Well, this really boggles the mind!

This means that despite ABUNDANT space and vast experience by the US organizers in putting on large big-time stunt contests, the F2B World champs will once again be run using A SINGLE CIRCLE. The net effect of this is that despite the best efforts of Warren, Shareen, and Bill Lee, we will still have a far inferior contest that will not really maximize the chances of getting the right answer. A format that would be protested as unfair and pointless at local "Podunk Eat Chili and Fly" meet.

It is my understanding that this is the result of lobbying by several European countries to "follow the rules" despite the abundant evidence that this format creates a crap-shoot. Never mind that this rule is to be eliminated in the next round (thanks to the highly laudable efforts of Andy Sweetland and Peter Germann, et. al.) , and that in fact the contest format should not be in the rule book in the first place (contest format should, as in AMA rules, be left to the organizers since it ALLOWS ACCOMODATION to the site capabilities).

Note the following:

There will be about 100 entrants +- a few. Each flight will take about 10 minutes, given the time limit and the time it takes to move one flier off and the next on. That's 1000 minutes, or ~17 hours. That's how much time A SINGLE ROUND will take. Judges need about a 10 minute break every 2 hours, minimum, plus an hour for lunch. If you started at 8:00 AM on Day 1, you would run until about 7 PM, and get through a little over half a round. Start the next day at 8:00 AM, then you run until about 5:30 PM. Then you are done with 1 ROUND. That's right folks, if you draw #1, you fly at 8:00 AM Monday, and your score is directly compared to a score given at 5:30PM Tuesday.

Of course the conditions will likely not be remotely consistent, nor is is at all reasonable to expect the judges, no matter how good they might be, to be consistent over 2 VERY LONG DAYs standing out on the blacktop in Muncie. If you are lucky, it will be 78 degrees and muggy. If you are not lucky, it will be 95 degrees and even more muggy, which is beyond uncomfortable and far into the area of abuse. And we are expecting the judges, under these conditions, to properly weigh the value so many subtle errors perfectly in order to pick a WORLD CHAMPION.

I might also note that one of the primary complaining countries driving this format (gee, guess who) had *thousands of deaths* last year in what they termed a record heat wave, and what in the Midwest US is an average summer day. But it's OK to put stunt judges out in it from sunup to sundown and expect them to tell the difference between a 9 point square 8 and a 8.5 point square 8 over a period of 30+ hours clock time.

Sorry to be so frank, but this is simply a very, very stupid idea, completely unjustifiable on any competitive grounds, any logistical grounds, and in fact any grounds aside from being obstinate for whatever motive. I mean if you aren't even going to try to make it fair, and argue for things that guarantee it's a crapshoot, why should we even bother holding the d*mn thing at all?

I dont think you were frank enough. So I will add in my 2 cents.

Whoever lobbied to keep the same STUPID format should pull their collective heads out of their rear ends!

What a freaking joke! I cant believe people's ability to be so closed minded! I really cant believe it.

Maybe, just maybe some of those who think that format is somehow superior will stay and attend our nats and see how quick and smooth it can be run in a multi circle format.

What a crock!

Somehow it reminds of all the flap that was stirred up when there was a letter out to see if we would allow non BOM models in Open JR SR due to the increase in participation from all over the world. Many believe in "It's our contest they abode by our rules" And that certainly is a normal thought if you were to have one or two out of country competitors. But we may have people from ALL OVER THE WORLD where BOM is not a rule. Making an acception for such an event seemed only to show how we would be willing to accomodate our out of country flyers in such a large amount. It would show to the world how we would welcome flyers who may never have the chance to compete here again. But the voters said no and that is that. I am sure to many outside it looked very closed minded. Remember this is a different issue than if a couple of guys from London show up and fly. This could be many from all over. Us showing our ability to stretch out our hand and welcome them would show a great willingness on our part to work togther with the FAI.

Sorry to change course on you but it seemed relevant somehow.

But I am with you on this on, they have lost their minds.

What country was it anyway?

On further consideration, I retract my statements on the topic of BOM/W/C format. I was and am bitterly upset at this situation, and I overreacted.

What really upsets me about this is that I know that Warren and Shareen have been looking forward to doing this for years and years. There are no two people on this planet that know more about how to put on a good, enjoyable, and fair stunt contest. And now, it looks a lot like all their knowledge and experience is just going to get flushed down the toilet. And instead we are just going to have FAI big-wigs going to champagne breakfasts and dinners while the judges ##### near kill themselves out of on the blacktop. I'm very disappointed myself, because we could have set a new high standard (which is no doubt an element in this decision - God forbid we do a better job than anyone else - that's not the socialist way!) for these sorts of contests.But I can scarcely imagine the disappointment for Warren and Shareen, particularly given the other issues that are going behind the scenes in PAMPA now.

I can see at least part of the logic (rules are rules) but given that we already know the one-circle rule is going away at the end of the year, and the facility supports it (unlike the likely 2006 site in Spain, to my understanding), it just seems so pointless to waste the opportunity.

So we have a far superior *rule* but no hosts in the near future that can support it. And I guess that's the way they want it.

This is the FIRST thing I thought.

I think somewhere it is written "you reap what ye sow".

Just "following the rules becasue that is the way we have always done it" may not always be the best answer. Maybe there is a TREMENDOUS LESSON TO LEARN HERE FOR ALL.

>Just "following the rules becasue that is the way we have
>always done it" may not always be the best answer. Maybe
>there is a TREMENDOUS LESSON TO LEARN HERE FOR ALL.

Yes, But not the one you are trying to give. As far as I know, no one is trying to keep BOM (or any other rule) simply by tradition and bullheadedness. It's keeps being used because there is very widespread support to keep it that way.

You really need to get your mind wrapped around the idea that no matter how good you personally think getting rid of BOM might be, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU. That's why it stays -not some brick wall conspiracy. Until you get this through your head, you will continue to be frustrated.

To get what you want, you need to make a good arguments that addresses the concerns of the opponents and to convince others of your position. So far, I haven't seen a lot of this from the "anti" side and only a little from the "pro" side.

I urge you to, if you wish to continue this thread, to start another BOM thread so that it can be deleted without interrupting everyone else's. My next SN column adressess the "pro" aspects of BOM - so why don't you wait until early May and then we can start it all up again.

..and I guess you still don't see it.

We (meaning the US flyers) had an opportunity to DO SOMETHING TO BENEFIT SOMEONE BUT OURSELVES, but chose instead to do something completely selfish.

We (the US flyers) had an opportunity to extend the olive branch to the rest of the International stunt community by doing something THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BENEFIT US, and we chose instead (by majority) to do things THE WAY WE ALWAYS HAVE. No changes allowed.

I think someone else has taken exactly the same attitude towards us, and now there is grumbling.

Shocker.

Get off your BOM soapbox. This is about our actions taken (as a group) to be inflexible in the face of the International stunt community. We failed miserably. Why should we complain when that same community expects that THEIR contest should remain in its traditional format?

Most likely one event has nothing to do with the other, but then there is always Karma.

That being said, why don't you just let it lay. It's not your contest to change, if they do not want a new format, so be it.

Yeah...
This is equity or contract law. It doesn't make any difference how good your intentions are- the floor of H*ll itself is paved with good intentions.

Jake

SK

Ya know, Brad, we dont agree on everything...but I couldn't have said it better. That was my argument in a related thread quite a ways back. It is a tit for tat on their part....and we dont need to be doing that with our European brothers. It almost like an old fire that burned years ago..I guess it still does!

I think the proposed format and facilities we offer are wonderful! Will we ever know for sure why it was not accepted as a multi circle format? Nope, but introspection is a good place to start.
John Sunderland

I would contend that it is the FLIERS contest, and the FLIERS wanted it to go to multi-circle (as indicated in the rules change proposal and the almost universal acclaim for the change amongst participating pilots and even some who nonetheless voted to disallow it) for the many perfectly obvious reasons.

Much as the FLIERS wanted to use AMA rules at the NATs, and voted accordingly.

Now, if we had voted to waive BOM with general acclaim, gotten approval, published the fact for two years, told everyone to come on over, and THEN it got reversed 3 months beforehand with no opportunity public comment, then the situations would be equivalent. But that's not what happened, so the situations are not analogous.

Brett

THE U.S. FLIERS!!!

Why don't you take a vote of the International fliers that are coming to the Worlds and see what their vote would be?

Perhaps those big-wigs should be informed that they must monitor the site constantly. If they leave the site or go indoors, additional circles will be opened.

What a bunch of....

My 1,000th Grandfather Clovis would be appaled!!

If that happens, what about people who have made travel arrangements(some, like me, on a tight schedule) & booked & paid for accommodation? On an apex fare, there is a cost penalty - if I can get flights a couple of days later.

The whole idea was to demonstrate to the FAI that a multi circle contest would work, and work well. If ever there was a site/organisation that could demonstrate the superiority of a multi circle contest, the Muncie/AMA combination would do it.

Just dumb.

What happened to the other proposals? I've not seen anything published, except an equally dumb change to the team race line specifications.

hrrrumph!
Dave

Well, that's one problem - we were forced to invite 5 extra judges instantly to comply with whatever committee demanded it, because the standard 3 per circle we have always used at our NATs and has proven to work perfectly well were insufficient because we couldn't throw out high and low. Of course the "throw out high and low" is a pointless act to placate people because it looks like you are doing something to prevent cheating. But it doesn't work, as the acknowledged cheating incident at Shanghai proved. Now we get to uninvite them.

I talked to Shareen earlier and there is some modified single-circle format that will attempt to mitigate the effects of ballooning on the results, but I'm not sure I really understood it properly.

I would think something should be done to keep the judges alive - forget the scores. If you aren't used to the conditions, and assuming worst-case heat and humidity, it's potentially dangerous to stand out in the heat for that length of time. Model airplanes are neat and everything, but they aren't worth dying for.

The "blow-out" issue is of course very real. It's much more likely when you start in early July. The 2003 NATs, held earlier than usual, had one bad day that would have closed FAI down due to excess wind speed (closed me down, too, but not the same way!) and this is more likely earlier in the month. Late July/August/Sept is a better time, I think. But there is a conflict with the NATs. So you'll get to see what lax fireworks laws and good old Midwest patriotism really looks like, because it's on my favorite holiday of the year - Independence Day! We had a great one last year in Nebraska; more black powder hasn't be used so irresponsibly since Guy Fawkes- but that's another story...

>If that happens, what about people who have made travel
>arrangements(some, like me, on a tight schedule) & booked &
>paid for accommodation? On an apex fare, there is a cost
>penalty - if I can get flights a couple of days later.

I don't know. Plan on staying for OTS/Classic and borrow an airplane!

