Nat's contingency plan for lost day of qualifing.

Richard Oliver

Bigiron

I am curious and perhaps you can answer a question that came to my mind. I understand that there were only a few fliers who didn't fly on the first day. I was wondering why they didn't complete the first round the next morning instead of throwing out the whole round. This would have given the contestants two rounds to qualify instead of just the one.

I certainly feel that all contestants should be given every opportunity to qualify for the finals and a contingency plan for "impossible" weather would be a very good thing if it could be worked out. I imagine most contestants would rather spend an extra day at the end instead of a "one shot" scenario.

Because, suppose the next day is stunt heaven. Now, you've got most people flying in "survival conditions", and then you compare their score directly with ideal conditions. That's more-or-less happened at the W/C - and 12 of the 15 qualifiers were guys who flew on Friday, and that was simply luck of the draw. A secondary reason is that there was no way in the world that we were going to get through the two scheduled rounds on Thursday - and we sure wouldn't have made it through two and a half rounds.

In hindsight, it turned out that the conditions the next day were not,overall, a lot better than Wednesday, and a lot of people passed, so it could have worked out, more-or-less, But there's no way to know that ahead of time.

>I certainly feel that all contestants should be given every
>opportunity to qualify for the finals and a contingency plan
>for "impossible" weather would be a very good thing if it
>could be worked out. I imagine most contestants would rather
>spend an extra day at the end instead of a "one shot"
>scenario.

That would be generally true, and there's a contingency day built into the Team Trials. As it was, with the site in use for C/L for three straight weeks, we got run off the L-pad right after the trophy presentation so they could use the site for R/C, and there was no possibility that we could go over.

Might also note that the weather was just as about as bad for most of the previous week, and also on thursday afternoon. Hard to plan for that.

While your suggestion makes a lot of sense on the surface, a little history regarding how and why we developed the multi day format might be instructive. It will also help you understand why there are both pluses and minuses to your idea.

I was one of the instigators of the multi day concept back in 1976. Prior to that time the normal format for the Nats was the single best of two qualifying flights with the top so many (probably twenty but don't hold me to it) advanced to a single day of finals with three attempts for two official flights with the single best flight counting for final placing.

Weather that year caused many flyers to only fly a single qualiflying flight in the morning round. Among those was a good friend of mine who had all but mortgaged his house to attend his first and only nats. The thought of him spending literally thousands of dollars for a single flight was an eye opener for me. Thus was born the idea of two full days of qualifying with two flights per day.

Wiser minds than my own saw an additional advantage to increasing the length of the competition format for such an important event. As we are all aware, lengthy competition days can result in significant differences in the conditions in which flyers fly. When the fatigue factor for the judges was also included it became common for events to be contested under less than equal circumstances for all the contestants.

The multi day format provided an opportunity to address those issues as well. By winnowing the field over a three stage process the impact of the outside influences on the outcome could be mitigated to a large degree. The total entry competes under as compact a schedule as could be arranged (the multi circle format) to select a narrower group to advance to the top twenty semi-finals. The top twenty is flown under an even more compact structure to cut the field to the top five. The last day those top five fly under nearly identical conditions with fresh judges to determine who among the five is the champion.

The first such nats was held in 1977 and the format has been refined only modestly since its inception. For the most part, both goals--increased flying for all and a finer and fairer determination of the national champion--have been accomplished. On very rare occassions, such as this year, weather has driven the competitors from the field and some accomodation reached to complete the competition. Such accomodation has always required the sacrifice of one desireable aspect or the other.

Without exception, the decision has always been to sacrifice the "nice to have" additional flying for all entrys to the "more important (I know, some would argue)" needs of selecting the proper champion and ranking the also rans as fairly and accurately as possible. It is, after all, a contest and not a fun fly

All things considered, the multi day format has proven beneficial for all flyers. When it isn't possible to achieve the benefits for both groups due to the intervention of Mother Nature, in my opinion, the proper course of action has been chosen.

