Dan!!!!!



Very well said bro!!!!!!!!!!



Chris

Chris,

Please reread this discussion. I am against processing the models of every entrant. But my point has been that IF you are going to do it, do it by the rules. Arch is proposing something different then the current rules. Can you see that?

haha. I have read every post in this discussion carefully.. I have no problem with weighing after a flight. Why do you? My planes make weight (edit for sp) easily. If the scales are made available to us ahead of time then why is there an issue? You have the chance, just as I saw you with the Passport, to make weight. You did it with a little work and all was well. Your planes now make weight easily obviously. I have no problem abiding by what the current ED wants unless he doesn't want to weigh planes, or abide by the entry rules.

I'm not gonna argue why rules shouldn't be followed like you are trying to do Tony. I am discussing why the should be followed. Because this is the fricken Nats. The Pinnacle contest of the US. Why shouldn't this be treated like the worlds? Give me 1 good reason!

C

Chris,

OK, because quite simply, it's not the World's. It is the U.S. Nationals with a variety of entry level classes. The World's are the top fliers from each country flying one class. That is a big difference from the World's. I'm not 100% sure but I believe F3A rules require weight and noise to be checked every flight. Ours do not. I am recommending that we not process every entrants models. But if we do, we follow our rules.

My impressions from this thread are:

*The ED has extended the cutoff the entry date - I see this as progress, why is there an issue? If it works, do it again next year.

*The ED is trying to find the most efficient way, within his rights as ED (obeying rules or freedoms), to ensure contestants meet the weight requirement - trying something new because manpower and time are an issue.

*Advocates against the current weight requirement are trying to find ways to support their case against having a weight requirement.


I hope this doesn't effect the ED's passion, enthusiasm, and enjoyment in volunteering for the country's biggest pattern event. This isn't the Worlds, but this IS the championships of the United States of America.

I attended the D1-D2 Shootout this past season and was quite impressed with the efficiency with which Archie and Tara ran the event.

There is no doubt in my mind that he is going to do a fine job and that the vast majority of participants will feel the same when the event wraps up.

I really don't see what the hubbub's about. The ED has the right to explain his expectations up front and in this case, it seems to me Archie has done that. At the same time guys who will compete certainly have rights also and can try to change some things. Tony is within his rights as I see it. Except personally I would do that discussion privately

Why all this back and forth in this public forum has me perplexed. I have always believed that it is within AMA's rules for a CD/ED to publish his/her intended course of action regards the "Rules". There was verbiage to that effect is the AMA rule book regarding contests.

I certainly appreciate Tony's personal situation in regard to funding.....been there myself and I get it. However, Archie has everybody's interests in mind when he posts his intents per AMA rules, especially if different than the rule book (not that they are different). He has informed all of the way he intends to run the Nats next summer not for purposes of raising cain but rather raising awareness such that all may prepare

For me, I would choose not to go if I felt that strongly against the CD/ED intents.....but that's me. For Pete's sake there no money award for a win, so what the point of it?

Arch,

I understands the reason to follow the book on the issues at hand. Rules are rules.

I don't agree on how the Master's qualification is. I can't understand why you don't think the best 4 rounds should count. I just reread the rule book and with the ranking system the inflated line is taken out of the equation. Site 1 just about every day had inflated scores this past NATS compared to the other three lines. The ranking system took care of that. Also this year every line had heavy hitters on them. No line there was a weak line. This had to be the most heaviest class at the entire NATS. Anyone of the 8 in the finals could have won it. So looking at the finals, every pilot that was there was supposed to be there. I don't believe anyone of those guys slipped in. I'm sure it has happen before, but with the ranking system. It can't happen, unless I'm missing something.

The bad day does matter! If it happens to a contender the first day. He is done! It wouldn't surprise me if that pilot packed up his stuff and went to the house. At that point the ED at the time just lost a judge. If it happens in the finals, then it happens. Anything can happen in the finals. Everyone goes there to win, but some are just glad to have made it into the finals. So if the 2 bad rounds happen in the finals, I doubt anyone is going to blow a gasket over it. It will be a long ride home.

Like Tony, I can't believe this rule slipped through the cracks. This should be looked at during the next rule cycle.