>The whole idea was to demonstrate to the FAI that a multi
>circle contest would work, and work well. If ever there was
>a site/organisation that could demonstrate the superiority
>of a multi circle contest, the Muncie/AMA combination would
>do it.
>
>Just dumb.

<< I retracted the statement here. It was made in state of extreme frustration and did not meet my own standards>>

In any case, it's a very bitter disappointment.

>What happened to the other proposals? I've not seen anything
>published, except an equally dumb change to the team race
>line specifications.

Well, if I understand what you are saying, you may be mixing your idioms. The W/C is apparently going to use the current rules, and the new proposals go into effect in 2005, I beleive. Then the format issue, not to mention all the other items that this stellar rules change effort proposed, will be solved. Unfortunately, there may be no more opportunities for a multi-circle format for quite a while.

Aside from what I consider to be basic, valid principles already expressed too many times concerning the BOM rule (sorry Doug, but you guys need to address the arguments of your opponents) that included current political attitudes of foreign contingents toward us, do you suppose that the above consideration might be the real reason for the move. Put someone in the position of having to run an inferior contest, and perhaps they'll refuse. The U.S. here is in a no-win position: run an inferior contest or look like bad hosts for refusing or not succeeding beyond criticism. Question: can we run the contest right anyway?

SK

BWAAAAA HAAAAA, uh, just kidding, couldn't resist. I'll go mow now.

Tools

PS Having dealt with this sort of thing ALOT, I can say your best bet is to make it their idea. Don't ask me how, while I deal with this alot, it isn't on a international basis. Sorry. Maybe propose something where "THEY" have to be in attendance for the entire 18 hour rounds. It might involve bringing them here for a real time dress rehearsal of the event RIGHT NEXT TO A SPARE CIRCLE. Good luck.

I don't know if this will bear fruit but ...

I suggested that maybe AMA ought to consider renting out the "three now extraneous perfect circles adjacent to the one actually utilized for flying stunt" to a local RC car group or maybe to the local Hells Angels Motorcycle club for motocrosses or something.

Since the powers that be seem blistfully unaware of the potential benefit these resources could have provided, it might be worth while for them to be exposed to what sort of enhanced experience they might have provided had they not had their heads in that dark place to which Doug has already alluded.

Seems a shame to waste all that beautiful tarmac.

Maybe a dog show? Hmmm, we'd have to be careful to select our stunt circle based on wind direction though. Maybe not, although I'm not sure the stink would be any worse than that which emanates from this decision.

Ted

p.s. re the ... in my opinion ... inappropriate suggestion that this is some sort of payback for the US deciding to run our National Championships by our rules: The difference is that the FAI World Championships are as much ours as they are any countries. We have valid and legitimate rights to input on decisions affecting the rules and regulations regarding their operation.

The US National Championships are "our" championships and we have the sole right to control the manner in which they are conducted. This is unassailable and, I'd like to think, other countries would recognize our rights in the same manner we recognize their rights to run their national events as they desire.

The thing that makes the US Nats unique (and, unique is not a dirty word) is that we have a nearly six decade history that reflects the manner in which our National Champion is crowned. It includes small but meaningful recognition of the entrants skills in the workshop along with his skills on the flying field. To simply ignore this historical reality would be a slap in the face to all the names who earned a place on the Walker Cup in the traditional way. (OK, maybe "Trophy" but it predates the WC Cup by a couple of decades whatever it's called)

We're going to have a US run (more or less) comp using the World's rules the week before our Nats. We don't need another one the next week

How about renting out the adjacent circles for jet speed and unmuffled tether car exhibitions (Dooling and McCoy 60s only)? Of course this would be limited to USA AMA members (they are our circles), and they would obviously only run/fly when a member of a foriegn team is flying. I think the start up of a dyna jet upon entry into the square eight is an excellent idea.
Of course the Hell's Angles, being good ol' Americans might come up with something better yet!
In sports it's called "home field advantage"! (ever been in Cameron Indoor when Duke is playing?)

As to the US NATS, you are dead right.

Bill <><

Maybe we can help out the US team members by bringing a bunch of old planes and constantly crashing during flights by other top competitors. Just a joke, don't everybody freak out.

This truly sounds like a moronic decision. I don't think we should downplay the possibility that the international community is trying to stick it to us. We live in a petty world, and petty things happen in a petty world.

This will be something that those planning to fly in the Nats the next week will have to take into account.

I think we were all kidding.

Ted:+

How about shooting a film called "The 2003 Nats"?

The unfavorable wind conditions would be simulated with a couple of Jumbo sized fans, cabpable of producing 70 MPH winds. I know this Hollywood director and he loved the idea, but the only problem is that wants to see the US pilots (oh, yeah, and Igor Burger too) perform, so when they are flying he will turn off the fans...

Ion (I'll plead the fifth) Muniz

What a shame that a few countries can make a mess of it.

I agree with Ted, our NATS SHOULD NOT be modified for them.

Believe me, giving in to the French etc, would be the same as letting them & the UN tell us when and how we should defend our country... NO WAY

One thing for sure.. Those who stay for our NATS will see how a contest with large entries SHOULD be run!

Does the phrase "over the top" mean anything here?

Part of the Wingover maneuver. Did I get it right?

Steven Yampolsky
Webmaster for www.control-line.org

Oh, OK, Alan. You can play in my sandbox.

Ted

I retracted my statements on this topic. I was not in a good state to post on this topic last night. I can't even begin to imagine how frustrated Shareen and Warren must be.

I can't state in words how bitterly disappointed I am in this decision.

So true, but evidently we are a minority on that committees agenda no matter what we have to offer. Can you tell us why it was rejected after so much effort, money, and cajoling/lobbying so to speak?

>whatever it's called)

>We're going to have a US run (more or less) comp using the
>World's rules the week before our Nats. We don't need
>another one the next week

And we would have a US Championships without the WC's clouding the horizon no matter what. So where is our benefit in this endeavor? I know what was poured in on behalf of Pampa much less the AMA. I am hurt that the FAI fizzled out at our expense. I live two hours away and I may not come!

Not good politics, foreign relations and a general snub at the last minute in my opinion. So much for prior planning and the intended portence.

John

Whatever the misconceptions were, the decision was made. Many of those who voted to follow the existing rulebook have stated that they knew the two circle format was better.

One other point about the judge's workload with either system. Actually, the two circle format that was planned and that will be in effect in 2005 will require each judge to see the same number of flights as a single judge would see with the current format. In the two circle format, there are twice as many judges, but there are twice as many flights. The secret in reducing the judge workload in the two circle format was to stretch the qualifying period over another day. Well, lo and behold, the same reduction in daily workload can be had with the current format by also stretching the qualifying period over another day, and that is the format that Warren plans to use.

It is unfortunate that some judges now have to be disinvited to participate in this World Championsships. I know there are several vey qualified judges that are extremely disappointed in this turn of events.

I would also agree with Ted's assessment that the World Championship qualifying format decision had nothing to do with the our plan to not change our Nats rules regarding the BOM requirement in the age categories which lead to the Walker Cup flyoff. Based on what I have read and heard, I have an idea that those voting on the WC format knew little or nothing and would not care in any way about how we plan to run our Nationals.

It is an AMA flying site. Practicing within could be limited to AMA members only? "Sounds vindictive and of course is." How about heaping burning coals upon their heads - provide the remainding circles as practice areas? Somehow let the competitors know that they could have enjoyed a speedier contest. Since it takes two days for one round. Will the qualifying take 4 days now?? If so, will the extra time impact the start time of our Nats?

Unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable!
Why would anyone with a vote and the chance to vote on something actually vote for what they consider the worst of the choices?

Jake

Jake,

I don't think anyone is denying their right to make the decisions. It is the wisdom of same that is in question. In addition, the fact that they had previously OKed the concept at an earlier meeting, the format had already been published to the competitor states and the judges had been invited, etc. Just because they can doesn't mean they necessarily should have. But, as you say, they did and we'll all have to live with their decision.

I hope you understand I am on YOUR side and I think it really BLEEPS; I don't know what to tell you but short story is you guys are stuck with it this year.

Peace,

Jake

One question though: In planning any event like this, any deviation from the published contest procedure rules should be discussed, agreed and irrevocably locked down in writing well before (like 2 years) the event. Was this done? I hope that it wasn't just assumed that it would be OK, to be ratified at a meeting 3 months before the contest.

As mentioned before, this affects the other events as well,because of possible/likely schedule changes - the w/champs is not all about F2B exclusively - so please cut the other competitors in other classes some slack here!
Cheers, Dave

Keith: this isn't a response to your post, it just seemed like a good place to post some minor thoughts.

So, let me get this straight. Let's change the rule first and then see if we like it? We shouldn't give the concept a try first so that if it isn't satisfactory we can elect not to change the rules? What am I missing here? Further, as Brett has commented, why does the format need to be codified in the first place? Wouldn't it be wiser to allow each country to utilize a format which best suits its resources? With oversight by the FAI, of course ... oops, that's kind of how we got where we are no, isn't it. Scratch that last part!

>Based on correspondence I have seen, there are
>many who are not familiar with the multiple circle format
>that was being proposed and they have chosen not to
>understand that the two circle format actually decreases the
>impact of weather conditions and the luck of the draw for
>every competitor thereby increasing the probability that the
>truly better fliers are chosen to go into the final top 15.
>There are some who chose not to understand that even with
>the possiblity that one group of pilots in the two circle
>format could have a higher proportion of "top" fliers than
>the other, the probablity for any individual pilot to make
>the finals remains the same regardless of which group of
>pilots he is in.

Exactly correct, Keith. Hopefully, those who failed to understand the advantages of the concept will stick around to witness our Nats. With any luck they'll publicly admit they were shortsighted. Well, it could happen.

Brett, Ted, Doug, Igor, and all my Stuka Stuntbuddies that will be affected by this decision,

I really don’t get it. Here in Brazil, the ABA (Associação Brasileira de Aeromodelismo) Nats - F2B cathegory, are held in a single circle, and even though the number of competitors is much smaller, it’s still a tight scheudle!

It might be none of my busines, but I can’t help being very annoyed when I see people that I respect and look up to having to suffer the pain of seeing their hard work going to waste.

I sincerely hope that the FAI Plenary Committee will reconsider this decision and will not frustrate the hard work that has been done by Brett, Ted’s everloving wife Shareen and all the Americans that are endeavouring to make this event - held at a place that I’m not afraid of label as *The World Capital of Stunt* - a milestone in the history of stunt.

I recall posting a piece of my mind about FAI, I think the link is

http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=3278&forum=DCForumID1

Big misunderstanding! I have had NOTHING to do with any do with any of the hard work involved in the Muncie W/C. I have (obviously) very strong opinions and have followed it closely since Ted and Shareen are close to family, and I have enough big-time contest experience (and the assesments of others) to know that a one-circle system with 100 people is, charitably, nonsense, I have given Shareen my opinion on several technical topics when prompted.