And my recolection of the numbers that didnt fly on Wednesday on my circle, were that we only made 2/3 of the way though the first round--is that about right?

Curt (first time in the Big Show)

4 Flights Of qualifying
Flown infront of 4 sets of judges.

Drop the Highest and lowest score and Add the 2 remaining together.

Or average it if thats your "thing"

Basically 2 flights infront of the same set of judges was a JOKE.

I enjoyed the contest but it was a joke doing it that way. No offense intended.

Better still.. Why not just continue the event? Becasue a few lost there models?? Big DEAL Fly or dont fly its the FLYERS choice.
I personally had to fly in the 1st day amongst the field of wind beaters. Rules say 40 KNOTS .. Rules are rules.

Maybe my page of "if 30 knots are reached and 3 people loose there models the event may be cancelled " was ripped out.

p.J

There is always a variation in circles as well. We had one circle in particular this year where the judging was low. If we flew one "here" and one "there" the "here" judges' scores would never be counted. Might as well just skip that flight and concentrate on the other. When five top scores are taken out of each circle of judges, then the only concern is that they truly judge the pattern of each flyer and maintain consistency within their circle. Whether they judge high or low does not matter.

No explicit normalizing is done. You never compare the score on one circle to the score on another circle, which does the same thing implicitly.

Let's look at a normal year (which differs from this year, only because it's simpler). The Open field is divided in half, leaving maybe 20 people in two groups. On Wednesday, group 1 might fly in front of the judges on circle 1, and group 2 might be on circle 2. You fly two flights on your assigned circle, and take the best of the two, and toss the other. Day over. On Thursday, group 1 flies in front of a completely different set of judges on circle 3, and group 2 flies on circle 4. Fly two flights, take the best. Add the best Wedneday score and best Thursday score. Top 10 from group 1, and top 10 from group 2, advance to Top 20 on Friday. Never do you compare the group 1 scores to the group 2 scores. This has a very similar effect to what would happen if you normalized the scores and *did* compare them, except that you don't have to wait till the end to get all the scores.

Of course, what if all the hotshots wound up in Group 1? That makes it much more difficult for group 1, and easy for group 2, to advance. That's where seeding comes in. The organizers (Warren, Shareen, Sandy, and Gary) looks at the record of the entrants, and try to both evenly divide the talent (based on results), and also try to set the judge and circle assignments so that the appearance of bias is minimized.

For instance, I bet next year, David (#1), me (#3) and Paul (#5) all wind up in the same group. Billy (#2), Hunt (#4), Oliver (#6) end up in the other group. Then throw in people with obviously good track records (Fancher, Rich, Randy, Curt, Windy, Bear, McMillan, Doug, Banjock, Howard, and so forth) in equal parts. Not perfect, but usually not enough room for error to make someone deserving miss out. The seeding doesn't decide the outcome unless it's grossly screwed up, which it never is.

If you just did a random draw, it probably wouldn't make any difference at all to the guys mentioned. But it would make a huge difference to the guys on the edge, and make no mistake about it, Top 20 AKA, "Qualifying" is a huge big deal.

On Friday, you fly one flight for one set of judges, and one flight for the other set of judges, and add the two. No toss-outs, no seeding, just head-to-head competition. One small mistake and you are probably out. It takes such a short amount of time that balooning generally is not an issue, and the conditions are generally consistent. Top 5 go to the flyoff, Best 2 of 3 there, lots of spectators, 7 judges.

#21 and below are determined by a kind of normalizing - % of the high score on the circle. It's not particularly a precise determination, but it's hard to see what else you would do, and people *do* care about it.

How does the "% of circle" score translate into a final score for ranking? I see results published quoting a score rather than a %.

Does this cause much angst for some of the flyers in say, places 21-30?
Thanks again,
Dave

Yes, but note also that the scores are not really in order. From the AMA listing of the results, you can't tell enough to figure it out. You would have to know what circle they flew on, or at least what the high score on the circle might have been.

>Does this cause much angst for some of the flyers in say,
>places 21-30?