As for Tony's late entry. I heard the rumors. If he wasn't able to fly after he was told he could fly. I may have protested that he should fly. I went to the NATS to fly against the best and he is one of the best. So he should have flown. AMA was right in standing behind their decision. Also, from what little I know and I could be wrong on this. There were some World pilots that stayed over and flew at the NATS. They were allowed to enter the contest at that point.

See you guys in July for the Team Trials!



Rick

Weighing every plane after every round would seem to me to be a freaking nightmare, But on the brighter side of things not my freaking nightmare.There are some that show up with known heavy planes( maybe they have budget issues or something... as we know competitive planes aint cheap) to just fly have fun and see where they place against there peers having no misconception that they are in the hunt for the wood. A zero during a early prelim round for an over weight plane would most certainly spoil the experience for those guys, as the comparison they seek would be dashed. A lost pilot at the next local event??? who knows!!!!! I'm sure no one gives a POO..
Keeping it simple "JMO" would be to weigh the guys that are close or in the hunt for the wood on the last day of prelims for AMA classes( I have no opinion on FAI as I do not fly that class) . as has been done in the past. It worked quite well "JMO".. Simple fact is heavy planes hurt your performance light planes don't ( mostly).......
Weight arguments make me yawn!!!

If you want to shake up the pattern world???? sound check is the place to be .. Those that know, know what I'm talking about. Put your vast stable of volunteers in the radio impound and program checking arena... Chasing the subterfuge connected with making sound.. I'll pay double for a ringside seat to that dog and pony show..LOL
More power=more sound=more performance=more advantage...generally speaking... again "JMO"

Arch I do not envy you in your task as the ED.. As you know any decisions you make will not please everyone.. DUH!!!!... Don't be put off by it..
Good luck Arch see you at da nats. and thanks for stepping up..


Gary

Rick,
   Just to be clear, the Worlds pilots were extended an invitation to fly our Nats when they arrived including the team managers and "pit crews" for international competitors.  This invitation was not extended to national contestants and was held in place.

Scott<br type="_moz"/>

Scott, there was another part of the 2011 U.S. Nationals that I still have not understood. If all these other World pilots and their crews were allowed to particpate then why was our World Team not allowed to also compete? Would it not been fair to also extend the same courtesy to our USA Team? I'm sure I'm not the only one out here who questions this decision. Am I missing something? It would seem to me that this would only lead to a very hollow victory in the F3A Finals. Thanks, Everette

Everette,
   The reason why the offer was extended (extended meaning that they could register past the Nationals deadline) to international teams is because simply, they may not have known about our Nationals and we wanted to give them the opportunity to fly in them.  We did our best to get the teams informed of our Nats through the proper channels prior to the deadline but wanted to really offer an extended hand as much as possible.  We couldn't have known how the information was delivered to them and certainly wanted to include not only the pilots but their crew as well.
   We never blocked anyone from the US team to fly in the Nats.  The offer to them wasn't "extended" past the deadline because they were all aware of said deadline and, of course, were already here in the states with the same available outlets as the rest of us.  I do realize Chip was in Argentina but he was in close contact with several of us and was aware of the deadline and had made the conscious decision not to fly.  Of course we wanted all of our US team to fly and for their own reasons, elected not to.  In my opinion, it was really a nice thing for the powers to do that for the international teams.

Best Regards,
Scott<br type="_moz"/>

Scott, between your response and another offlist response, I think I finally understand. I agree, there is nothing better than international goodwill. After all, these international competitors and their respective teams should have been welcomed and allowed to compete because they, like us, are part of the larger pattern community. There is no doubt in my mind that if this situation was reversed and we were the visitors, our team members would have been invited to compete. Nothing would make most of us out here happier than to see these misunderstandings and disagreements resolved and put behind us. I support Archie and his efforts to put on a successful 2012 Nats that we all can enjoy. Thanks again Archie and Scott___Everette

Hi Rick,

As a member of the AMA Contest Board, I had an active role in the modifications to the matrix system that first took effect at the last Nats. Before I say anything else, let me say that I view the matrix system as a flawed, but necessary evil designed to deal with more contestants than the current judging pool system can handle. A number of people spent a considerable amount of time developing this system through the years, including, but not limited to Ron Van Putte, Dave Guerrin, and Jerry Budd as a complex solution to a complex problem. As long as we have contestant judging working half days coupled with a contestant turnout within a class that is larger than a half days worth of judges can reasonably judge, we're going to be stuck with some sort of matrix system.

