[NSRCA-dist7] FAI: F sequence at local contests

Sat Mar 6 10:13:27 AKST 2010

OK, after thinking about this for a while, here is my opinion, for whatever 
 that is worth.  We are wrestling with a near term request and a longer 
term  approach.  Following is my opinion and does not represent anyone else, so 
 if you as a FAI flyer agree or don't agree, let Jon and the rest of the 
FAI  flyers know what you think or want.

This 'discussion' started as a question framed around whether we should  
allow some provision to fly F at the Arvin contest in May to provide a way for 
 people that wanted to go to the Nats an opportunity to fly F competitively 
prior  to the Nats. And for a few, the opportunity to fly F just because 
they wanted  to. So far, so good.  I do not have any problem supporting our D7 
members  that want to compete in the Nats.  I can live with some level of 
compromise  to support that.  Good for you. Go D7!!! 

At this point some of us headed for the popcorn and microwave assuming this 
 was going to get
interesting.  And it has.....

A few ideas were batted  around about how to accommodate those wanting to 
practice F in a competitive  setting with little or no impact to those that 
don't really want to fly F.  Basically, we were looking for a middle ground 
to keep everyone happy.   Predictably, the discussion quickly became more 
about why that won't work for a  myriad of reasons and we should make a 
District wide decision to change the way  we run the FAI class. Now, remember the 
original request was to provide an  avenue for 'F' exposure prior to the Nats.

I have flown in the FAI/F3A class for many years under the format we  
settled into for local contests. I worked my way up thru all the available AMA  
classes over the years and ended up in 'FAI'. I have flown most of my FAI  
contests in D7 and have not attended the Nats for many years. Personally, I  
don't have much interest in flying F. When I say I 'fly FAI' it is just a  
designation for the class I competed in using the same rules for everybody  
everybody else in that contest.  I am by no means a world class flyer and  if 
I am not qualified to call myself a FAI flyer because I don't fly F, I don't 
 have an problem with that, it is just a name. 

D7 has been in a mode of flying 'P only' for many years as have most  
districts.  We made the FAI class fit into the AMA formats, not the other  way 
around. Some strongly feel we are following the 'intent' of the FAI rules,  
some don't.  So, if we change the approach, where do we draw the line?  We 
'kinda' follow the rules?  We 'mostly' follow the rules?  We  'fully' follow 
the rules?  

The only black and white answer is 'fully' follow the rules, right  now.  
However, I don't believe it is the best near term answer for  D7.  There are 
too many ramifications to that decision that will not be  positive for D7.  
I would suggest the approach could be to find a way to  'migrate' to that 
decision if the majority of FAI flyers think it is the right  direction. 

That migration could be a step this year, 2 steps next year, and full blown 
 local FAI 3 years from now, or some other agreed on timetable.  For those  
CDs that want to provide some F rounds this year, they could announce it  
well in advance, and hopefully follow a format that is predictable for  this 
year, then current FAI contestants could decide if they want to participate  
or not.  No announcement of F with reasonable leadtime defaults to 'P  
only'. The CD will have to determine if his offering will be positive or  
negative to the turnout, etc. Toward the end of this year, maybe at the District  
Championships, the FAI flyers could get together and hash out the format for 
 next year.  Maybe we switch to full FAI rules at that time. 

Remember, there are 2 things going on in this discussion.  First, a  
request to see if we can help our FAI guys that want to go to the Nats?  My  vote 
is yes, let's find a way to help them without disrupting our D7  world.  
Second, does D7 need to address our FAI format  approach to be  more in line 
with the other Districts?  My vote is yes, let's make plans to  migrate there 
and get this behind us peacefully with as little negative impact  as 
possible this year.  At that point, we can recognize FAI as the  'international' 
class it is intended to be, support our top pilots in their  inter-regional, 
national and international efforts. Meanwhile we can all  plan how we want to 
deal with that change on a personal basis.

I think Jon C is working on a proposed 'template' for this year.  If  we 
can all find some way to make it work for this year, we have almost a year to  
map out a more concrete plan for next year. We may have individually 
sacrifice  something this year in fairness, equal exposure, etc, but I think we 
will live  thru it.  After all, the individual CDs are still going to be the 
final  vote. You have to choose whether you can live with the format. Those 
that fly F  may have an advantage, those that fly P may have an advantage, or 
maybe no one  has an advantage, who knows.   F may not be offered at many 
contests,  but for those contests where it is, let's all just make it work.