But I want to make it crystal-clear that I did NOT to any real work on this. The Muncie W/C (F2B, anyway) is the work of Warren Tiahrt and Shareen Fancher, under the overall purview of Bill Lee. Period. Many people have contributed, but they're the ones running it.

I will state categorically that Warren and Shareen know more about putting contests on this magnitude than anyone else in the world. The proper approach would have been to simply turn them loose to run it, and there would have been a superior contest run like clockwork and fair for the competitors. And run from a COMPETITOR perspective, not a ORGANIZER perspectives as it seems to have been i the past.

This is why I am so bitterly disappointed.

Jake

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything".

Joseph Stalin

Jake

Obi-Wan Kenobi

Jake

Can anyone tell me, or is it known why there is a one circle mandate? My question comes from the many stories about the small international venues most hosts have to offer. I wonder why there would be such a legislated restriction?

My thoughts are that the European and Asian flying fields are lacking space for sufficient practice and official circles. The Muncie venue is the only place in the world that can, theoretically, host a World Championships properly.

Positively, perhaps the sheer magnitude of available practice space will provide the participants with enough first hand information to convince the Plenary Commitee that they blew it.

Chris...

P.S. I just cancelled my room for the qualifications, I will now arrive to see the finals only. I can imagine the quals will read like any previous "club field" Worlds.

I think Tucson could do it. Maybe a couple of others I've seen.

Hi!

Tucson has two paved and three grass circles. Interleaving the speed, racing, scale and F2B on the two paved would be a mess in a tight overall schedule. "Other" practice spaces might exist within reasonable distance, as at high schools (summer break) or industrial parking lots, if arrangements were worked out in advance.

Tucson is also quite hot during the mid-June to mid-July traditional bracket for CL W/C. I doubt Europeans would appreciate daily high temps of 35C to 38C (95º to 105ºF)-- we Arizonans don't much care for spending all day in those conditions ourselves!

Thanks for the thought, though...

So far as I can see/remember, the single circle format "originated" because of the desire to have all competitors fly in front of a single set of judges, fair enough for the days of 30 competitors. However with 80-100 competitors it's obvious (to me at least) that this won't work for all the stated reasons. Now, when the flyoff was introduced, THAT would have been the time to introduce the option of multi circle format, because all the finalists would easily be able to fly for the same judges.

Now, the problem is that tradionally, only the best single flight of qualifying is used - the proposal was/is that in a 2 circle format(4 flights total)2 flights would count. So, there are several changes from the "approved" contest procedure - 2 circles, changes to throwaway flights in qualifying and I think, a change to 1/10 point increments. It isn't quite as simple as it sounds - but it sure is dumb.

Please understand I'm not arguing this, just trying to shed a little light and background on the process!

I must admit to being a little hot, and uninformed. Always a dangerous combination.

I can't wait until the new format comes into being.I had always been under the impression that the World Championships were held at small venues with small fields because they used the single circle format. Ignorance is bliss.

I am sure that the World Championships will be run with great efficiency and professionalism by Warren and those working with him. I really can't wait to attend.

Oh well, my apologies to any of those I offended.

O, to be a fly on the wall at some of these meetings!

I found it really silly to see an unused, laid for stunt, circle going virtually unused during the Sebnitz event - there were 3 circles (one grass) available. The TR guys were the most frequent user of the spare circle once the F2B contest started.

>Cheers, Dave

Your statement is not correct in describing the proposed two circle qualfication process. This represents some of the misunderstanding by those who have not taken the time to understand the proposed 2-circle format. There are 4 flights, two flights each in front of each set of judges where the qualifying score is determined by the total of the best flight from each pair of flights. Please see my post #3 in the current K-Factor Thread.

I was wondering if this contributed to what appears to be a conservative backlash to what is clearly a great format.

However,I expressed it poorly.

You are inccorect on the two circle format. I am quite familiar with the "new" format since I helped write it. It was set up to be two circles, four flights (two on each circle) with the best score from each circle being added together to reach the placings in the qualifying rounds. A much better format than what we're going to have to run now.

I tend to agree with you. The 2 circle thing also seems to give all pilots a better chance in case they end up crowded with a bunch of heavywheight pilots, loosing a fair chance of going o the flyoff.

Just keep in mind that Europe is kinda intimidated with the way the present administration handles its international politics, and a lot of folks from the E.U. might be seeing this 2 circle thing like a "Bush -Texan-way " measure and willl reject it no matter what.

I suggest you read what Igor Burger posted, he's from "the other side" and a very reasonable cat, besides being a "grade A" pilot and builder

I am not (yet) a PAMPAA member, but I heve been taking advantage of all the nice things available at controline.org, and I see your name all around, as an indicator of the hard work you've been doing.

I'll take the ocasion to thank you.

God bless you!

In Christ,

Ion Muniz

PS - Since I hold Ted in high esteem even if I didn't agree with you (which is NOT the case) I'd still yes you to death,

After I saw a picture of Ted's NOBLER turned into a balsa pancake I decided that it's profitable to be in friendly terms with you, and very dangerous not to...

PS 2 - Just kiddn'!

In Brazil we loose the friend, but not the joke...

Thanks for the correction. Posts have been edited to reflect.
Cheers, Dave

Shareen makes a good correction that I had missed - you were actually going to get TWO throwaways in qualifying, one on each circle. You got two shots in front of each judges panel - and you get to pick the best one from each.

Once again, not only is it not new, it has more "test" and "demonstration" behind it than running two rounds of 100 with one group, since it's exactly the same as what happens at our NATS (albeit with half the people in each class) since the late 70's.

In fact, I'm sure that if we hadn't been compromising to accomodate the FAI, we probably would have run either 3 or 4 circles, instead of 2, to reduce the round length. It's my considered opinion (and previously expressed, apparently persuasively since the possibility to do it DID make it into the new rules) that 3 is probably the ideal situation. Not because it is optimum for the judge fatigue issue, but because it takes out the need for the organizers to seed (either by results, or by draw) the pilots. Just give each team one slot in each group, and the team picks who flies in which slot. Team members don't fly against each other in qualifying, and the team managers get to use whatever tactic they want to figure out who goes where. No complaining possible. The juniors could be seeded easily as long as there aren't a lot of them.

If you get a lot of juniors, then you go to 4 circles and then let the teams decide how to distribute them just like the rest of the team. That's how this years NATS is going to work, to accomodate the expected large number of guest competitors - Advanced and Open will all be mixed together on 4 circles. Normally we split Open into two, and Advenced into 2, and keep them separate (the notion, probably wrong, being that it's too difficult for the judges to see a "duffer" followed by a "hot-shot". I have seen NO evidence of this at any NATs I have been to. If I didn't have to know when my turn was up, I wouldn't even bother to look at the preceding pilot, because I just don't think it matters.)

Another note for guests, that they may have missed - if you finish in the bottom half at the W/C, you can enter Advanced at the NATs, and if so, the BOM does not apply - you just forfeit appearance points. Use all the ARFs you want, borrow an airplane, no problem. If you finish in the top half, you have to enter Open (or junior or senior, based on age), and the BOM DOES apply. It's enforced by the honor system.

Shareen - who is the world's pre-emminent expert on running big stunt contests - will no doubt correct anything I got wrong.

If you just come as a spectator to the W/C, then pick your level - but please use a sense of fair play!

I will be unable to attend qualifying rounds because of a schedule conflict with work, family and my own practice schedule. It may read like I am not going because of the format of the WAC but that is an error in my posts composition.

Yep, combat fliers get all the luck.

Jake

Bill

Scott(bring a long book..War and Peace sounds good)Riese

To repeat what was mentioned earlier in this thread. I think it is important that everyone should understand that there will be restrictions on the use of the "unofficial" circles on the L-Pad during the week of the World Championships. There will be circles available for practice but only for the WC entrants. I would not want our foreign guests to get the understanding that there is going to be a throng of non-WC flyers having free access to those circles throughout any day of the competition week.

Again, this is a factor that those planning to compete in the Nationals the following week must take into consideration. The L-pad will not be available for practice for non-WC fliers during that week preceeding the Nats. That should be understood now to avoid what could turn into something ugly during the WC's.

1/ the two circle format is not compatible with current rules, thus two circle format makes risk of protest past the WC
2/ we have been several times told that new rules will not be effective this year

So the only proper way would be to temporarily agree to make THIS TIME two circle. And that is I think exactly the problem. First time I heard OFFICIALLY (beside the bulletin) about two circle format only few weeks ago from our national club – just before CIAM meeting. If that happens everywhere, I am not surprised that happened what happened including personal offending and so. I think this decision had to be done at least year before.

The multi circle format does not solve any time problems, and DOES change something else and this fact can be considered as advantage for US flyers especially if presented so late and especially in eyes of someone who want beat them all

Since I know you well enough to be able to affirm that besides being an honest guy and a superb pilot, builder and *mad scientist* and since I respect you am lot (See message 25) I wish you would tell us more about the subject.

It'll be good to hear a non USA competitor's view on this controversial discussion.

You wrote:

"1- the two circle format is not compatible with current rules, thus two circle format makes risk of protest past the WC"

Do you mean that competitors might question the results based on the fact that a new form of running the contest was prejudicial to them?

If so, I gotta agree with you, even if the hypothetical complainers didn't really fly that well they can always say the the two circle thing was bad for them.

I am, though, quite sure that you wouldn't give a rat's dériérre on this, since you'd probably get good results anyhow.

"2-we have been several times told that new rules will not be effective this year"

Does that mean that the 2 circle system would catch some competitors with their pants down?

"So the only proper way would be to temporarily agree to make THIS TIME two circle. And that is I think exactly the problem. First time I heard OFFICIALLY (beside the bulletin) about two circle format only few weeks ago from our national club – just before CIAM meeting. If that happens everywhere, I am not surprised that happened what happened including personal offending and so. I think this decision had to be done at least year before."

Do you find it too late to save the 2 circle thing?

"The multi circle format does not solve any time problems,

Igor, ya mean it doesn’t help speed things up???

"and DOES change something else and this fact can be considered as advantage for US flyers"

I sincerey hope you are just talking about what other competitors that not Igor Burger would say or think.
As far as I know, Americans have a lot of deffects, but cheating ain’t one of them!

"especially if presented so late and especially in eyes of someone who want beat them all"

Igor, Igor, is Dr. Rugreb working on some "unbeateble stunter project" that you intend to take to Muncie?

