[NSRCA-dist7] Fwd: To all D7 pattern pilots

Tue Jan 3 12:26:41 AKST 2012

Aren't there already rules in place that allow for "balancing" a class
that's kind of big?  It feels to me like we're trying to do gymnastics
around the FAI class (which, I think, should be treated as FAI: 4 P and 2 F
rounds, but then, I'm just a Sportsman, what do I know :-) to solve a
problem in the Masters class.  The masters class is a destination in and of
itself, by the very nature of things, it will grow over time as people
continue to matriculate into it.  The solution is already in the rulebook
though -- you can run more than one flight line for masters, with 2 sets of
judges, as long as everyone flies in front of a given pair of judges an
equal number of times, the scoring for the class as a whole works fine.  So
it would go something like this:

Today, you might take 1 advanced and 1 FAI pilot (call them A and B) to
judge a full round 1 of, say 16 masters pilots, then another advanced and
FAI pilot (call them C and D) to judge a full round 2 of the same 16
masters pilots, etc.

Following the AMA rulebook, you could instead do this:
1.  Break the 16 masters pilots into two groups X and Y, 8 pilots each
2.  In round 1 A+B judge group X, and C+D judge group Y
3.  In round 2 A+B judge group Y, and C+D judge group X

Similarly for rounds 3+4 (judges E-H) , 5+6 (judges I-L).

Same amount of overall time in the judges chair for A,B,C+D, etc. but
instead of having completed only 1 round of judging, they've completed 2,
and broke the chair time with a flight of their own in advanced + FAI
rounds.

Rounds would complete somewhat faster, in theory, but at some point the
flightline is consumed entirely by masters pilots, or you run sportsman +
masters group X on left + right stations and then intermediate and masters
group Y on left+right stations, then advanced + FAI on left + right
stations.  But you never have one line idle for an extended period while
the other is still pumping masters pilots through a round

Peter+

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Dale Olstinske <dale at cadence.com> wrote:

>  Derek, The intention is not to force anyone to FAI, rather create an
> environment whereby a Masters pilot who otherwise would not, may move to
> FAI. ****
>
> ** **
>
> That said, how would we  handle a contest with say 25 contestants, and 15
> + masters pilots? I think is could very well happen. We couldn’t put
> everyone on one line, that could take 2.5 hrs to complete a  round, with no
> judging snafu’s, probably longer.****
>
> ** **
>
> Dale****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-dist7-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Derek Koopowitz
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2012 8:31 AM
> *To:* NSRCA Dist7
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-dist7] Fwd: To all D7 pattern pilots****
>
> ** **
>
> Jon,****
>
>  ****
>
> I’ve been mulling this over since the original email from you…****
>
>  ****
>
> Here are my thoughts – leave it as is.  The problem isn’t with F3A… it’s
> with Masters.  I don’t see why we have to modify the F3A format to fix a
> problem with Masters.  That doesn’t make any sense at all.****
>
>  ****
>
> My preference is to have the same format as we did last year – if the F3A
> pilot wants to fly F then let them fly F… if they don’t then fly P without
> a penalty.****
>
>  ****
>
> Let’s come up with a workable solution for Masters – not break up F3A to
> fix Masters.  Masters is THE destination class for AMA – not F3A.  There is
> no way I would force anyone up from Masters just to clear up a logjam in
> the class… we can come up with other, better solutions.****
>
>  ****
>
> Best,****
>
>  ****
>
> -Derek****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Jon Carter [mailto:joncarter60 at comcast.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 02, 2012 1:48 PM
> *To:* CA, AZ, HI, NV,UT
> *Cc:* Adrian Wong; Bill Sneed; Bill Wallace; Dale Olstinske; Derek
> Koopowitz; Dick Belden; Don Atwood; Frank Capone; Frohreich, Greg; Jarvis
> Johnson; Jerry Budd; Jim Oddino; krishlan fitzsimmons; kysung at comcast.net;
> Luke Peng; Lynn Burks; LuvtheRocs at aol.com; rob at koolsoft.com; Robert
> Gillespie; Ron Davies; completemarine02 at sprintpcs.com; steve hannah;
> Terry Walker; Tom Messer; 'Jon Carter'
> *Subject:* To all D7 pattern pilots ****
>
>  ****
>
> Happy New Year to all!!!****
>
>  ****
>
> Here is an e-mail I have been working on for the last month. I am finally
> sending it out to start the discussion process. If there are pilots who I
> have missed, please feel free to forward this e-mail to them.****
>
>  ****
>
> FAI and Masters in District 7: Issues and Opportunities****
>
>  ****
>
> I want to start some discussion among FAI pilots, Masters pilots and CDs
> about the FAI and Masters class in District 7. Please keep in mind that
> this discussion needs to focus on our experience here in District 7. This
> is a revision to a section of my K-Factor article that will appear in
> January. Given publication deadlines, I did not have the opportunity to get
> very much feedback before I had to submit the article! I have since
> received some feedback which I have added and this e-mail is my attempt to
> get more.****
>
>  ****
>
> In 2010 I heard from some of our local FAI pilots that they would like to
> fly the finals or “F” sequence at local meets. They felt that getting the
> opportunity to fly judged “F” sequences at our local contests would help
> them improve their flying and enable them to be more competitive at the
> Nats. I also heard that “FAI has two sequences so we really should fly them
> both in order to “really” fly FAI” I polled and spoke to most of the FAI
> pilots in our district and came up with a proposal. In 2010 we flew two
> rounds of judged “F” at local contests but if a pilot did not want to fly
> “F” he could fly “P” for those two rounds with no penalty. (We worked out a
> K-factor modification in an attempt to score “P” and “F” together)  In 2011
> we went one step further and had everyone fly two rounds of “F” at local
> contests. If a pilot did not want to fly “F” he took a zero for those two
> rounds. I definitely heard some feedback about that! I think the attendance
> numbers speak for themselves. In 2009 (“P” only) we had the highest number
> of pilots fly FAI since I have been the district scorekeeper. At some local
> contests we had more FAI pilots than Masters. This number dropped in 2010
> (“P” and “F” sort of “fudged” together) and it fell even further in 2011
> (“P” & “F”). Concurrently, we have a LOT of Masters pilots! This creates
> real problems for the CDs in balancing the lines, and for the judges,
> usually FAI and Advanced pilots, who spend way too much time in the chair.
> I have heard from many pilots this year that they do not have the time or
> the inclination to fly the “F” sequence but they really enjoy the extra
> challenge of the “P” sequence. This leads me to a discussion of some
> proposed solution for 2012. Please keep in mind that we are just discussing
> proposals at this point. ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Option 1*****
>
>  ****
>
> Don’t do anything. We continue to fly FAI with 4 rounds of P and two
> rounds of F. At local contests last year we flew this way and simply
> counted the best 4 rounds. That way you do not have to “keep” an F score.
> At the district championships you must keep an F score. ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Advantages*****
>
> Keeps things the same as last year, we continue to fly the “full” FAI
> pattern.****
>
> Gives our local pilots who want to fly at the Nats a chance to fly judged
> “F” patterns.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Disadvantages*****
>
> Many pilots don’t seem to want to fly F and so they stay in Masters
> creating a “bulge” that makes the CDs and the contestant judges lives more
> difficult.****
>
> We seem to be having a declining # of pilots in FAI.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Option 2*****
>
>  ****
>
> Go back to the way we did it in 2010 and let some people fly P and some
> fly F and do some sort of score “fudge”.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Advantages*****
>
> Kind of a middle ground solution. Might get some pilots to leave Masters
> and try FAI. ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Disadvantages*****
>
> I don’t really care for “fudge’ing” scoring. It just doesn’t seem right in
> a competitive sport.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Option 3*****
>
>  ****
>
> Split FAI into two “divisions” let’s call them “Gold” and “Silver” these
> two divisions are competed for and scored separately. Here’s a simple
> description.****
>
>  ****
>
> *FAI “Gold”*****
>
>  ****
>
> This class will fly 4 rounds of the “P” sequence and two rounds of the “F”
> sequence at each local contest. Their final contest score will consist of
> their best 3 out of 4 “P” rounds and their best 1 out of 2 “F” rounds. This
> will also be the format used for FAI “Gold” at the district championship
> contest. If there is enough interest we could even fly an unknown round at
> the season championships.****
>
>  ****
>
> *FAI “Silver”*****
>
>  ****
>
> This class will fly 6 rounds of the “P” sequence at each local contest.
> Their final contest score will consist of their best 4 out of 6 “P” rounds.
> This will also be the format used for FAI “Silver” at the district
> championship contest.****
>
>  ****
>
> A pilot may enter either class at any contest. You cannot fly in both at
> one contest though! You can change back and forth as many as you want to
> during the pattern year.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Advantages:*****
>
> Possibly increase the pilots flying FAI and reduce the pilots in Masters.
> This will greatly simplify line balancing and judging assignments. Gold
> pilots are perfect judges for Silver and vice a versa. Masters pilots can
> judge Gold, Silver or Advanced. ****
>
> Reduce the length of time spent in the judging chair. Judging 10 Masters
> pilots is not an easy task and requires you to be in the judging chair for
> almost an hour and a half. Not very fun at a local contest!****
>
> Make the CDs job of finding and assigning judges much easier.****
>
> Might improve competition within FAI (Gold and Silver) and Masters.****
>
>  ****
>
> *Disadvantages:*****
>
> The CD needs to provide one more set of trophies. Extra cost is “bad”!****
>
> Depending on who shows up the CD might have extra trophies that he will
> have to “eat”****
>
> Further splits a small pool of competitors. How many pilots will fly
> “Gold”, maybe not enough to have a fun competition?****
>
>  ****
>
> I think the trophy problem can be worked around. By the time we get to be
> a Masters or an FAI pilot do we really need to get a trophy at a local
> contest? I know I don’t! A simple group photo or a medal or a simple metal
> plaque that lists the event and the class would be fine. At my contests
> this year I intend to simplify the Masters and FAI trophies regardless of
> what we do with FAI. In regards to the other issues I don’t know.****
>
>  ****
>
> Please bear in mind that I am looking for ideas and proposals. If you are
> a Masters or FAI pilot and you don’t think that anything is “broke” just
> let me know! If most Masters and FAI pilots think it ain’t broke then we
> won’t “fix it”!!! (Option 1) Or if you don’t like any of my proposals but
> have another thought in mind just let me know. So to you FAI and Masters
> pilots and Cds out there, think about it and please let me hear from you.*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> Jon Carter****
>
> NSRCA D7 VP****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-dist7/attachments/20120103/5beced3b/attachment-0001.html>