On a more personal note, I am going to start a campaign that gives me a 10% 
 advantage over Chip on all maneuvers, no matter what they are, no matter 
what  sequence.  I would appreciate your vote for my proposal   
Unfortunately, I will still get my head handed to me......

Don Atwood

In a message dated 3/5/2010 4:06:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
joncarter60 at comcast.net writes:

Well, we have  certainly kicked off an interesting discussion!!  
I would like to get a  broader range of opinions so I could use some help 
from some of you! Here is a  list of everyone who flew FAI at a D7 contest in 
 2009. 

FAI   
Don Atwood  **   
Greg Frohreich  ****   
Jim Kimbro  **   
Bill  Sheets   
Chip Hyde  **   
Tom Messer  **   
Bill  Wallace   
Troy  Newman   
Steve Hannah  **   
Matt Kimbro  **   
Adrian  Wong  **   
Frank Capone  ****   
Derek Koopowitz  **   
Bob Obregon  ****   
Chris Fitzsimmons  **   
Mark  Leseberg   
Craig  Blodgett   
17 total  pilots. 
9 opinions  received. 
3  pending. 
I have heard from  everyone on this list with two asterisks after their 
name. I have e-mailed the  guys who have 4 asterisks after their name.  
So that leaves, Bill  Sheets, Bill Wallace, Troy Newman, Mark Leseberg and 
Craig Blodgett. I do not  have e-mail info for these guys. If any of the 
rest of you do, could you  please forward a copy of the relevant e-mails from 
the D7 list to these guys  and ask them to contact me? My home e-mail is 
_joncarter60 at comcast.net_ (mailto:joncarter60 at comcast.net)    
Thanks 
Jon  Carter 

____________________________________

From:  nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  
[mailto:nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tom Messer
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:24  PM
To: CA, AZ, HI, NV,  UT
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-dist7]  FAI: F sequence at local contests

The reason I say it that way is that doing so would  institute a change in 
how we do things now. It's not my idea NOT to fly F or  an unknown. I just 
don't because we don't do it. Simple. I started flying FAI  for a couple 
reasons that I won't bore anybody with here, but when I started  flying it we 
flew P solely. Just as you did when you flew FAI. So it's not  just me, the 
northern crew, or all of D7 who is "not really signing up for the  F3A event", 
that is just how we did it. We also don't do noise tests, or weigh  
airplanes... but that's another issue.

I agree with you though that if we do this, we should  do it whole hog and 
fly best 3 of 4 of P and best of 2 F... etc. But so far  the only proposal 
of those who want to do this was to slip it in and have some  fly this or 
some fly that. In my humble opinion, that is not right, not fair,  and it is 
not something we should do... it will lead to  problems.

Other than that, we have heard from exactly 3 on this  list and on RCU from 
this district on this matter. Three out of the 15 that  flew in a D7 
contest does not a majority make. If there are more, please speak  up!

Tony you can, and should, do whatever you feel is best  for your contest... 
just as I will for mine. But since this is a change in  philosophy and 
practice for how the FAI event is held locally, I think it  should be up to us 
who fly it to decide... and for that matter, up to those  who want a change 
to prove their case.

Frankly, the best way to do that is for them to hold  their own contest and 
show us how it should be done. Your contest could be the  first step in 
that process should you decide to go  forward.

Tom M

On Mar 5, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Tom Messer  wrote:

Sorry last message was sent unfinished. Standby for  the quick finale. 

Tom M

Sent from my  iPhone

On Mar 5, 2010, at  2:51 PM, Tom Messer <_thomas_messer at sbcglobal.net_ 
(mailto:thomas_messer at sbcglobal.net) >  wrote:

Thanks for your insight Tony, your comments and  views as a CD are 
important, but as you noted earlier you don't fly FAI  anymore so while your vote 
may not count, Your insight  does. 

The purpose and intent of the three different  sequences for F3A is to 
systematically wittle down the number of contestants  at a lrge contest until 
you have one winner. P is is a rite of passage in  essence and if you are 
worthy you move on to fly F and so on... Obviously  you k ow this but my point 
is we don't have that problem in the district so  there is no need to employ 
all that... Unless we who fly F3A want  to. 