I’ve been suspicious since Dr. Rogi Rugreb and Professor Noi Zinum gave up paddling the Niagara Falls and have been misteriously making themselves scarce…

But to your questions:

>>>It'll be good to hear a non USA competitor's view on this controversial discussion. …"1- the two circle format is not compatible with current rules, thus two circle format makes risk of protest past the WC" <<<
I have been asked by our representant what I mean about two circle format just before the CIAM meeting (some weeks ago). I have been told that there is a communication between all representants about that problem and that the communication tends to be unfair with “personal relations”. I do not want to go to details, as I have not been addressed by those messages. However in the communication WAS the question if it is or is not compatible with actual rules. I do not want to judge if yes or not, but existence of such question IS ENOUGH to invest a time and make some conclusion before we travel all over the world. And that was done but I think too late.
>>>Do you mean that competitors might question the results based on the fact that a new form of running the contest was prejudicial to them? <<<
I do not know, but traveling costs lot of money, so no doubt that there are serious questions if we travel to rules sanctioned contest. I do not know if someone could make a protest after the contest or on base of its results. I have seen on one WC one very nice big model with four engines and its unnamed pilot had 3 unnamed helpers, what is CLEARLY against rules, but no one even opened mouth against, because we all wanted to see it in air. I think we do not do compete for money or that small piece of metal worth of 1$ and we all want to keep it in happy manner, but WHAT IF?

>>>Does that mean that the 2 circle system would catch some competitors with their pants down?<<<
It DOES change something – does not matter what, there IS difference. That is reason why someone who see that difference votes against, that is all. The flyer who is sure with his ability to fly in bad conditions can easily vote against, I am not surprised. And if I look to invited judges (and those who will probably not come now) with conjuction of potentional winners then it makes also some questions

>>>Do you find it too late to save the 2 circle thing? <<<
I can imagine that organizers can prepare both formats, do some lobbing and ask that question JUST BEFORE the contest. Only the registered competitor or team can make a protest, so if really all contestants agree about the format it will be formally enough. But I do not believe it can be successful and especially I would not do it on position of organizers, it is lot of work on top of it and especially there is problem with judges, it is not doable I think. It is only theretical microscopic chance.

>>>Igor, ya mean it doesn’t help speed things up??? <<
??? it is twice more circles, twice more flights ???
It is the same time and the same effort of every judge. The advantage is twice more judges and twice more flights, not quicker contest.

if you re having visa problems I can recomend you a nice "coyote" I know...

But the best way to sneak in to the US is through Dominican Republic.

It's easy to go by boat to Porto Rico, and once you're there, unless they are now asking for ID at domestic flights you just catch a plane to New York of Miami.

If you have the right connections you can even get a US passport, but don'tuse that Igor Burger name on it.

Use Igor Cruz, or Igor Maldonado, or Valdez, Colon, and make sure to have with you a bottle of Bacardi and a mango (that they won't allow you to bring into the country, but will convince them you are a real Porto Rican).

You don't have to speak sapanish, just say "coño!' every once in a while...

Ya can't go wrong.

Prof. Noi Zinum taught me this trick...

>Bret, I do not know what exactly was the problem with
>disagreeing with two circle format, but:
>
>1/ the two circle format is not compatible with current
>rules, thus two circle format makes risk of protest past the
>WC
>2/ we have been several times told that new rules will not
>be effective this year
>
>So the only proper way would be to temporarily agree to make
>THIS TIME two circle. And that is I think exactly the
>problem. First time I heard OFFICIALLY (beside the bulletin)
>about two circle format only few weeks ago from our national
>club – just before CIAM meeting. If that happens everywhere,
>I am not surprised that happened what happened including
>personal offending and so. I think this decision had to be
>done at least year before.

Which it was. Shareen and Warren asked (via Bill Lee) to do this essentially from the start. Shareen can illuminate us, but I think it was probably in the original, accepted, bid. They got "approval" from one or another FAI agency - don't ask me which. They proceeded for the entire cycle.

Hey, if the first time this came up was two weeks ago, then you might have a point. It was clearly broadcast to what everyone thought was the right FAI apparatchiks, I think it was in the proposal and so if the first time you heard about it was 2 weeks ago, that is a problem WITH FAI - and instead of deciding to shoot everyone in the foot, might want to direct the ire at the appropriate direction.

Heck, you and almost everybody else knew about it, too, and that suggests ample opportunity to correct what "your" organization had failed to do.

By the way, I will also note once again that the phraseology you use is still of the "Us/FAI" vs. "Them/USA" variety. I thought that the FAI was supposed to represent and facilitate competition between ALL member nations. Not just Europeans VS. Americans.

The decision compromises what everybody pretty much agrees would be a superior format because someone in the beloved f-ing FAI didn't shuffle the right papers from the "in" box to the "out" box in the Proper FAI Way. Motivation TBD.

If someone wanted to torpedo a good idea by manipulating the bureacracy and politicking, well, slap yourselves on the back, mission accomplished.

That is. If you get idea, you ask FAI “apparatchik” then you must count that there are some questions, reactions … it is change of rules, so the only definitive conclusion can be done on CIAM meeting, and that was in March. That is why I think it was too late.

However this is just hypothese, I did not hear actual reasons.

In agreement with Igor, it is problematic to run a large contest and not follow the current, published rules. The contestants have every right to reject making major changes in the format unofficially. The CIAM has procedures for changing the rules, and they weren't followed in this case.

The proposed change drastically changes how the contest is run. It greatly reduces luck as a factor and places a much higher premium on consistency. Those changes and "homefield" advantage can easily be seen as a way to improve the USA's chances unfairly. If the judges are experienced it is hard to see how using more judges and making them judge four qualifying flights is any improvement over judging two flights. The whole point of the exercise is that the posted score accurately reflects the judges view of a particular flight. Making the pilots post two good flights instead of one is a MAJOR, MAJOR change in the event.

This points out that you do not understand the problem either!!!

Additional flights reduces the "luck of the draw" for varying weather patterns. It helps give everybody a more "similar" set of conditions to score under. Heck, just ask David about the last 2 world champs and his draws. The 2000 WC was the classic. Dave had two qualifying flights in horrible weather. In 1998, Bill flew two qualifying flights on the same day, and others flew on the first and third qualifying days. Just imagine the differences in conditions day to day at the 2003 NATs. How would you like to have your qualifying flight in 30 mph winds? Not me. How about both of your qualifying flights on the windy day, and many others have both of theirs in 2 different perfect days.

This is why the F2B World Champs competition has outgrown the rules due to their size. They will be changed in the future, but alas, not this time. The rules are the rules. I read the rules last night, and the only sticking point is that the single best flight is to be used for the qualifying order. The rules state that each competitor is "allowed" 2 qualifying flights. Well, using the new proposed format, if said competitor wanted only 2 flights, OK by me. The problem is with the single highest score counting.

Oh well. Smile and enjoy it one more time.

You wrote:
>>>Additional flights reduces the "luck of the draw" for varying weather patterns.<<<
This is true, but what it means? You are saying that you are going to change results by changing rules. It looks like very correct idea making fair contest, but there is another point of view. If you have top flyer, who knows the risk and who is able hardly work two years to minimize that risk, means risk his models, making models to bee proof of such conditions what cost little bit of his quality in very good conditions, the such flyer can consider such change as unfair.

You did very good example with David and Bill. You are telling us they would have better luck on 2 circles and thus result yes? … still surprised with that voting?

And have you been there and seeing that theatre done by Chinese flyer (I think Han?) in that storm when no one believed that it is even possible to take of? And he did VERY nice flight and no one registered that in reality he did flight in very good conditions. I just want to say, that there are flyers which concentrate to solve that risk and who can profit on such conditions. So the change to 2 circle forma IS change in contest as Ferocious wrote, but it can be even considered in some cases as unfair trick from US side.

I am not arguing any way. Just try to think about it also from this point of view. I believe the organizers want to show us their best on 2-circle format. But it is very easy for someone to switch to arguments like: “we are preparing 2 years and then traveling far distances just to be objects of such experiments”. Such a short sentence can very easy damage whole effort.

I think the only clever solution now would be to leave it as it is and concentrate to convince flyers to stay that next week after WC and show advantages of multi circle format.

I must comment regarding your calling the two circle format an "experiment". We, in the US, have been running our FAI Team Trials using the exact same two circle format as has been proposed for the Worlds for a number of years now. It is actually a proven and well worked out way of holding a contest. And those of us who would be working the F2B know how to make it work---we have a lot of experience in running such a competition.

As far as there being an advantage to the US competitors I can't comprehend how that could be a factor. The advantage would be to all competitors since they would all be more likely able to fly under similar conditions each day. Not like we're going to have to do now. The format in question does help in eliminating the idea of "luck" entering the contest and if anyone is betting on "luck" to make them a world champion then their flying ability has to be in question.

The thought of having to spend a lot of time and money to enter this competition and get only two flights seems a little ludicrous since under the two circle format they would have four flights with two throw-away scores.

As you can see I am very disappointed in the shortsightedness of some of the members of the FAI hierarchy. Although I believe that you are in support of our two circle format I can't help but disagree with some of the "concerns of others" that you put forth for consideration.

>>>As far as there being an advantage to the US competitors I can't comprehend how that could be a factor. The advantage would be to all competitors since they would all be more likely able to fly under similar conditions each day. Not like we're going to have to do now. The format in question does help in eliminating the idea of "luck" entering the contest and if anyone is betting on "luck" to make them a world champion then their flying ability has to be in question. <<<

… sorry, that was just speculative try to translate Paul’s message

>>>The thought of having to spend a lot of time and money to enter this competition and get only two flights seems a little ludicrous since under the two circle format they would have four flights with two throw-away scores. <<<

That is big truth. I always hear calls to fly as much as possible also on small local contests. We have only 5 flyers in Slovakia and we have sometimes problems even to establish team, so believe me, I am for anything attracting more flyers, or making life easier, or more fair.

Yes, I am from that another side of ocean, but I am not that guy who has problems with 2 circles. I am just pointing that if we have 100 contestants, we have only 100 places for them and if you do favor to somebody to give him twice more chances, he will profit on that chance and someone else will pay it by worse result. So you must understand that there can be well considered (mean not mistaken) disagreement.

The objective is to reward people who fly the most accurately with some weight given to accuracy in adverse weather. One should be able to show the probability of ranking the contestants correctly, given the desired weather weighting, for different contest formats.

How's this for a start - help requested, no agenda here.

This assumes that the weather is random ( which is debatable).

1 circle format, 1 flight counts from 2, right?

Some definitions: g = good flight, the pilot is satisfied that weather has not affected his score.

b = bad flight, the opposite.

There are 4 possible outcomes: gg gb bg bb - 3 of those outcomes are acceptable to the pilot, so the probability of getting a single good flight is 75%, I think, but I may be wrong.