Hard to say. I think it probably does matter. This year probably kind of stung - as it was possible to get a pretty high finishing place. With 71 (or 78, or 80, or whatever it was) Open fliers, someone had to come in 71st. Someone who is a pretty darn good pilot.

Did I mention? - this was one tough contest!

This question whether it is important to have the placings below the top 20 has come up several times recently. In my experience as ED at the Nats when PAMPA first became responsible for running the Nats and in working with the ED's and being very much involved with the evolution of the format that we now use, I think I have some insight regarging this and some related matters.

First, I think it is interesting to remember that back in the 60's and early 70's when the qualifying rounds on multiple circles was first initiatited (by Bill Netzeband by the way), a very limited number of flyers were taken into the finals round. Sometimes, there would be as few as 10 or 12 finalists from a field of 60. During the qualifying round, there would be two flights, best single flight used to determine place and if the competitor qualified. When the format started to evolve to the 4-circle qualfying process we now use, there was a lot of pressure to expand the number of finalists to 20. This was not so much to assure that the top fliers are picked to get into the finals as it was to provide "bragging rights" for those who otherwise could not qualify for that "top echelon" of competitors.

At that time, there was not any written guide in the rulebook that even allowed the multiple-circle format, even though some form of multiple-circle qualifying process had been used at the Nats for as many as 15 years or more. Then, there was one competitor in the mid to late 70's who protested this whole process because of two things:

1. The Nats were being run using procedures not provided for in the rulebook

2. The process up to that time did not provide for placing the non-qualifying competitors.

This was the first Nats protest that PAMPA had to deal with since PAMPA becam responsible for running the Nats. The individual making the protest had every right to do so. He felt that it was extremely important that there be provisions for placing each competitor, whether they qualified or not. There is now a process where the scores from the various circles are normalized and a relative ranking of the non-qualified pilots are ranked. There are now provisions in the rulebook that allow the Nats stunt event ED to plan and run multiple-circle qualifications and yet not be tied to a specific format. The way the rules are now written, various approaches to our qualification can be taken. Whatever the process, they need to be published prior to the Nats, which to my knowledge they always have been.

In short, it has been my experience and I believe the experience of each PAMPA President as well as each Nats Event director that there are two important factors in running the Nats event.

1. It is necessary to allow as many "qualifiers" as possible without diluting the significance of "qualifying".

2. It is extremely important to those individuals who do not qualify to know how they placed relative to all of the other competitors on all of the qualifying circles. There was a protest once because we had not been doing that.

I believe that these two factors are valid and are in keeping with the purpose of our Nats. I think the purpose of the Nats serves two distinct but not mutually exclusive goals. The primary purpose of the Nats is to detemine the National Stunt Champion. But, essentially of equal importance is that the Nats experience should be worthwhile for each individual participant.

We could structure the Nats so that all is done is pick the National Champion with as little administrative work and logistical support as possible. Like go back to one day of qualifying, take no more than 8 to 12 into a finals round, single best flight of two wins. But this gets to be essentially a one flight contest for most competitors who have expended a lot of time and resources just to be there, and their time for glory boils down to one flight of 8 minutes or less. I think that most agree that the current format is far superior to what has been done before.

(With that being said, there have been some who have posted on this forum in the past that they think the Nats process takes too much time and is too much work to participate as a contestant. I think such comments have come primarily from those who have neither attended the Nats as an observer or have never competed at the Nats. To become the National Champion, there will have to be some dedicated preparation to get ready for the Nats and then there will have to be some significant effort to successfully compete at that level. The Nats stunt event is not intended to be a fun-fly. I think that you would be able to ask any top-five finalist in any year that he feels that he has completed a significant marathon course by the time he has finished his last flight.)

I'll confess to an agenda here: I'm trying to understand how the US nats processes could/would relate to a w/champs - with the itention of providing our CIAM delegate with better informed voting instructions, not necessarily confined to "vote no".

