are in the FINALS.<BR>> <BR>> Chuck<BR>> <BR>> --- On Thu, 7/30/09, michael s harrison<BR>> <<A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=drmikedds@sbcglobal.net" ymailto="mailto:drmikedds@sbcglobal.net">drmikedds@sbcglobal.net</A>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From:
michael s harrison <<A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=drmikedds@sbcglobal.net" ymailto="mailto:drmikedds@sbcglobal.net">drmikedds@sbcglobal.net</A>><BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format<BR>> To: "'General pattern discussion'"<BR>> <<A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 3:55 PM<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The advanced, as I said in my initial<BR>> proposal is self supportive. It does not require<BR>> recruiting additional judges per say. It comes from<BR>> the intermediate pool and those that did not make the<BR>> finals.<BR>> Mike <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From:<BR>> <A
href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> [mailto:<A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On<BR>> Behalf Of Joe Lachowski<BR>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:40 AM<BR>> To: NSRCA Discussion List<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats<BR>> format<BR>> <BR>> I have not read everyones comments to<BR>> thoroughly to digest this.<BR>> <BR>> But, we already have a problem with getting judges for the<BR>> Masters and FAI finals already. Getting judges for the other<BR>> classes on top of that really makes it difficult. This years<BR>> Nats was a prime example, there was an imbalance of
judges<BR>> district wise in the Masters finals. Don't know how FAI<BR>> panned out.<BR>> <BR>> Do we really need a finals for Intermediate and Advanced?<BR>> They get equal exposure already. If there is a finals<BR>> for Advanced and Intermediate, it really only needs to<BR>> be the top 5. I had the opportunity to judge Advanced<BR>> this year and that is what I see from this experience.<BR>> Another option for Masters finals is top 8 with the the 8th<BR>> being determined by a one round sudden death flyoff between<BR>> numbers 8 through 11 or 12 at the end of day<BR>> 3.<BR>> <BR>> Also, for this to really work properly, there is<BR>> a need for a pool of say, at least, 6 paid full time judges<BR>> available. Not to mention more volunteers or paid<BR>> individuals for various other duties if there is a plan to<BR>> weigh every plane, etc.<BR>>
<BR>> What really messed up this years Nats was the fact<BR>> that no shows did not bother to contact Dave early<BR>> enough or at all for him to fix judging assignments. No<BR>> shows are what really screw things up for the contest<BR>> management. No shows screw up flight order exposure, create<BR>> an imbalance in matrix seeding and sends contest<BR>> management scrambling to fill judging assignments vacated by<BR>> the no shows. We were short about 10 or so judges from<BR>> the FAI and Masters pool. This is the critical pool of<BR>> judges to make things work. This does not include the<BR>> Advanced and Intermediate no shows. This all gets<BR>> amplified when there is a year with lower than usual<BR>> attendance which this year was.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From: <A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=drmikedds@sbcglobal.net"
ymailto="mailto:drmikedds@sbcglobal.net">drmikedds@sbcglobal.net</A><BR>> To: <A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:29:38 -0500<BR>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: nats format<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> From:<BR>> michael s harrison [mailto:<A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=drmikedds@sbcglobal.net" ymailto="mailto:drmikedds@sbcglobal.net">drmikedds@sbcglobal.net</A>] <BR>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:45 PM<BR>> To: 'Don Ramsey'<BR>> Subject: nats format<BR>> <BR>> After considerable thought and reflection, I<BR>> would like to share my views of the nats and the classes<BR>> flown. I believe we have been very fortunate to have<BR>> an excellent group of volunteers that work and