Now 2 circle format, with 2 independent (are they really?) requirements for a single good flight; ie each pilot must produce one good flight in each circle. Now, the probability of a good flight in each circle is 75%, what is the probability of producing 2 good flights one in each circle?

This is where I'm stuck 'cause its a looong time since I did stats 101, but I believe that the probability of this may be the product of the individual probabilities.

If this is the case, the overall probability of a pilot producing 2 good flights, one from each circle is .75 X 0.75 = 0.56, cf 0.75 in the single circle format.

This seems to fly in the face of experience, so I must be wrong!

Help!
Cheers Dave

bbbb
bbbg
bbgb
bbgg
bgbb
bgbg OK
bggb OK
bggg OK
gbbb
gbbg OK
gbgb OK
gbgg OK
ggbb
ggbg OK
gggb OK
gggg OK

and this is for format used in final:

bbb
bbg
bgb
bgg OK
gbb
gbg OK
ggb OK
ggg OK

it makes four from eight - means 50% right? it means it enough to fly one round that is also 50% ...

Does this mean that in the future we should practice more in bad weather?

Since this is opposite of US experience, it is clear that us simple K factor people must be wrong again.
Cheers, Dave

I know better than to get into arguments with statisticians. However, your neat little tables assume an even distribution of good and bad weather throughout the rounds. This is hardly ever the case. Either the weather is nearly uniformly bad with a few periods where a handful of pilots get to fly is less severe weather, or the converse, the weather is not so bad, but a handful of pilots have to fly in really adverse conditions compared to the rest of the field. This is where the multi-circle qualification process comes in to somewhat level that playing field. Run your statistics with an uneven distribution of good and bad weather with a bias that there will be some sort of prevailing conditions, then see how the probabilities work out. And do this with a field of 80 or 90 competitors. Your numbers will not look quite so tidy.

Yes indeed, there are scenarios where a particular individual will get extremely lucky with the weather and another will get extremely unlucky with the weather, but in the down selection to 15 finalists, the good pilots still have a chance to recover to make the finals.

Note the caveat about weather being random! I dont have the skills to figure into the analysis the effect of weather. That is why I posted that as a starting point for the more mathematical types to take it from there - as Howard suggested.

It is like you have to choose from white and black stone. If you try it first time, you have 50% chance you will get the white. If you repeat it second time, you have the same 50% probability does not matter what happened before, but if you take all rounds together, it is very probable that half of them was black and half of them white. Means that if you have only one round, you have result for sure on some extreme – black or white, if you have two rounds, you have only 25% probability of extreme – both white or both black, but another two chances are mixed pair.

So that is what Keith wrote. If I translate it to statistics terms, he is going to make probability of bad conditions higher, but to all flyers. We not need to make good chance to all flyers; we have to make equivalent conditions to all flyers. But it really does not mean better conditions for flight which comes to final score – just opposite – it means higher probability that one flyer flies his “counted” flight in bad conditions, but it is for all flyers.

The main problem is, that if you have 100 flyers, which are all best from their countries, then the differences in score are typically very small. They are far smaller than impact of conditions to one flight. More flights give more judgments and that can limit those positive and negative extremes (like with those stones). So two flights instead of one brings 2x higher score, but the impact of those extremes of conditions is limited and does not go up to double value.

So after all yes, you are right, it is necessary to be able fly also in wind. But again, if you are really really well prepared for difficulties, then those extremes can help you if you can properly use the positive extreme and suppress the negative extreme, and that is what I wrote on begin of this topic – someone who invested time an money to be prepared to profit on difficult conditions can see 2 circle format as unfair FOR HIM and giving better chance for those “less prepared”.

Well … and the same goes on with “k” too, it is tool for judge to make more judgments on one figure (exactly like to fly several of them) and thus also expands differences between flyers. But that is another story.

I am not trying to argue here, but:

>Yes Dave, the probability to have luck on 1 circle format is
>higher, but question is, if it is anything good (I mean for
>results, not for flyer). On 2-circle format you have lower
>probability of luck, but you have higher consistency of that
>luck.
>

I do not know how to measure probability of "luck" or to know what the term "higher consistency of that luck" means.

>It is like you have to choose from white and black stone. If
>you try it first time, you have 50% chance you will get the
>white. If you repeat it second time, you have the same 50%
>probability does not matter what happened before, but if you
>take all rounds together, it is very probable that half of
>them was black and half of them white. Means that if you
>have only one round, you have result for sure on some
>extreme – black or white, if you have two rounds, you have
>only 25% probability of extreme – both white or both black,
>but another two chances are mixed pair.

The weather or the "luck" encountered by any one flyer is NOT a 50/50 probability. You make it out like it is.

>So that is what Keith wrote. If I translate it to statistics
>terms, he is going to make probability of bad conditions
>higher, but to all flyers.

That is not what I said. If you are goint to look at probibilities and statistics for the situations being discussed here, you need to set up a statistical model that represents the prevailing weather for a given day. Then during the day, there will be random periods where some flyers will have better conditions and other flyers will have worse conditions. Sometimes, these changes will be to extremes in terms of good and bad compared to the prevailing conditions. There are various statistical models that could be generated to represent these distributions.

>We not need to make good chance
>to all flyers; we have to make equivalent conditions to all
>flyers. But it really does not mean better conditions for
>flight which comes to final score – just opposite – it means
>higher probability that one flyer flies his “counted” flight
>in bad conditions, but it is for all flyers.

I think here we are saying the same thing, almost. The effort here is not to make "better conditions" but indeed to attempt to make "equivalent conditions". What the multi-circle/multi-flight format does is to help normalize the conditions that all contestants will encounter. I have not claimed that the system makes the conditions better for all or worse for all or the same for all.

To use the example that many have referenced: An individual competitor has worked for a long period, practiced hard, invested considerabel time and resources to be able to represent his country to fly at the WC. In the one circle format at the WC, his randomly scheduled flight just happens to be at the time that he and several other flyers have to fly in wind conditionss perhaps 10 to 15 MPH more than most of the other competitors. There is no way that his score will compare favorably to those who were fortunate enough to fly under more ideal conditions. Well, that is OK because he has another flight. Now, in the second round, his randomly schedule flight again happens to be in less than ideal conditions, but with a different set of other competitors who have already posted a good flight in the first round, but now, our individual competitor is resigned to accept those conditions with the likelihood of another reduced score, and he is out of the running. It makes no difference how well he has prepared or how much he practices in the wind, his luck of the draw has allowed those others who are equally well prepared and well practiced to take advantage of their situation and go on to the finals. At least with the two-circle, four-flight format, our well practiced, well prepared, competitive individual has a chance to still score well on one of the next two flights and if he is indeed good enough to have posted sufficiently strong scores on one of his windy first round flights, he has a chance still to make the top 15. This opportunity to any individual competitor seems to be warrented given the time, effort and resources an individual has invested and who is serious about competing in this event.

The RC pattern event allows multiple rounds prior to down-selecting to a finals group. Is what they do also wrong? I do not think so.
>
>The main problem is, that if you have 100 flyers, which are
>all best from their countries, then the differences in score
>are typically very small. They are far smaller than impact
>of conditions to one flight. More flights give more
>judgments and that can limit those positive and negative
>extremes (like with those stones). So two flights instead of
>one brings 2x higher score, but the impact of those extremes
>of conditions is limited and does not go up to double value.
>
>So after all yes, you are right, it is necessary to be able
>fly also in wind. But again, if you are really really well
>prepared for difficulties, then those extremes can help you
>if you can properly use the positive extreme and suppress
>the negative extreme, and that is what I wrote on begin of
>this topic – someone who invested time an money to be
>prepared to profit on difficult conditions can see 2 circle
>format as unfair FOR HIM and giving better chance for those
>“less prepared”.

I think you miss the point, and I cannot understand what it is you are trying to explain. In your scenario, it is possible for a less talented pilot to qualify for the finals simply by the luck of the draw. I do not think that the top 15 Aerobatic pilots in the world should be determined, in part, by luck of the draw. No matter how well prepared and how well practiced an individual is, the chances are that a handfull of better pilots will not make the finals round. Indeed, scenarios can be built that even in a muti-round qualification period, there will still be a number of better pilots who will not make the finals, but they at least have a better chance to do so. That is the whole point.

What is interesting is that this works, not because a pilot has a better chance of good weather, (an individual pilot has a higher chance of bad weather)- but by spreading the bad weather more evenly - as Igor said.

OK, so what?

The 2 circle format is a substantial change - for the better. It is a change though, and that can cause a conservative reaction.

Does this change favour anyone? - yep, it sure does - it favours more consistent pilots, who are able to cope better in less-than-optimum conditions - and penalises the fair weather pilot, personally I think this is good.

What can we do to take advantage of this change? Well, I guess that everyone will have their own thoughts & I'd like to see them aired, maybe in a seperate thread? - I'm never above stealing good ideas!

My approach would include more practice in sub-optimal conditions & biasing model design & powerplant choice/operation toward (not much maybe) rougher weather performance.

* My definition of "Fair" - a fair result is less dependent on chance than a "unfair" result. This is only a definition and any emotional connotation to the word "fair" is not intended.

Igor points out yet another risk many people have neglected.
What's beeing done to prevent bees in the cicle?
Would use of 2 circles mitigate the risk?

It is easy to imagine a flyer who is very good, but somewhat inconsistent. They would be seriously disadvanateged if they are required to post two good scores to qualify. Conversely it is easy to imagine a good, but not exceptional(in the WC sense) flyer posting good, but not nearly the best, scores and qualifying. It is a major change in the way of running the event.

So, do you want to award the trophy to the best flight, or the most consistent flyer?

Short rounds mean more constant weather and less impact from judge fatigue and thus ballooning/deflating. You only compare scores from similar conditions and judging "gain". If the first round has good weather on the "high circle" and the second round has bad weather on the "low" circle, it doesn't matter because the "high" circle score and the "low" circle scores don't ever get compared to each other - only to other scores in the same group.

That's the key to the entire idea - never comparing the absolute score from more than one set of eyes and one set of conditions. You fly in groups, and only compare scores within the group, not between the groups.

Of course there's still some element of luck. Someone might fly at 9:30 AM and get good conditions, and then the 11:00 breeze will come up and impact people later in the round. But the chances are FAR LOWER, as has been proven for decades. That's also why the compromise position (negotiated with the FAI for the last two years) for 2 circles, vice 4 as it should have been, was only a small step in the right direction. The rounds need to be held to about 20-30 fliers - not 50 as it was going to be.

100 people all on one circle is an absurd way to run a contest and I simply can't see any competition basis to even make an argument for it.

I get the impression that you have still not grasped the basic concept that I tried explaining to you a year or so ago on Flitelines with regards to taking the "standard deviation" of the scores and thus declaring everyone the same trophy.

