[NSRCA-dist7] A proposal for FAI at the local level
Steve Hannah
shannah1806 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 15 13:55:19 AKDT 2010
I shouldn't have mixed the topic of judging and flying F. They are
different and unrelated. But I am not asking to shorten masters to
satisfy FAI. I am asking to do that for the sake of anyone who sits in
the judges chair. I like that a and b idea. That could really help.
Maybe this should be it's own thread.
I still think we should offer F. I'd rather see it mandatory but that
isn't what the proposal offers. So in order to move onward I'll
support whatever proposal we adopt to include it in someway. In the
spirit of consensus, I don't really like the proposal but I can live
with it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:15 AM, Chris Fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com
> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Are you saying to shorten the masters sequnce if too many guys show
> up in masters? I don't see how making masters change to satisfy fai
> that is shrinking because of difficulty. How fair is that? Hopefully
> I perceived your comment incorrect.
> Pattern was fun a few years ago. Im not quite having the same amount
> of fun lately it seems. With this issue we have people moving back
> to masters or saying they will. Where does the issue lay? In masters
> or fai? If people want to fly f, it will most likely make sure at
> all contests that all fai pilots will get a trophy. Is that what
> people want? I'd rather fly against 10+ masters guys than 2 fai.
> Would the fai pilots rather fly against 10 guys flying p, or maybe 1
> or 2 flying p and f? Cuz I could take a guess that that is what
> would happen.
>
> Just my opinion I guess.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 15, 2010, at 6:34 AM, Steve Hannah <shannah1806 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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 fl
>>> yers 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 decid
>>> es to fly the F then he will be scored at the P schedule K facto
>>> rs. In my opinion, this is a fair way to run it, and is how I a
>>> m 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 everyon
>>> e happy, but this proposal does the best job of it – again in my
>>> never to be humble opinion. Since Jon proposed this, and I thi
>>> nk he will be running the Dist. Championships, then I think we c
>>> an 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. N
>>> ow Jon – if I am wrong on this let me know. A more pressing pro
>>> blem, 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 coul
>>> d have 12 – 15 Masters pilots. This will create havoc for the C
>>> D and the poor FAI and Advanced pilots who have to sit in the ch
>>> air for 2 – 2 ½ hours. My thoughts are to split the class if th
>>> e 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 a
>>> m 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 fro
>>> m some FAI pilots my intention is to forward my proposal to each
>>> CD who is running a D7 contest with my recommendation to implem
>>> ent it if possible for their contest. Please keep in mind that t
>>> his 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: Re: [NSRCA-dist7] A proposal for FAI at the local level
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will have no problem supporting this if this what the majority
>>> of the F3A pilots have agreed upon. Is there a process to come to
>>> a majority agreement?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Jon Carter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Local contests and FAI: A modest Proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I have indicated on the D7 list and in e-mails to most of the
>>> D7 FAI pilots I think that we need to come to a decision/
>>> recommendation for the FAI class at local contests as soon as
>>> possible. At this point I have spoken with almost every D7 pilot
>>> who flew in an FAI contest during the 2009 season. I would like to
>>> begin by stating some facts, some assumptions and some goals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Facts:
>>>
>>> The 2010 contest season started in Phoenix on 11/14/2009 and we
>>> are 3 contests into the season.
>>> Since we have already begun the season, I do not support adding
>>> “F” as a required element at the D7 Championships for the 2010 s
>>> eason.
>>> There are strong opinions on both sides of this issue.
>>> Adding the “F” schedule at local contests is a significant chang
>>> e to the way we have “traditionally” flown FAI.
>>> It is up to each individual CD to structure and run his contest in
>>> a manner that follows the rules and satisfies the needs of his
>>> club and his pilots.
>>>
>>>
>>> Assumptions:
>>>
>>> Most D7 FAI pilots support an option to assist the pilots who go
>>> to the Nats by providing them with a way to fly judged “F”
>>> sequences.
>>> Many D7 FAI pilots think that flying the “F’ sequence at local c
>>> ontests would be fun, challenging and a way to more fully align
>>> ourselves with what it means to fly “FAI”
>>> There will be a significant “learning” curve in judging the
>>> “F” sequence.
>>>
>>>
>>> Goals:
>>>
>>> Arrive at a set of guidelines for the 2010 season that will give
>>> an event CD a framework for running the FAI class this year and
>>> allow pilots who choose to, the ability to fly “F” and receive s
>>> cores.
>>> Provide a path that will allow us to offer the “F” sequence at l
>>> ocal contests and the District Championships in 2011 and going f
>>> orward if so desired.
>>> If we make changes, ensure that a process of review is completed
>>> to determine the positive or negative impact of the changes after
>>> the season
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposal for the remainder of this year
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any FAI pilot who wants to may fly two rounds of F at a local
>>> contest, with the CD’s permission. To simplify things for the CD
>>> I think that this should be limited to the last two rounds on S
>>> unday. If the CD is willing to permit this, it must be mentioned
>>> as far in advance as possible. (On the website and in the conte
>>> st flyer at the minimum) If the CD does not want to fly the “F”
>>> sequence, or no pilots want to, FAI will be flown as usual with
>>> a best 4 out of 6 “P” sequences.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The F schedule scores will simply be entered into the computer as
>>> a P schedule. This will apply the “P” K-Factors to the “F”
>>> sequence. This is obviously a “handicap” for the pilots who choo
>>> se to fly the “F” sequence (~17%). It does though allow them to
>>> fly the “F” sequence in front of judges and receive scores that
>>> they can review for areas that need improvement.
>>>
>>> All other scoring, i.e. count the best 4 out of 6 rounds, will be
>>> kept as is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> District Championships
>>>
>>> The District Championship will be flown as a Schedule “P” contes
>>> t only. As I mentioned up above, we are 3 contests into the 2010
>>> season and I do not think that it is proper to make a change of
>>> this magnitude for the District Championships at this time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Future
>>>
>>> I believe that we should observe these changes and their impact on
>>> our local FAI contests for the remainder of this season. If they
>>> appear to be positive and the majority of the FAI flyers like them
>>> we could make another step next year. If the idea has strong local
>>> FAI pilot support, I would support making our local FAI contests a
>>> best 3 out of 4 “P” and a best 1 out of 2 “F” for 2011.
>>> Please keep in mind that by trying something different this year
>>> we are not committing ourselves to any changes for next year. I
>>> f we adopt this proposal we have most of a year for pilots to se
>>> e “F” flown locally and for the rest of us to learn how to judge
>>> it! Remember our goal is to compete, improve our piloting skill
>>> s and have fun!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jon Carter
>>>
>>> NSRCA D7 VP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-dist7 mailing list
>>> NSRCA-dist7 at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2735 - Release Date:
>>> 03/10/10 11:33:00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c50523b8/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-dist7
mailing list