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

Sun Mar 7 15:04:34 AKST 2010

Jim

I really like this idea! The only issue I see is who's field would be willing to shut down for a weekend for 10 or 12 guys.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 7, 2010, at 1:54 PM, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:

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          **

_______________________________________________
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/20100308/7067e789/attachment.html>