Now, looking at the flyers in place 21+ (US nats speak): As you guys are aware for a lot of international competitors it is the team places that are very important, possibly because (in our case, anyway) the National Aero Club provides some (not much, though) assistance. Only the very few top teams manage to get all their flyers into the flyoff (15 at a w/champs, remember)- so the "non-flyoff" places/rankings become critical for overall team ranking.

Of course, it is desirable that all the competitors below flyoff level should know how they performed relative to other competitors.

So, how does the "normalising process" work? Ranking, by % of the top score in each circle, seems fair (obvious, in fact), but how to compare results between 4 independently judged circles, when the object is to provide ranking by flying score? Is it assumed that the seeding process evens things out, so that there is an equal spread of top flyers in each circle, so that the "also rans" are relatively in the same place(% wise) compared to the top guns, who proceed to the flyoff, in each circle?

I've probably missed something!

Thanks for helping me out here,
Dave

There is a major flaw to the "normalizing process" and yet I don't know how to fix it.

As it stands, the top 20 go on to place according to their final placements. The remainder are placed according to their percentage of the top score in their circle during qualifying. Let's take two scenarios now, and see the flaw in each.

First scenario: All judes are perfect and accurate and give the exact perfect score that should have been given to each contestant. (Oh, one can dream, can't one?)

Now, during qualifying, one flyer alone burns up the place and scores a 570. Others score no better than 550. The 20 lowest scoring flyers all scored between 490 and 500.

how would these 20 lowest scoring flyers all be placed in the final placement? Those who flew in the circle with the top flyer scoring 550 would all be placed ahead of the ones in the circle with the top flyer scoring 570, even if the true and accurate scores of those in the circle with the 570 scoring flyer were higher than those in the circle with the 550 scoring pilot.

Second scenario: All judges are not perfect and accurate in assessing points, each using a different scoring "system" while still giving the better flyers more points and the lesser flyers lower points. (Being a little more realistic now, but hoping that there is at least some consistency in their judging patterns.) In this scenario I am also going to assume that we now have 20 pilots in each circle who each has someone flying an equal quality pattern in the other circle. In orther words, the two top flyers fly equal patterns, the next two fly equal patterns, and so on. (The ideal hoped for situation in the seeding process.)

Now, during qualifying one circle has the top flyer scoring 520 and the bottom flyer scoring 500. The second circle has the top flyer scoring 570 and the bottom flyer scoring 470.

Again, how would the "also rans" be placed? Answer: Those where the scoring was lower and bunched would all go to the front of the pack, and those where the scoring had a higher top scorer and more separation would all go to the back. But, remember, they flew equal patterns to their counterpart in the other circle, and this should not be so.

As you can see, the top flyers with good judging under either scenario will move on. The top flyer should come out on top and we can get a ranking for the top 20. But neither scenario above provides a true and accurate placement for the remainder who did not qualify for the top 20.

And somewhere in between the two lies the truth. And I don't know the answer to the problem of final placement.

I think the multi layer is exactly what we needed, but to drop or diminish the first layer is to cancer the whole system. In my mind the primary thing is to give everyone a fair shot at getting in. As it was the first layer was cut from 4 parts to one and luck of the draw became a larger than normal deciding factor. When the process starts with this much of a detriment it skews the out come more than it should with a more thoughtful plan. In my mind the qualifying is the building block of the multi layer system and when it is shortened the whole system is diminished. Plus the very goal that Ted spoke of, with his friend spending his time and money to get there, only got the one flight that the "System" was not supposed to allow to happen. This seems to be the first part of the equation to correct before moving to the next. We still have time to do a 3 layer system as the day on Friday is a short day as it is with only 20 flights in each of 2 circles. We were done by very early after noon. What I am saying is keep the multi layer system in total and give everyone a fair week of flying. As it was, the very reason that Ted spoke of, was muted. The whole system is dependant on the fact of 4 qualifying flights for everyone in order for it to work. One qualifying flight while still producing the "National Champion" does not make a week of vacation worth the effort and money to many. The "Event" is something for all who love the sport of Precision Aerobatics to participate in while culling out the Champion. If the soul purpose is to give the country a Champion there are easier ways to do it that does not include the masses. The Nationals is a gathering of friends and people who love the event to meet and enjoy flying together while producing a Champion. The appearance judging, pilots meeting, dinner out with your friends, etc,.This is what to me takes a week. To crown a champion can be done in one or two days at the most. We provide the Country with a team of 3 top flyers for the World competition in a day and a half.