This year, the seeding worked to perfection and the best pilots were evenly spread among the four groups. More often than not in the past, the seeding hasn't worked as well, mostly because of last minute no-shows. The end result was a real mixed bag of hard groups and easy groups with variations in between those two poles. If you had the good fortune to be with an easy group, your chances of making the finals went up significantly. The last time I made the finals was three years ago under the previous matrix system when I jumped from 10th place (or somewhere near there) to 5th place on the final day of qualifications when my group flew against the easy group. The next year, I was in Tony's group which was arguably the hardest group since he ended up winning it all and came out 11th or 12th. There were a number of guys that made the finals that I beat in qualifications when we actually flew head to head. However, when your group includes someone (in this case, Tony) who's smoking flight after flight, your scores are depressed compared to someone else who doesn't compete with him on every flight. This was the basis for the ranking system which places the emphasis on where you place within the actual pilots you compete against on any given day rather than comparing your flight scores against someone who flew on a different site in front of a different set of judges. I don't think anybody who flew at the Nats last year would argue that anybody other than the 8 pilots who flew in the finals should have made it instead. I sent a significant amount of time informally polling Masters pilots on how the felt about the ranking system and everyone I talked to liked it much better than what we had before with many saying that we finally had a "fair" system.

Your point on counting the best four ranking scores is well taken but carries one significant flaw. By taking the best 4 ranking scores to determine the finalists, it's possible to avoid a superior pilot by throwing out the 2 ranking scores from the day you flew against him. This year, that wouldn't have mattered much because there was at least one superior pilot in each of the 4 groups. As someone who's flown in the last 10 or so Nats, I can assure you that this year was the exception rather than the rule. In any year preceding this one, being able to avoid someone would have been a huge advantage. As you pointed out, the downside to having to keep one ranking score from each day is that you can't afford to have a bad day. You can have a bad round, but not a bad day. For those that haven't flown in the Nats, it's important to note that the Finals are flown under our conventional rules with equal judging exposure and normalized scores. The matrix only comes into play during the preliminaries that lead up to the finals when there aren't enough judges available to provide equal judging exposure to every pilot.

All of this was taken into consideration by the Contest Board. While I can't speak for anyone else on the Board, I will tell you that in my opinion, with full consideration given to the fact that this is our National Championship, I think it's fairer to make sure that everyone faces every other pilot and keeps one of those rounds. I believe that the current version of the matrix is the third variant since it was originally conceived by Ron Van Putte. If the Board receives input indicating that the best 4 rounds are viewed as more important than equal judging exposure, the matrix can be modified again. Unfortunately, those two options are about the only choices we have under the current conditions.

Verne Koester

Verne,

The system that was used at the Nats this year was to take the best 4 rankings, not the best from each day and then the best leftover as is currently in the rules. It was what was announced at the pilot's meeting and used throughout qualifying. There was no conscious decision to do that but rather that was how the head of scoring interpreted the rules and that was how qualification was calculated. I do agree, the way this years Nats qualifying was done was fine.

Honestly, I started reading the rules regarding qualifying after the Nats began. They are very confusing and somewhat open to interpretation. But if the desire was to return to requiring a score from each qualifying day I would disagree with that.

Rick,

Thanks for your kind comments. When I go to the Nats I try to do my best. When my best wasn't good enough this year I was very glad to see you win. You truly deserved it.

The Contest Board just added language to clear up the confusion that existed at the Nats. As it stands, one round must be kept from each day plus the one best discarded round. That was the original intent of the modufied matrix. There are valid arguments for both methods as I discussed in my previous post. I wish there was a way to keep the best 4 without the potential for avoiding competing against a blowout pilot, but I can't think of one. What would be really nice is to not need the matrix at all, but that would require full-time judges similar to the way it's done at the World's.

