[NSRCA-dist7] FAI: F sequence at local contests
James Oddino
joddino at socal.rr.com
Sun Mar 7 12:54:22 AKST 2010
I've stayed out of this conversation and it is probably too late to offer an idea now, but I remember going to a contest in Germany back in 1970. It was a district type contest but open to all and as it turned out the guy that won wasn't from that district so the guy in second was the district champ. But here was the format. FAI only. One plane in the air at a time. One set of judges as I recall. Twelve pilots. Two or three rounds just like the FAI rules called for at the time. All in one day. We could do what we wanted but the concept of an FAI only contest could attract some attention.
If we held a few FAI only contests I suspect many of the Masters guys would participate and find out it is a lot of fun. Just a thought.
Jim
On Mar 7, 2010, at 12:52 PM, steve hannah wrote:
> "I think Jon C is working on a proposed 'template' for this year. "
>
> Good. That is the only way we can move on with something. We need a proposal to vote for or against. The current email debate has fallen into the infinite do-loop syndrome. The only way to formally act on this is for a proposal to be put forward. So, I'll wait to see what that is.
>
> By the way, you guys missed a fun time in Yuma. Friday, practice day, was beautiful. Saturday morning was fantastic with calm air, then we were treated to very windy conditions late Saturday. We got in 4 rounds on Sat and rained out this morning. Even though it was shortened by two rounds today, I had fun. You got a little of everything. No air, high wind, right to left, and left to right. Plus, we really enjoyed the Mexican food at Mi Ranchito on 4th st. I'll go back to that place for sure.
>
> Now I'll be waiting for Jon's proposal.
>
> Steve
>
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:13 AM, <AtwoodDon at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> 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> 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 <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist7 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist7 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100307/92a6db90/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NSRCA-dist7
mailing list