I would submit that the week of the Nationals is much more than giving us a Champion. I look forward to this week all year as many of the people I know do. The experience of the Nat's is diminished when flying for everyone is less important than crowning the Champion. If this was the most important item then where are all of the people on Saturday afternoon when the awards are handed out. Where are the people when the Banquet is held. For most of the people in attendance the event was over 2 days earlier. This year it was even worse as the week was over in one flight.

I have no dog in this fight other than to keep the WEEK of the Nat's as an event and not merely (while important)a "Crowning".
I am also told that the weather is always better later in the month and would be a better time to have our "WEEK".
Richard Oliver

Ill go get the Hat and you start writing down the names...
Might be fair that way....

---------------------------------------

Rich.. There are 2 issues here, NOONE is debating how good the nats are, I myself look forward to taking the time off to drive 2 days to our Nats, and meeting up with friends see who is doing what ect.

BUT.. Also at the end of the day everyon goes to a NATS to be treated like a champion. Everyone will agree flying in a NATS is an experience to be flying after a "bob hunt" or a "paul walker" is an honour and something that everyone enjoys, having 5 judges and seeing your name on the scoreboard getting that applause, its all what makes it worth while.

However... Dont loose the integrity of the event, thats its CORE.
Make it as good, as fair, and as intense ( so to speak ) as u can. Will benifit everyone.

PJ, it this in not almost exactly what I was saying then again I did not express myself well enough.
RO

Actually, PJ, it wasn't a joke. It was the result of a lot of thought and a lot of experience in determining the most efficient and fairest way to reduce the large number of entrants to successively smaller groups as discussed in my first post.

The contestants are divided into four separate groups(technically eight, inasmuch as the Advanced and Open flyers were seeded within each competitive group) for the qualifying purposes. Each of the four groups fly what is in essence a separate competition, competing only against each other to determine the best five of each group to progress to the next stage of the three level competition.

Given the fact that each qualifying group only competes against those in that group *any single complete round can and could be used to determine the outcome for that individual group*. Thus, the effects of weather on the ability to *do the job* of qualifying is minimized and what is scheduled for two full days could be accomplished in as little as one half day and still fulfill the competitive requirements of the qualifying rounds.

Subsequent rounds, should weather allow, are icing on the cake and provide the additional flying which is desired by all but not technically necessary to accomplish the *task* at hand.

With all due respect, PJ, that's not a JOKE, that's good administrative planning.

What could turn out to be a JOKE is a format for four officials in front of four different sets of judges which absolutely demands two full days to accomplish the *task* of the qualifying rounds. Your further suggestion to throw out the high and low score from two of those *mandatory* qualifying flights raises so many questions I don't even know where to begin.

>
>I enjoyed the contest but it was a joke doing it that way.
>No offense intended.

Pretty hard not to take offense when the system has been used successfully for 25 or so years and continually refined by the administrators who work their butts off to make it as fair and enjoyable an experience as possible.

>
>Better still.. Why not just continue the event? Becasue a
>few lost there models?? Big DEAL Fly or dont fly its the
>FLYERS choice.

Well, yes. Repeated destruction of a year's hard work is something any administrator might be expected to take into consideration. We aren't there curing cancer, we're flying model airplanes. Doing so at great risk to the hard work expended has a practical limit. When other options exist it doesn't surprise me when someone who actually has to make the decision considers that aspect.

Of course, those of us who don't have to make the decision are always free to exercise our Monday morning *rights*.

