[NSRCA-dist7] A proposal for FAI at the local level

Mon Mar 15 11:41:38 AKDT 2010

Don,

Yes the weather is a crap shoot even within rounds. But it Is somewhat close in a round. Could be calm in the am and blowing 20+ after noon. This is part of what is wrong at the nats. Rounds there can be on diiferent days under totally different situations, but count the same. It's pretty unfair IMO for the serious competitors. 

Perhaps we run it like d5? Don't they run a masters a and b class when too many show? And have them somewhat judge each other? Not sure exactly how they do it. I'll have to email mueller and get the details. 

I'm totally fine with making a sacrafice of some type to accomodate the needs of any of the other classes. I will even take an extra class to learn how to judge f. But let's face it, there will be about 5 or 6 guys in d7 who continue to fly fai probably. That's at this point. Once it has been run this way for a few years I could see it become the norm and fai attendance will probably improve.

My opinion is we need to better train advanced to judge masters.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:21 PM, AtwoodDon at aol.com wrote:

Bill and Steve,

After reading your posts, I think there may be some misunderstanding of the intent of Jon's proposal.  From your email wording, it sounds like you  think the FAI pilots need to decide at the contest what format they want to use.  Jon's proposal asks that if the FAI F schedule will be used during the contest that the CDs post well in advance via the newsgroup, contest flyer, etc. Yes, it is still the CD's choice as to the format but as a FAI pilot, you would not show up then get surprised.  If there is no prior notification, the pilot should be assured F is not offered. It won't be voted on by the pilots at the beginning of the contest.  Any FAI pilot thinking of attending a contest would know well in advance what sequence format will be 'offered'.  The pilot can then decide if and how they want to participate. 

While this isn't a perfect solution to keep everyone happy, I still believe it the best interim solution that provides a common, predictable format for the district.  No surprises, etc.  It also provides a bridge to a possible full implementation that could be decided prior to the next contest year. If we don't go thru this interim solution, when the topic comes up again next year we will be right where we are today. I did have a chance to ask Jon about this recently.  He indicated he had received off line comments from some FAI pilots (approximately five) about his proposal that had not commented online.  At that time all comments had been that they would support the approach. 

Masters  -  I agree, this could become a BIG problem.  Last year saw a movement of some Masters pilots to the FAI ranks which really helped at a lot of contests.  I haven't seen the contest reports on number of pilots in Masters for this year, but, it sounds like it was a problem already.  Bill, are you proposing that 2 rounds of Masters are coupled together with the same Masters judges for each round and the 'round' scores are tied to the judge panels rather than the physical round?  If so, that sounds workable to me, similar approaches are used at the Nats and at International contests to provide 'near equal' exposure to judge panels.  Weather is always a crap shoot, even within individual rounds.

Don

In a message dated 3/15/2010 6:35:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, shannah1806 at gmail.com writes:
Bill
I support your idea to split the class.  I'd rather do two short stints vs one monster long one. Talk about things that can drive FAI flyers away, that long sequence and marathon judging sessions is about ready to do it to me. I think the CD should mandate a shortened sequence any time there are more than 5 fliers. Plus you should split the line if more than 8 show up. 

As for FAI F:  I don't support the pilots option or CD option. The current proposal is effectively doing nothing beyond what we have right now. Either we do it or we don't. If I have the choice to optionally throw away two rounds then I'll probably opt to not do that and fly P. If I have 4 solid rounds and my choice is to drive home early or fly F then I might fly F even though it wouldn't have any bearing on the outcome. 

Pilots already fly F on the P score sheets. I'd hope that we could introduce an F seuence somehow but the voluntary optional thing doesn't work for me. I can do that now but the results don't mean anything. So I'll fly P until further notice.

Do it or don't do it.  

Steve 
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:20 AM, "Wallace, Bill" <WallaceBill at bfusa.com> wrote:

Tony:

My take on this is that we are not going to dictate to the CD’s hoe to run their contest.  John has suggested that if the FAI flyers want to fly the F sequence, then the CD can run the last 2 rounds as either F or P to be decided by the pilot.  If he decides to fly the F then he will be scored at the P schedule K factors.  In my opinion, this is a fair way to run it, and is how I am going to run the Hemet contest.  If the FAI pilots don’t like this, then they should speak up now or don’t gripe about it come contest day.  Let’s face it, we are never going to make everyone happy, but this proposal does the best job of it – again in my never to be humble opinion.  Since Jon proposed this, and I think he will be running the Dist. Championships, then I think we can assume that this is how they will be run.  Again, if you are a FAI pilot and you don’t like this suggestion, speak up now.  Now Jon – if I am wrong on this let me know.  A more
 pressing problem, IMO, is the heavily loaded Masters class we have in Dist. 7.  At Yuma – half of the registered pilots were in Masters (8).  If we have a good size contest (ie Riverside or Hemet) we could have 12 – 15 Masters pilots.  This will create havoc for the CD and the poor FAI and Advanced pilots who have to sit in the chair for 2 – 2 ½ hours.  My thoughts are to split the class if      the number gets over 10 and have the same judges for 2 rounds, but they would only have to judge ½ the pilots each round.  Then we would hold off normalizing until the end of the 2nd round.  I am thinking this would make the judging a little more tolerable.  Looking for comments and or other suggestions.  Thanks.  

Bill Wallace 
Fleet Sales Manager 
Bridgestone Bandag Tire Solutions 
4000 E. Mission Blvd. 
Ontario, CA  91761 
Cell Phone - 951-385-2605 
Fax number - 615-493-2333

This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from disseminating or distributing this information (other than to the intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received this in error, please notify me immediately at bwallace at bandag.com or at 951-385-2605. Thank you.

From: nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Frackowiak
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 5:17 PM
To: CA, AZ, HI, NV, UT
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-dist7] A proposal for FAI at the local level

Hi Jon,

Somehow this slipped through on my email, so I'm just responding now.

With all due respect (whenever I say that I think of Ricky Bobby!) I don't see why there can't be some sort of approval by the majority of the F3A fliers. A simple yes/no and posting the results would suffice. Without that, it looks like just one guys ideas being pressed      forward.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the entire idea of this discussion was to come to an agreement amongst all the F3A pilots on what to do in this district? If you leave it up to the individual CD's, will the D7 Championships be decided by that CD?

Thanks!

Tony

On Mar 10, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Jon Carter wrote:

Tony – There is no real “official” process per se to vote on this proposal. As I said, I believe that this is a first “doable” step in a process and unless I hear some strong objections from some FAI pilots my intention is to forward my proposal to each CD who is running a D7 contest with my recommendation to implement it if possible for their contest. Please keep in mind that this decision is ultimately the CD’s of the individual events.

Thanks

Jon Carter

NSRCA D7 VP

From: nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Frackowiak
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:08 AM
To: CA, AZ, HI, NV, UT
Subject:

_______________________________________________
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/20100315/c153f58b/attachment-0001.html>