The reason I say it that way is that doing so would  institute a change in 
how we do things now. It's not my idea NOT to fly F or  an unknown. I just 
don't because we don't do it. Simple. I started flying  FAI for a couple 
reasons that

Sent from my  iPhone

On Mar 5, 2010, at  1:27 PM, Anthony Frackowiak < 
(mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net) _frackowiak at sbcglobal.net_ (mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net) >  
wrote:

Tom, 

I'm going to answer your questions with my  viewpoint.

I think the purpose of holding pattern contests is  to conduct as fair as 
possible a competition that will select the various  winners in each of the 
classes. The CD of each contest is obligated to run  the event within the 
rules as closely as possible. It is then up to each  of the entrants to a 
contest to decide if this is "fun" for them. I think  everyone may have different 
ideas of what is fun. For some, it is only fun  if they win. For others it 
is getting together with people of like  interests. For others it is seeing 
how they stack up to the other fliers.  IOW, just the act of competition is 
their enjoyment. I hope we can keep in  mind that pattern events are 
competitions. They are not fly-ins or  seminars. They are contests. I suggest if 
all someone wants to do is fly,  then stay at home. You'll get a whole lot 
more  flights.

The F3A event consists of two known patterns and  an unknown. I suggest 
that someone entering the F3A arena with the opinion  that all they are going 
to do is fly P is not really signing up to the F3A  event. I feel they if all 
they want to do is fly one pattern, then an AMA  class is a much better 
option. I know about all the possible problems we  could have if a substantial 
number of F3A pilots moved to Masters. I think  we would have to cross that 
bridge when it comes up. But the option is  there. It's not like we would be 
telling all the F3A pilots who don't want  to fly F to go away. I would 
just invite them to one of the others classes  that are offered.

Keep in mind the why's for the F3A rules. In most  countries, when they 
have a pattern event, the only class that is offered  is F3A. They don't have 
the options that we do in the USA. And  in most other countries, they will 
only fly one model at a time. So a  local event has a very limited number of 
flights. With that limit, most  events can only fly P. That is exactly why 
the Note 1 I posted is in the  rules. In the USA, 6 rounds have become the  
standard that we want at our local events. We fly multiple flight lines,  
accepting the risk of mid-airs. We can much more easily fly  F.

Years ago we had two patterns. A & B, then B  & C, then C & D, and so on. 
They were increasingly difficult but  not at the difference they are now. And 
of course, there was no unknown.  And we always flew both patterns at the 
local meets. It was good for  everyone. The pilots got in contest experience 
with both and the judges  saw the patterns. The F3A event has certainly 
changed since then. Some  like the changes and others, myself included, do not. 
But if you decide to  fly F3A, I feel you should commit to flying the full  
event. 

I think it is important that as an NSRCA district  that conducts a District 
Championships, and selects Champions in each of  the classes, we should 
come up with an SOP for all the contests that fits  the rules as well as 
possible. And to throw this out, I think at the  District Championships, there 
should be P, F and at least one unknown. I  think an awful lot of people would 
be interested in seeing  that!

Again, most of this is just my  opinion.

Tony

On Mar 5, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Tom Messer  wrote:

No link is required, it's in the name... F stands  for finals and I think 
it's inferred as to what it's purpose is. We don't  have a finals for local 
or even district contests, so there's little need  to run the sequence for 
our historical  purposes. 

Your point is valid about best 3 of 4 of P, and  additional Fs as 
required... In my mind I think that is the only correct  way to do it if we decide 
that's what we want... It  is

Spelled out in the rules and it for all to read  and we aren't holding one 
person to a different standard than another.  Personally I think that it's 
contrary to our culture and will affect  masters and possibly attendance with 
the  regulars. 

What concerns me about this change, if it's made,  is that I'd we fly F at 
local contests, then we should do it at the  districts as well.. if we call 
that a true "championship", then how long  until we add unknowns? 

What is our purpose here? Fun for all or prep for  a few?

Tom M

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked  by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2724 -  Release Date: 03/05/10 
05:26:00

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-dist7  mailing  list
NSRCA-dist7 at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-dist7/attachments/20100306/bf7f412c/attachment-0001.html>