No. You take the best score from one set of judges, and the best score from the other set of judges, and add them together. Thus washing out the "high" and "low" circle effect. Effectively, a crude form of ordinal scoring.

If it's properly set up, you never wind up taking two scores from the same judging panel. If you just run 4 rounds in front of 2 different sets of judges and take the best two, you just wind up taking all the scores from the "high" circle and you really haven't accomplished anything.

I note once again that using only 2 is a compromise postion that had been negotiated with the FAI, long ago. 2 is suboptimal only because the rounds are still too long by about a factor of two. The rounds would go all day long, and both the weather and the balloning would still be big elements.

Maybe I am missing the point you are trying to make. The multiple-circle format with qualifying rounds and then what we do at our Nationals is to have a simi-finals round and then a finals round. It requires the better fliers to demonstrate their skills consistently over a number of flights to get into the finals. It is somewhat analogous to the qualifying heat of the races in a track meet. Previous scores or times then become meaningless other than they entitled the individual to progress to the next level. Same with the qulifying rounds of the F2C Team Race event. Once the finals are reached, we would have head-to-head competition of the very best. Their previous scores are discarded and there is a new contest, just between the finalists.

Yes, there can be scenarios in a multi-circle qualification process where an individual competitor might encounter a situation that reduces his or her chances for qulifying, or conversely, his or her chances are enhanced. However, the probablity for this occurring is significantly reduced by going to a mult-circle qualification process.

There is an inherent desirablity to use at least three circles for the WC where each team member would be assigned to a separate circle. This was discussed during the F2B rules working group but was not considered very long because most venues will have trouble providing even two circles worthy to use for a WC.

For those who might be interested, the format for this World Championships was planned to have a semi-finals round and then take the top three pilots to a finals round for a true head-to-head competition somewhat like the Combat and Team Race finals. It would seem that there would be a significant increase in spectator interest to see the very best in this type of flyoff. This was also in keeping with the charter that the F2B rules change committee had on the outset of the effort capably led by Peter Germann and Andy Sweetland three years ago to modernize the event in a way that could possibly enhance spectator interest. That idea was shot down last Fall in the Plenary session along with the requirement that the WC planners had to have five judges for each of the two circles during the qualifying rounds.

I for one, am not spending $10k of my hard earned cash and my only holiday for 2 years to provide amusement for others - if it came to the crunch, competitive results would always take precedent over providing entertainment.

At least the proposed "shootout" in speed would be voluntary, the format of the event was not changed.

Maybe we need to be careful not to turn the multi circle format into a multi circle circus.
I doubt if my view is unique.
Cheers, Dave

I do not think you are arguing about this and I do not consider it an issue. The proposal that had been discussed for a semi-finals round and the a finals round for the top three was again to get a head-to-head fly off of the best of the best to determine who is really entitled to be the World Stunt Champion for the next two years. This is a similar format that we use for the Walker Cup. It does generate more spectator interest than any other stunt competition I have seen, but the reason is to be able to compare and measure and judge the best pilots under as similar conditions as possible. I hope that I did not imply otherwise.

As posted many times, I'm a keen supporter of the multi circle format, & hopefully influenced, by my one vote locally, the CIAM outcome on this subject.
Cheers, Dave

Where did you get this idea? It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with spectators.

Multi-circle formats are about giving the pilots the maximum chance to demonstrate their capabilities and minimize the well-know vagaries of the external conditions and subjecrtive judging. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER with spectators appeal in any way shape or form, and that was and is not any worthwhile consideration.

Single-circle formats are fine for relatively small contests where the answer doesn't really matter that much.

The goal of the US effort is to make the contest more about the pilots and results, and less about VIP Champagne breakfasts and the organizers. It will still be superior in that regard - just not as good as it could be.

What I was trying to say was, that as a TM (with 4 disciplines to consider)if I was faced with a choice of bettering one of my teams result & helping provide a spectacle, in any discipline, it would be a no-brainer call, thats all.
Cheers, Dave

Of course - I think that's one of the complaints that many of the particpants have had about previous W/C - VIP dinners and gala operning cermonies for FAI big-wigs. While out at the flying site, you are flying one round over two days and have the pilots wading through ankle-deep mud.

It ought to be about the results, and I know for certain that the stunt part of it will be run for that purpose, and that purpose alone. To the limits that the FAI will allow, of course.

I think so.

Split field into 2 groups - "A" and "B"
Two circles with fixed set of judges - Circle 1 and Circle 2

Day 1 -
Group A flies on Circle 1
Group B flies on Circle 2

scores posted, round over.

Day 2
Group B flies on Circle 1
Group A flies on Circle 2

scores posted, round over.

Day 3
Group A flies on Circle 1
Group B flies on Circle 2

scores posted, round over.

Day 4
Group B flies on Circle 1
Group A flies on Circle 2

scores posted, round over, qualifying over

Add best of two scores from Circle 1 to best of two scores from Circle 2 for each pilot Top 15 summed scores advance. Toss low flight from each circle, hence, two throwaways.

If circle 1 runs consistenly "high" and circle 2 runs consistently "low", it doesn't matter since you take one score of each and add them together. The whole point, in fact, is that the idea that "flying in front of one jury provides consistency" is nonsense when you have 100 flights spread out from daylight one day to sundown the next day, because there's it's completely unreasonable to expect/demand that the judges be consistent over that length of time and that much fatigue. Cut the time in 1/3 and it's much more palusible.

Absolutely standard stuff, proven for years and years. There really ought to be 4 circles, of course, for 100 pilots, to cut the rounds down to ~4-6 hours.

And that is what I say, after first day you have finished two halfs of two different rounds. It not one whole together. You cannot compare SCORE given by one jury to one flyer to score of another flyer by another jury. You must finish also second day, only then you have consistent results and only then you can make seriouse ranking.

Bingo!

I have read through this stuff a few times now. This is simply the reason for this last minute "Update" to the WCs.

They simply want to run it "The way we have always done it!" Not much different than what you hear around here.

Can you blame them? NO! There are not many of those people who have any experience with what was being proposed(so I assume) They dont know how it will turn out they havent been here to see it first hand and so they say "Naw we will do as we always have and that is that."

They also keep hearing about how people are getting screwed by the weather and the new format will help even the field. Maybe there are a few out there, on that voting board, who dont want to even the chances. Ever think about that?

I dont know about other countries but there is always complaining after the US team comes back from the WCs. I am sure I would complain too. Then we help to organize a way to better our odds, REALLY EVERYONE'S ODDS, and expect them to just jump on board. Please........

Go out and tell someone how you have a way to help better the odds for their competitors, in any sport, and then watch them gladly accept it. Dont see it happening. Do you?

Ruffle some feathers? Sure. Do they care? Obviously not.

It would have been a truly couragous move on the part of the FAI to change the format of the WCs when attending the US. A total leap of faith. They have the right not to take that leap. They have their rules and the rules about how they institute changes. They followed them. Good or bad they played the cards the way they saw fit.

Just as it would have been a HUGE gesture on our part to lax our rules just this ONE time so that any pilot who wanted to stay and fly in open could. I still think that since we are going to have them all here it would best serve us to try at all costs to have as many overseas pilots stay and fly our OPEN event. Even if it does mean evening the odds in their favor just a bit. If one pilot has to go home because he cant fly his toy airplane with us then that is poor sportsmanship on our part. It is just wrong. After all it is just toy airplanes and since that rule really only applies at one contest a year removing it JUST ONCE to try to better the relationship between the World and us is just a no brainer in my book. I guess my book is different. So we will do as within our right and "We will just run it the way we alwasy have." But from what I hear it was a darn close vote to not running it the way we always have.

There was a major change to the way the nats is going to be run this year and there was no vote or anything just a posted change to the event.

The change being that the advanced competitors will fly qualifying rounds with the Open flyers. The flyers will all be mixed in the flight order but seperated out on the scoreboard.

If I remember correctly about 2 years ago I posted what I thought would be a FUN way to let all the pilots fly together every year for the qualifiers. I thought it would be cool to have all the adv and op pilots fly together and seperate it out on the board. I thought it would be a cool way to have all the pilots flying together each year. You never know who you will be paired up with. Might add a little spice to the event. Instead of going up there to fly against the same guys year after year. Probably help move some adv guys up faster in the process.

I also remember getting flat out slapped in the face by some of the older competitors on the board and in personal emails. I was told that it is to hard for judges to judge and adv flight then a open flight. That shows there is alot of trust in our judges huh? I was told a few other things I am not going to repeat here.

Oh, but now it is all of a sudden a good idea. However according to some just two years ago a move like this will have a great impact on the outcome of the event. PAMPA has spent many years refining the way the event is to be run and a change like this could have very adverse effects on how the champ is selected, an on and on and on. But now it is ok to do it since there might be 10 or 15 extra pilots....

However it was conceived the attitude towards me at the time of my idea was very much like the attitude of the FAI on a format change for the WCs. To much of a major change for the event, means it just cant be a good......

So, they will just run it the way they always have.....sound familiar??????YES!

I also remember the controversy surrounding the "mixing of the classes". Time heals all wounds I guess.

>They also keep hearing about how people are getting screwed
>by the weather and the new format will help even the field.
>Maybe there are a few out there, on that voting board, who
>dont want to even the chances. Ever think about that?
>

All due respect, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The example Paul gave obviously reflected an event which effected the US Team (an example with which he was intimately familiar). The reality is that the problem existed for anyone who flew in the bad air on that day versus others who flew in the "same round" on the preceding or subsequent day. With the existing format any flyer can either profit from or be screwed by the weather. Utilizing a format of the type accepted (and later rejected by, apparently the same body of unknown individuals) for this years W.C. would have mitigated that problem to a large extent for everyone. Three circles as Brett has suggested would be even better.

>It would have been a truly couragous move on the part of the
>FAI to change the format of the WCs when attending the US.
>A total leap of faith. They have the right not to take that
>leap. They have their rules and the rules about how they
>institute changes. They followed them. Good or bad they
>played the cards the way they saw fit.

Big mistake here in the choice of pronouns. These are "our" rules. Our being every associated country state. We have every bit as much right to input and administrative rights as do any of the European or other state organizations. It is not "their" World Championships. It is "our" world Championships (the inclusive "our" as it relates to member nations)

>Just as it would have been a HUGE gesture on our part to lax
>our rules just this ONE time so that any pilot who wanted to
>stay and fly in open could. I still think that since we are
>going to have them all here it would best serve us to try at
>all costs to have as many overseas pilots stay and fly our
>OPEN event. Even if it does mean evening the odds in their
>favor just a bit. If one pilot has to go home because he
>cant fly his toy airplane with us then that is poor
>sportsmanship on our part.