Verne Koester

Verne,

Thank you for the explanation. I understand what you are saying and agree that this NATS had heavy hitters on every line. It made the system work. Would it be possible to use this past NATS for data. Meaning, take just the top ten and rerun the contest standings and pull the best round from each day and see what happens. As Tony stated. It was the best 4 out of 6 that were counted. It wasn't a day by day. It would be interesting to see how it or would it shake up the qualification rounds.

I do agree the seading system is the best that I have seen. I've been to 20+ NATS and several team trials. So I understand how this has always been a problem. I applaud the contest board for tackling the issue.

The other factor that I could see that would affect a day by day round drop and I know there are some what ifs. What if your first round you are first up. Everyone that has ever flown the NATS knows that the flight will not score. No matter if it's on a string. Won't score. So the next round you flame out. Contest is over just from that one day. I know about bad days. '97 team trials I missed the finals by less than two points. My day I was of the easy line as everyone calls it. I blew a coupler in the starting area. Made the repair with a lot of help from pilots that were around. Took off and ran out of time in the three turn spin. Would I have made the team. I will never know. The point is bad thing happen at the wrong time and probably for good reason. Should a bad day either by equipment or by luck of the draw ruin a NATS run for the championships?

Hi Verne,

I believe it was Jerry Budd who began the entire rule process to change the matrix system with his original proposal and I'm pretty sure he would not have desired to require a score from each day. He got burned at a Nats a number of years ago when it was that way. I believe it was Contest Board rewriting that ended up modifying Jerry's proposal into what got passed. I don't think too many people paid attention to the process. I know I didn't because I thought we were done with that sort of scoring.

Rick,
I'm sure the scores could be run but I don't have them. I would imagine Jonathon Carter might still have them and I agree it would interesting to see how it would shake out. My guess is the results would stay the same, at least as far as the 8 finalists are concerned. It's possible they would have finished the prelims in a different order, but I think the top 8 separated themselves quite a bit from the rest of the pack.

This year, flying first meant flying in blinding sun and haze and I can say that from first hand experience. There is and always will be a certain degree of luck at the Nats. Good fortune means never flying first, being in a group other than the one that the best pilot is in, flying when the wind is calm, not having a mid-air, a flameout, or any number of other unfortunate events that can happen. Some of those things can be overcome by being prepared, others can't. We don't have anything to say about the flight order, wind, or grouping, so that's just pure luck. You may not win the round if you're first up, but you really don't need to under the ranking system. Coming in 2nd, 3rd, and possibly 4th will make the flight a keeper if you do okay the rest of the week. Obviously, a flameout is a round killer. That's probably partially luck and partially preparation. When I flew glow, I put in a new plug before every contest flight and later recycled them into my practice sessions as needed. A new pipe coupler right before the Nats comes under the same category.

A mid-air is just flat out bad luck. If you're prepared, you have a back-up plane that's as close to a clone of your primary as possible. Since you get to refly the the remaining maneuvers after a mid-air, it shouldn't be a total round or day killer, but I'd suggest that you probably won't do as well as you would have with your primary. That's kind of a 50/50 draw between luck and preparation. For me and I suspect most, no backup means you're pretty much through. I wouldn't even borrow a plane because bad luck runs in streaks for me and I'd probably have another mid-air with the borrowed plane. I guess what I'm saying here is that a certain amount of luck is always going to be involved.

Verne

Hi Tony,

You're right, Jerry Budd put an incerdible amount of work into redesigning the matrix system and a lot of what he proposed was incorporated into the final version. FWIW, a number of Board Members spent a considerable amount of time experimenting with a variety of normalizing formulas to tray and overcome the inequities of the unequal judging exposure we're dealing with before Jerry's proposal was even submitted. Unfortunately, none of them panned out. The Board determined that there were some areas in Jerry's proposal that needed some tweaking. It's not fair for me to critique Jerry's proposal here so I won't, but his proposal served as a substantial basis for the the final cross-proposal that was passed. I know you don't like keeping a round from each day so we'll have to just agree to disagree on that one. That issue is all a matter of what is more acceptable. If you keep the best four rankings, a superior pilot can be avoided by anybody outside of the superior pilot's group. For me, that's just simply unfair. If you require that one ranking score be kept from each day, that means that every pilot must face every other pilot and keep at least one score from those meetings at the risk of having some misfortune that causes a pilot to lose both of his flights on one day. As a regular Nats competitor, I'd rather have the fairest system possible with the risk of some misfortune spanning 2 rounds taking me out of the game, but that's just me.