sacrifice to<BR>> make the nats happen. That group is led by the event<BR>> director Dave Guerin, who has worked tirelessly and<BR>> unselfishly for years at this job. I believe he has<BR>> responded to our desires to make this the best national<BR>> event possible. With that in mind, there are some<BR>> changes I believe we can make that would be a win-win for<BR>> everyone and reduce the workload as well. <BR>> <BR>> They are:<BR>> 1. <BR>> Have a finals for advanced<BR>> a. <BR>> 8 finalists<BR>> b. <BR>> 3 rounds<BR>> c. <BR>> Judged by advanced or intermediate<BR>> judges(qualified volunteers)<BR>> d. <BR>> The site is open so it is not a space<BR>> issue<BR>> e. <BR>> 24 flights would
take app 3 hours<BR>> f. <BR>> Do on 4th day<BR>> g. <BR>> Count the prelims as a 1000 normalized<BR>> score<BR>> h. <BR>> Count 3 of 4 scores for the winner<BR>> 2. <BR>> Modify masters accordingly<BR>> a. <BR>> 3 round finals<BR>> b. <BR>> Count prelims as a 1000 normalized<BR>> score<BR>> c. <BR>> Count 3 of 4 for the winner<BR>> d. <BR>> 10 finalists<BR>> e. <BR>> 30 flights about 5.5 hours<BR>> 3. <BR>> Fai<BR>> a. <BR>> 3 rounds final<BR>> b. <BR>> F-11 flown 1 time<BR>> c. <BR>> Each
unknown(1&2) flown once<BR>> d. <BR>> Count the semi-final F-11 scores only as a<BR>> single 1000 normalized score<BR>> e. <BR>> Count 3 of 4 for the winner<BR>> f. <BR>> 10 finalists<BR>> g. <BR>> 30 flights about 5.5 hours<BR>> <BR>> Rationale behind changes:<BR>> <BR>> Advanced <BR>> This would make for a very exciting and fun<BR>> event for the advanced class. It would make the<BR>> 4th day a very real part of the nats for<BR>> them. This format is totally self contained with no<BR>> additional personnel required. It could be started and<BR>> finished before the masters and fai is done. <BR>> <BR>> Masters <BR>> Masters is in a real sense an endurance<BR>> contest. How many times does someone have to fly
the<BR>> same sequence to prove he is the best in that class. <BR>> The present system is 10 times! The only argument is<BR>> the equal exposure issue-which may have merit. <BR>> The system I propose addresses that issue and takes less<BR>> time. I raised the number of finalists to 10 to close<BR>> the argument that someone is cutout of the finals because of<BR>> unequal exposure. Counting the prelim as one of the 4<BR>> scores is, in my opinion a legitimate score to keep-having<BR>> been earned over a period of 3 days under a number of<BR>> variables. Assuming incorrect scoring(bias, unequal<BR>> exposure, etc.), the competitor has 3 flights to erase that<BR>> concern. Any 3 flights count so the prelims score can<BR>> be dropped. <BR>> <BR>> FAI<BR>> The argument for doing 2 Finals pattern is<BR>> that at the world event in the semifinals, there
is not<BR>> equal exposure of the pilots and the pool is so large that<BR>> conditions can change substantially over the course of doing<BR>> the semifinals. This rationale wouldn’t apply at the<BR>> nats. The semifinals at the nats is only 2 flights<BR>> with 20 pilots, using the prelim score as a 1000 normalized<BR>> score. Therefore, the 2 F patterns can be combined to<BR>> be a score carried over into the finals event. The<BR>> finals then becomes a single F pattern and 2 unknowns. <BR>> Count 3 of 4 scores. I would recommend doing the<BR>> F schedule first, then the 2 unknowns. I believe all<BR>> the other pilots would love to see FAI unknown finals flown<BR>> by some of the best pilots in the world. It would be a<BR>> showcase event. <BR>> <BR>> To conclude:<BR>> <BR>> I believe this is a win-win for<BR>> everyone. We
would add finals to advanced; both the<BR>> Masters and FAI finals would be shortened; the best pilots<BR>> would be showcased; more pilots would be in the finals;<BR>> fewer personnel to do the finals. <BR>> There is no perfect system. I am sure<BR>> there will be objections of some kind, but I believe this<BR>> system has real merit and should be implemented. <BR>> <BR>> Respectfully<BR>> Mike Harrison<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access,<BR>> and share your photos. See<BR>> how.<BR>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> <A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>> <A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR><BR> <BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc832.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" ymailto="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>