Obviously, here again, you and I will have to agree to disagree. While it sounds really, really sensitive and progressive to suggest that we ought to make our decisions on "our" (the exclusive "our")national championships on the basis of what makes others "feel good", doing so is seldom the right choice and almost always results in unintended consequences which make us wish we hadn't done so.

"Our" national championship is earned in a different manner than are championships subject to the F2B rules. Like it or not, it is a fact. The winners of the U.S. National Stunt Championships earn that title based on rules which included the requirement to build and finish their own airplanes and to be rewarded for doing so. It has been this way for nearly six decades. Is that so hard to understand?

By the time our Nats has rolled around we will have completed an entire (boring) week of F2B based flying on the Muncie site. The top dogs of F2B will have been decided and appropriately commended for doing so. To hold an instant reply of the same event the following week at the expense of the history and glory of the oldest National Stunt event in the world just so flyers who don't qualify to fly can do so strains credulity. They've proven what they can do with buy and fly and kudos to them. Now let's find out who the best Model Airplane Precision Aerobatic Flyers are. We call that the U.S. Nats.

>Sowe will do as within our right and "We will just run it the
>way we alwasy have." But from what I hear it was a darn
>close vote to not running it the way we always have.

So was the Presidential election in 2000. Did we let Gore be co-President to make him "feel" better?

>There was a major change to the way the nats is going to be
>run this year and there was no vote or anything just a
>posted change to the event.
>
>The change being that the advanced competitors will fly
>qualifying rounds with the Open flyers. The flyers will all
>be mixed in the flight order but seperated out on the
>scoreboard.

Doug, I believe if you review the various threads on that subject you'll find that I pointed out at that time (and will do so again in case you didn't read it or simply don't remember) that flying the Advanced and Experts mixed and matched was the way it was done for the first several years of the Advanced concept coupled with the multi-circle multi round format. I thought it was a mistake to change it at the time we did so and still believe it was a better way of doing business. If for no other reason it kind of makes it obvious when someone engages in long term Advanced sandbagging when he frequently outscores the "expert" flyers on his qualifying circle.

>I also remember getting flat out slapped in the face by some
>of the older competitors on the board and in personal
>emails. I was told that it is to hard for judges to judge
>and adv flight then a open flight. That shows there is alot
>of trust in our judges huh? I was told a few other things I
>am not going to repeat here.

I don't know who was abusive to you about your idea but it wasn't me and most likely wasn't the people who actually put on the nats. They are really pretty agreeable to change ... that's the way the mix and match was eliminated in the first place. We've tried it both ways now and I think it was not a bad idea to do ao. If we now choose to "return" to the initial format I think it shows great intelligence and a willingness to learn from our trials. If you think you can make suggestions for change without somebody getting upset about it you're in for a big surprise. It's not good form to whine when it happens, it's just part of the package.

I would point out that the changes we are debating vis a vis the W.C.s are of an entirely different character. We have made changes in the format of the US CLPA event numerous times (almost annually) with the agreement of the AMA because the AMA and our Event Administrators are wise enough to realize that things are never perfect and can be improved when intelligent people make intelligent steps to do so. They have been able to do so because AMA in a very wise decision (I don't know that it was purposeful) chose not to codify the format for selecting the champions. We only the rules whereby the quantification of the performance of the entrants is measured. Thus we can alter the format as desired and indicated by events and venue; but we can't simply say we're going to ignore either the appearance points (and BOM) or, for instance, the square eight because some people are either inferior builders/finishers or have trouble flying square eights as well as Paul Walker.

The FAI (foolishly, in my opinion) for some reason (probably because they wanted to spend another couple of days in Paris on the member's dimes) did so codify the procedure and format; thus tying the hands of the people who could make constructive alterations and (with the ultimate blessing of whoevertheheckitis who does make the decisions)implement them to best suit the resources of the venue and to hopefully improve the species.

Thus any argument about the motives of the administrators regarding formatting of the WCs vice the Nats is simply apples and oranges.

>PAMPA has spent many years refining the way the event is to be run
>and a change like this could have very adverse effects on how
>the champ is selected, an on and on and on. But now it is
>ok to do it since there might be 10 or 15 extra pilots....
>
>However it was conceived the attitude towards me at the time
>of my idea was very much like the attitude of the FAI on a
>format change for the WCs. To much of a major change for
>the event, means it just cant be a good......
>
>So, they will just run it the way they always have.....sound
>familiar??????YES!

Well .. no, Doug. As you've already mentioned we won't run it the way we always have. We're going to mix and match the Advanced and Opent entrants in qualifying like we used to do but havne't done for a number of years. It's sort of foolish to make my arguments for me like that .

In fact, if you or anybody want to take the time to read it I could, by admittedly faulty memory, run down the plethora of changes we have made to improve the way the Nats is run since my first one in 1959. Believe me, it'll take a lot longer to read than a similar listing of changes and improvements to the WC's F2B format.

That's a big reason why the US Nats stands head and shoulders above any WC F2B event I've ever attended or heard about; notwithstanding the presence of the best flyers from all over the world at a WC. There shouldn't be any comparison between the attractiveness of the two events ... and there isn't. Unbelievably, it is the National Championship which clearly outshines the World Champs. Shouldn't be that way. But it will continue to be so as long as innovation and improvement is effectively stifled by beauraucratic malfeasance.

Ted, that is exactly what Brett wrote to me about "K" factor. I still think there is little bit misinterpretation, or misunderstanding at least in your subconscious (I hope you understand what I mean, that is no attack or whatever, just note). That voting at CIAM was about adopting new changes, because one circle format is something what was adopted long time ago by some other voting, it is part of accepted rules and now the 2 circle format is NEW change which have to be accepted or not. So if you want to bring new change in rules you must just convice all others. It is not about sides of ocean, it is about current rules and someone who want change them.

But once again, I not need arguments to be convinced, I am just trying to explain what has happened.

Ted was addressing Doug's consternation over the difference between a "National Championship" being run to satisfy the desires of the National fliers, and a "World Championship" being run to satisfy the desires of "World" fliers (which, despite all evidence to the contrary, still includes the US). US fliers have input to both. World fliers *should have* input to only one.

{ I use the phrase "should have" because I have yet to hear any FLIER say they couldn't live with the approved Muncie format (vice one circle), much less the majority of them. Whoever and whatever happened at the CIAM meeting thus did not appear to represent the majority opinion. Abundant evidence points to the contrary, in fact. }

For instance, I would not have input to (nor would I ask for or even respond to requests for) input to say, the MAAC Nats. It's a Canadian contest, for Canadians, and I would never dream of either asking for or accepting any special treatment for me. If the rules let me fly my current airplane, I would. If the rules said I had to go paint a Maple Leaf on it, then I would either do so, or not participate. I simply don't have the RIGHT to tell them how to run their NATs, nor would I get bent out of shape or even offended if it didn't work the way I wanted it to.

But if Canada holds a W/C, then I have a perfect right to provide input as to how it runs. In many cases, I would defer to the organizers, but certainly I have, as a paid-up FAI member on-and-off since 1978, the RIGHT to have input to it.

>>That voting at CIAM was about adopting new
>changes, because one circle format is something what was
>adopted long time ago by some other voting, it is part of
>accepted rules and now the 2 circle format is NEW change
>which have to be accepted or not. So if you want to bring
>new change in rules you must just convice all others.

Which, in the view of everyone involved on this side of the fence, had long been accomplished. SOME arm of the FAI had given Bill/Warren/Shareen approval to proceed, and in fact DEMANDED some modifications (like 5 judges/circle vice 3, and two circles vice more). If they hadn't known about it, then how in the world did they know to fiddle with it?

And not be belabor the point, but the CIAM meeting was held without public or even organizer inputs, and thus it was impossible to convince anyone in that venue. Nor do I think that people not associated with the event SHOULD be in the position of deciding. Any more that stunt people should be proposing or voting for T/R line sizes.

Had they polled the participating F2B teams for their opinions, that would be a different matter entirely.

That is difficult, our representant is rocket modeller, so he can do only what we tell him IF we know that something like that is happening.

I have only been to a few of each, but this is my clear impression, too. I don't necessarily agree with Ted's assumption of the cause of substandard world F2B events. The same FAI bureaucracy puts on fine F2D European and world championships. The US stunt Nats and F2B team trials are very good contests. This is a major reason for the contrast we see.

After seeing Mack Henry as circle marshal at the 1984 combat world championships, the FAI recruited him to be Circle Marshal for Life at subsequent European and world championships. I hope that when the rest of the world sees the 2004 US Nats, the example may have a similar effect.

I am full agreement with you on the format and how the multi circle is a better deal all the way around. But some reason for another these unknown voters dont see it that way. So you say my comment doesnt make sense and neither does this latest vote from the FAI whatevertheheackitis, making sense IS NOT the rule of the day in this case.

>
>>It would have been a truly couragous move on the part of the
>>FAI to change the format of the WCs when attending the US.
>>A total leap of faith. They have the right not to take that
>>leap. They have their rules and the rules about how they
>>institute changes. They followed them. Good or bad they
>>played the cards the way they saw fit.
>
>Big mistake here in the choice of pronouns. These are "our"
>rules. Our being every associated country state. We have
>every bit as much right to input and administrative rights
>as do any of the European or other state organizations. It
>is not "their" World Championships. It is "our" world
>Championships (the inclusive "our" as it relates to member
>nations)

Yeah yeah yeah, we get one vote right? Or is a collective vote of all the US members of the FAI? Either way our input doesnt carry much weight. At least I havent seen our input carry much weight and I very little experience so enlighten me if I am wrong here. But it doesnt really come to light that the US has any room in the FAI what so ever.

>Obviously, here again, you and I will have to agree to
>disagree. While it sounds really, really sensitive and
>progressive to suggest that we ought to make our decisions
>on "our" (the exclusive "our")national championships on the
>basis of what makes others "feel good", doing so is seldom
>the right choice and almost always results in unintended
>consequences which make us wish we hadn't done so.

I am not touching this anymore.

>
>"Our" national championship is earned in a different manner
>than are championships subject to the F2B rules. Like it or
>not, it is a fact. The winners of the U.S. National Stunt
>Championships earn that title based on rules which included
>the requirement to build and finish their own airplanes and
>to be rewarded for doing so. It has been this way for
>nearly six decades. Is that so hard to understand?

Now you have insulted me. I am simply saying, and I will quit saying after this post BOM junk, that there is a good chance that the most of the rest of the world flying community will not be here ever again. We only get the WCs every 25 years right? So most who will be here this time will not be here next time. I thought and still do think that it would be a good thing to invite all to fly the event. To participate in the best ##### CLPA event there is PERIOD!

>
>By the time our Nats has rolled around we will have
>completed an entire (boring) week of F2B based flying on the
>Muncie site.