All of this can be revisited by the Contest Board in the future if someone makes a proposal. I would hope you'd agree that we're better off than we were before by using a ranking system rather than relying on scores that are produced by unequal judging exposure and a system that has a legitimate means of overcoming a rainout on one of the prelim days as well as a means of legitimately declaring a National Champion if the Finals are rained out.

Verne

What happens when we get a line where the "gold" pilot doesn't show up? We have an easier line right? So some people in that group may make the finals and push 1 or 2 out that perhaps should have made it. I think 10 should go to the finals if we fly by the matrix system. Especially when the class has the turnout that Masters has. And especially if a "gold" pilot doesn't show.

But, whatever, we have so many things to work on to make the nats more improved. Can't change it overnight, but the conversations such as these over the past few years helps in the long run I think. I know I learn things from them.

Chris

Hi Chris,

The ranking system is designed specifically to deal with the potential of uneven groups. Before, your normalized scores were being compared to the normalized scores of other pilots who flew in groups that may have been easier or tougher than yours in front of judges that never judged you. In short, unequal judging exposure applied to groups that may or may not have been balanced in terms of talent. With the ranking system, it's where you place among the pilots you ACTUALLY fly against each day in front of the same judges. What you want is a low number. If you came out first, you get a 1, come out second and you get a 2 and so on. The pilots with the lowest numbers at the end of three days get into the finals. You get your best finish from the 2 rounds you fly each day with one of those rounds being discarded plus your one best discarded round from the three days combined. The pilots with the lowest numbers get into the finals. In essence, these are like qualifying heats in a hydroplane race. They can't put all the boats in the water at once so they have heats. The top finishers from those heats get into the final race to determine the champion. The number of pilots allowed in the finals is at the sole discretion of the Event Director as is the decision of whether or not to use the matrix system and will be announced at the Pilots Meeting. If someone is disqualified for any reason prior to the conclusion of the first finals round for any reason, the next best pilot from the prelims is allowed into the finals. As you can see, the scenario that bit you a couple years ago is now covered.

The easiest way to grasp the whole thing is to view it from a second place finish in a round. Before, 2nd place on Site 1, Round 1 may have been worth a 997 while 2nd place on Site 3, Round 1 was only worth a 985. Comparing those two numbers as we did before is unfair because it's based on different groups flying in front of different judges. With the new system, the 997 from Site 1, Round 1 and the 985 from Site 3, Round 1 are both worth a 2 because they were both second place finishes. It's kind of a "super normalizing".

You and I share a similar perspective of what's happening as one of the 10 or 12 guys on the fringe trying to snag one of the last couple spots into the finals. As you know, there's nothing more frustrating than watching someone get into the finals that you beat when you actually flew head to head with them. Though still possible depending on how you do on the other two days, you should find some comfort in knowing that it wasn't because they were in an easier group than you or got better normalized scores from an easier set of judges than the ones you faced on any given day or that they got to fly on Site 1 all three days while you were stuck on Site 3 which is arguably harder because of all lines and angles.

This is just a snapshot of the system. You really need to read it all from the rulebook to get the whole picture. The Contest Board just added a few sentences to it to clear up some confusion that occurred at the last Nats. I'm not sure if that's been published yet. I suspect it will be simply added to the 2012 Competition Regulations.

Verne

Does it make any sense for me to go for 3 days, with only 2 contests at the intermediate level under my belt? Would it really be worth it or better to try for a full week and with more practice next year?

The Intermediate and Advance classes always fly for 3 days at the Nats. You should go since the level of flying is about the same as the regular contest. The Nats is just nice to meet people from other areas and socialize and have fun. That's all.
Hope to see you there.
Rene

Joe,

You will make more progress in the four days (including Sunday practice) at the Nats than you will going to a year of local contests.

Besides, Site 4 is where all of the cool people hang out!!