>I personally had to fly in the 1st day amongst the field of
>wind beaters. Rules say 40 KNOTS .. Rules are rules.
>
>Maybe my page of "if 30 knots are reached and 3 people loose
>there models the event may be cancelled " was ripped out.

I'll just quote the AMA rulebook here and let you respond by telling me what page of *your* copy you read the *rule* you quote. In fact, I'll not give the page or section reference since you already appear to have it memorized.

"Wind--strong and sustained. While wind speeds of 40 MPH have been arbitrarily listed as a maximum, it should be noted that the type of models being flown dictate whether the event can be flown safely. Exceptionally strong gusts and wind direction in relation to the field layout are important considerations"

I'd stress the words *arbitrary*, *type of models* and *wind direction in relation to the field layout*. I'll give you a pass on your quote of "40 knots" even though 40 MPH is technically only 34.78 Knots give or take a few thousandths. If you find the pertinent page has been ripped out of your copy I expect AMA would be happy to replace it with an intact one.

Ted

>
>p.J

Can't do that - because of the low circle/high circle effect. What will wind up happening is that one entire round will likely get tossed. This year exhibited this to near the largest degree I've seen. Circle 4, the maximum score was 515, and all others were correspondingly low. Circles 1 and 3 has maximum scores of maybe 550. If you take one from each, might as well have skipped circle 2 and 4.

The key to any multi-circle contest is that it's really 2 (or 4) separate contests . You only compete with others in your contest, and you compete in as near as possible in the same conditions.

Otherwise, you get what happened at the W/C.

>Or average it if thats your "thing"
>
>Basically 2 flights infront of the same set of judges was a
>JOKE.
>
>I enjoyed the contest but it was a joke doing it that way.
>No offense intended.

I think you missed the point. You get a throw-away that way, and you still compete in only your own contest.

>
>Better still.. Why not just continue the event? Becasue a
>few lost there models?? Big DEAL Fly or dont fly its the
>FLYERS choice.
>I personally had to fly in the 1st day amongst the field of
>wind beaters. Rules say 40 KNOTS .. Rules are rules.
>
>Maybe my page of "if 30 knots are reached and 3 people loose
>there models the event may be cancelled " was ripped out.

It's 40MPH, technically. You have a point about the rules. Would I have called off the round? No. But they didn't aske me.

I would have preferred an announcement ahead of time that over 20 mph sustained would result in suspension of flying. Then there is no issue with the rules - special rules are perfectly fine.

The wind was much worse on Friday the year before and we didn't stop the round. We were only 20 minutes from finishing the first flights on Wednesday (2-3 flyers left) and we stopped!. Chicopee in 85 we only flew one flight on Wed. and completed three flights on Thursday. Even this year three flights could have been done on Thursday, it's light till 8pm.

I should have protested formally. That would have at least taken the burden off of Warren and placed the burden on the CL CD. With the draws I had, the cancellation of Wed. was not good. The hand held wind readings on the field were no where near 40. Not even near 30. Only occatioally reaching 20, mostly 15 or so. Circle 1 is a bear in the wind though and Bill looked really strained, though he had a lap time of 5.1, which is slow for him under most conditions, much less with the wind off the "ski slope".

By cancelling the round ....The people who crashed their models ... crashed for nothing.

Why did Wed. get cancelled and not the Friday the year before. Because it was Wed. and it looked like there was a lot of week left .... and we could. But the point that everyone is making is that Wed. flights are important ... wind or no wind.

I would have continued, not only the Wed. flight, but I would have gone ahead and flown the second Wed. flight. Sure not many would have flown, but we would have executed the contest as advertised and not have made "on the spot calls".

In the future the cancellation of a flight or round should be well defined beforehand. The call should be ED, head judge, and maybe one judge from each circle in agreement. The call, like a death penalty conviction, should be automatically "protessted" ie taken to the CL CD for a final ruling. Four days driving, $$$ in hotel bills ... in my case in might not have made any difference, but ...

We also need a recording annemometer on top of the building ....something that puts out a printed strip chart ...