What on earth makes F2B boring? And if it so boring the why on earth would you travel 2/3rds the way across the country to try to get into this contest, and then the trip back, wow I wonder what you would do for something you are excited about... I dont think you really think the WCs is a boring event do you? The pattern is the same. I would like for you to elaborate why you think it is so boring. I have never been to one so I have no opinion yet.

The top dogs of F2B will have been decided and
>appropriately commended for doing so. To hold an instant
>reply of the same event the following week at the expense of
>the history and glory of the oldest National Stunt event in
>the world just so flyers who don't qualify to fly can do so
>strains credulity. They've proven what they can do with buy
>and fly and kudos to them. Now let's find out who the best
>Model Airplane Precision Aerobatic Flyers are. We call that
>the U.S. Nats.

To call it a replay just flys in the face of the 80 plus US fliers who will be flying with/against them. Did you forget about them?

>
>>Sowe will do as within our right and "We will just run it the
>>way we alwasy have." But from what I hear it was a darn
>>close vote to not running it the way we always have.
>
>So was the Presidential election in 2000. Did we let Gore
>be co-President to make him "feel" better?

Compairing the presidential election of the most powerful country in the world to a toy airplane contest, a little bit different there dont you think??? Being the president isnt about having fun and going on a vacation, for most the nats is about fun and a vacation so inviting these pilots would be a good thing.

>
>
>>There was a major change to the way the nats is going to be
>>run this year and there was no vote or anything just a
>>posted change to the event.
>>
>>The change being that the advanced competitors will fly
>>qualifying rounds with the Open flyers. The flyers will all
>>be mixed in the flight order but seperated out on the
>>scoreboard.
>
>Doug, I believe if you review the various threads on that
>subject you'll find that I pointed out at that time (and
>will do so again in case you didn't read it or simply don't
>remember) that flying the Advanced and Experts mixed and
>matched was the way it was done for the first several years
>of the Advanced concept coupled with the multi-circle multi
>round format. I thought it was a mistake to change it at
>the time we did so and still believe it was a better way of
>doing business. If for no other reason it kind of makes it
>obvious when someone engages in long term Advanced
>sandbagging when he frequently outscores the "expert" flyers
>on his qualifying circle.

Yep you and Brett have always agreed with me on this one.

>
>
>>I also remember getting flat out slapped in the face by some
>>of the older competitors on the board and in personal
>>emails. I was told that it is to hard for judges to judge
>>and adv flight then a open flight. That shows there is alot
>>of trust in our judges huh? I was told a few other things I
>>am not going to repeat here.
>
>I don't know who was abusive to you about your idea but it
>wasn't me and most likely wasn't the people who actually put
>on the nats.

You would be very surprised my friend, VERY SURPRISED!

>They are really pretty agreeable to change ...

Again you would be very surprised! And that is all I will say on that.

>that's the way the mix and match was eliminated in the first
>place. We've tried it both ways now and I think it was not
>a bad idea to do ao. If we now choose to "return" to the
>initial format I think it shows great intelligence and a
>willingness to learn from our trials. If you think you can
>make suggestions for change without somebody getting upset
>about it you're in for a big surprise. It's not good form
>to whine when it happens, it's just part of the package.
>

Well then this thread is not really in good form because I have seen much whining from many on this one.

I know all about suggestions getting people upset. But that thread I started 2 years ago wasnt even a suggestion. I was simply talking out an idea I had. I was just seeing what some people thought. Well I sure found out! Anyway you know as well as anyone that you DONT make suggestions on the internet. You have to make them through the proper channels. So what happens here is just conversation and that is all.

>I would point out that the changes we are debating vis a vis
>the W.C.s are of an entirely different character. We have
>made changes in the format of the US CLPA event numerous
>times (almost annually) with the agreement of the AMA
>because the AMA and our Event Administrators are wise enough
>to realize that things are never perfect and can be improved
>when intelligent people make intelligent steps to do so.
>They have been able to do so because AMA in a very wise
>decision (I don't know that it was purposeful) chose not to
>codify the format for selecting the champions. We only the
>rules whereby the quantification of the performance of the
>entrants is measured. Thus we can alter the format as
>desired and indicated by events and venue; but we can't
>simply say we're going to ignore either the appearance
>points (and BOM) or, for instance, the square eight because
>some people are either inferior builders/finishers or have
>trouble flying square eights as well as Paul Walker.

Your analogies are most impressive. Taking out the square eight come on..................

>
>The FAI (foolishly, in my opinion) for some reason (probably
>because they wanted to spend another couple of days in Paris
>on the member's dimes)

Now you are throwing out accusations and assumptions about people you have no idea of what they have done or who they are for that matter. Talk about bad form.

And by the way it is foolish in my opinion also.

I saw where you were wanting to know who they were. Who they are means nothing. What are you going to do call them up and tell them how they blew it? What does that accomplish? If you meant who they are by there position then you have something. The real problem is the ability of this position to have that kind of power.

did so codify the procedure and
>format; thus tying the hands of the people who could make
>constructive alterations and (with the ultimate blessing of
>whoevertheheckitis who does make the decisions)implement
>them to best suit the resources of the venue and to
>hopefully improve the species.

You see there is true problem. I am sure you are very aware of the real problem. It is the ability of people who the collective community have no idea who they are or where they are can make last minute changes and so on. That is what the F2B group and the people who really care should be trying to change. Dont you think so too? That way this kind of vote could have never happened.

>
>Thus any argument about the motives of the administrators
>regarding formatting of the WCs vice the Nats is simply
>apples and oranges.

Maybe in your eyes. Being the one who stands on the other side sometimes I receive some crap that would baffle you as far as motives go. That being said I still think there is no way on earth I will have the amount of crap thrown at me as you have had at you. I hope not...

>
>
>>PAMPA has spent many years refining the way the event is to be run
>>and a change like this could have very adverse effects on how
>>the champ is selected, an on and on and on. But now it is
>>ok to do it since there might be 10 or 15 extra pilots....
>>
>>However it was conceived the attitude towards me at the time
>>of my idea was very much like the attitude of the FAI on a
>>format change for the WCs. To much of a major change for
>>the event, means it just cant be a good......
>>
>>So, they will just run it the way they always have.....sound
>>familiar??????YES!
>
>Well .. no, Doug.

Well yes and no, Ted. I actually heard it said at the pilots meeting. "We need to run it the way we always have!" So yes to me it does sound familiar.

As you've already mentioned we won't run
>it the way we always have. We're going to mix and match the
>Advanced and Opent entrants in qualifying like we used to do
>but havne't done for a number of years. It's sort of
>foolish to make my arguments for me like that .

Touche'!

>
>In fact, if you or anybody want to take the time to read it
>I could, by admittedly faulty memory, run down the plethora
>of changes we have made to improve the way the Nats is run
>since my first one in 1959. Believe me, it'll take a lot
>longer to read than a similar listing of changes and
>improvements to the WC's F2B format.
>
>That's a big reason why the US Nats stands head and
>shoulders above any WC F2B event I've ever attended or heard
>about; notwithstanding the presence of the best flyers from
>all over the world at a WC. There shouldn't be any
>comparison between the attractiveness of the two events ...
>and there isn't. Unbelievably, it is the National
>Championship which clearly outshines the World Champs.
>Shouldn't be that way. But it will continue to be so as
>long as innovation and improvement is effectively stifled by
>beauraucratic malfeasance.
>
>Ted

Having never atteneded a WCs and probably wont be attending any others than the one coming up I will have to take yours and many others word on that issue. But from what I have read it seems very apparant to me that there has been great pains taken to make sure the NATS event is run in a very "good for everybody" way. I can see that from the very little experience I have had. I can tell there has been alot of work and alot cooperation to get things to where they are today. Doesnt seem to be the way the WCs is run. From what I have read.

Anyway, the real problem as that there can be a last minute meeting by people who are supposedly not involved(If we dont know who they are then how do we know they are not involved?) and can make a very big changes with little or no regard to anyone or their feelings on the subject. Can that be remedied? I have no idea? Can you enlighten me?

<<snip rest>>

This is the sort of analysis that just drives me up the wall. It's not about "same" or "different" - it's about "better" or "worse". You still don't seem to recognize the distinctions that many of the rest of us use to make decisions. In short, its very facile.

The BOM doesn't stay "because we've always done it that way". The BOM stays because that's the way the majority of the people who have experience in the event think it's the proper way to proceed.

The "mutli-circle format" should have changed from a single circle because it's obviously more fair and less random than a single circle.

That's why the FAI had "agreed" to it long ago as a format for the 04 W/C, and also why the rules are changing to allow it in '06 and subsequent. What's so infuriating about he one-round at Muncie is that everybody agreed to it long ago, including the FAI (if they didn't know about it , why did they make us invite 5 extra judges last year?) , it was recognized as superior by most if not all participants, but then the rug got pulled out from under it at the last second based on no analysis at all. It was not dealing in good faith.

"Different" and "the same" are no valid reasons to do anything. Of course, since people have been willing to change for years, lots of things we do have in fact been done the same way for years. Things are the way they are because they were understood to be the right way. At some point, it got changed from "no set flying order all in one circle", to "set flying order in multiple circles". It had been done the other way since day 1 - but it was clearly better the new way and so it was done. Same with multiple round qualifying on separate circles - it wasn't always that way, it was a radical change, yet it was changed and clearly for the better.

The reason things have been staying the same way for years in many aspects of the event is that there really aren't any new ideas that are generally agreed to be better.

I reject out of hand any argument that doesn't discuss the merits of a change, and instead relys on "it's always been that way", no matter what the subject. Or that "this is different, let's try it and see" too.

If an idea is truly better, and the community of large is convinced it's better, then it will change. if not, then it will stay the same.

Brett

p.s. I tend to agree with you about mixing the classes up. It used to be that way, then they changed it because of very specious reasoning. I don't think, nor do I see any evidence, that it matters who you fly after. Of course, if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter - so as long as the number of advanced and open fliers is close to the same, and doesn't overload one circle while the other is underutilized, there's no good reason not to mix them up, either. Hence this year's format - because it's imagined that most of the W/C pilots that stay over will probably enter Open, and then you wind up with 50 per circle In open, and 20 per circle in advanced, if you don't do something.

I don't know who beat you up on this topic- I really only know one person who is strongly advocating the "split", Dave Cook, and he generally doesn't post here. Nice guy, in my experience, and a thoughtful and highly knowledgable guy. And I might add that he is GREAT in PAMPA EC meetings. But I've had a nice little slow-motion argument over the 5' thing in SN, and I am somewhat skeptical about several other of his ideas - as I am sure he is about mine!

That's the nice thing about arguing when both people argue fair. You can have differing opinions and still get along. bb

However, I did not find that agreement in any Ciam meeting document, do you know where it is? I would really like to see both that previose and that from March.