Frank

I did get a reading of a little over 30 at the time Billy was up and the point when all flights were called. I was generally reading winds of close to 20 by 10:00 that morning with gusts rising to 26. My hand held annemometer (that's a big word, you know) has some lag time since it is propeller (or whatever that little device is called) driven. I would thus think there were some gusts much stronger, and possibly even at the time of Billy's flight (and up above where we can't read it.)

>By cancelling the round ....The people who crashed their
>models ... crashed for nothing. (snip)
>

That was my thought as well.

>(snipPWe also need a recording annemometer on top of the building
>....something that puts out a printed strip chart ...
>
>Frank
>
>

I think that would be a very good idea. They aren't all that expensive and would be valuable for all events being flown on the site. And, on those rare occasions when we do get the winds that we got in the past two years we would have an accurate (and official) record of what the wind gusts were. Anyone know of a good source and what exactly the cost of such a device might be?

You guys stop for rain? Lightning is one thing, but I haven't seen anyone stop for rain.

I think you have a good idea. Or a good thought process here. I think you are spot on about "Crowning" and "The Event" They are two different things happening at once. If it were really about just "Crowning" then we all know there would only truly be about 12-20 entrants and it would be over in two days. But it isnt. There is so much more going on around the "Event" Flying in this event is the reason for going. Only a few actually go to try to win but ALL entrants go to fly.

Using the multi day format is an awesome idea. It works and it works well. It really keeps the attendance up. But to just say history says this and so we cant........ I am sorry that just makes me crazy!

I have thought for a long time know if they would start the contest on Monday morning(appearance and pilots meeting) flying begins on Tuesday and rap up the Walker trophy flyoff on Friday there would be more time if needed. I mean we are all going to be there the whole week anyway why do we have to wait to start the flying? Makes no sense. I am sure there is a reason that it is started on Wed(flying) And I sure dont want to hear that it will interfere with Classic and OTS(unofficial events)

I dont mean to sound harsh or ungreatful. Because I am very greatful. The "Event" is always run in a professional manner. It just seems as though anytime anyone has an idea about it that it gets shot down by "History" I know all too well we must learn from History. I also know 2 or 3 years ago I proposed the idea on this board about having all the flyers grouped together and only separated by class on the score board. I got a history lesson on the board here about how that would never work. I got roasted here and privately by a few of those history makers. Then this year it was a great idea.

Richard has a good idea about making sure that all the entrants get to fly in the "Event" as mush as possible. Maybe starting a day earlier would allow for there to be a bad weather day. If a bad day moves in you push back one day. As it stands now you push a day back and you are ending on Sunday. People have to go home by then. Especially the ones who are winning as of late. The west coasters have such a long haul I dont see how they all do it every year.

If you dont want to start a day early than maybe this could happen.

Now this is just an idea. Lets say you have to kill Wednesday due to pooring down rain. Thursday is Stunt heaven. Fly it as normal. Then you fly Friday as if it were Thursday. Take the 20 from there and fly them on Saturday in the Normal Friday format and pick your Open Champ from there. I have seen top twenty day end before 11:30. So eveyone gets a pretty good shot at decent weather. No this isnt as good as only going 5 flyers, weather wise, but this way you get all the possible winners as many flights as possible leading up to the Open champ selection. You have all the possible Crown wearers Competing for the top spot to get the "Crown round"

Like Richard said if you drop a whole day luck of the draw in Muncie can be a death wish or a God send. I feel it more important to keep the quals than the 5. You want as many flights as possible to get the best most consistant flier in the top spot.

I like your thinking Richard.

Keep the ideas coming.

Having said all that...all of the entrants that I have spoke with felt the end result was ok. At the time there was no other way around it. They were like "Oh well, thems the breaks..."

It was a *necessary* idea given the imbalance in entries. 80 entries in Open on two circles? Groups of 40 with two rounds a day. That's 80 flights, 800 minutes, 13 hours and 20 minutes, add an hour for breaks and lunch for a total of 14:20. Sun rises at 5:40 AM, we therefore have the last flight at 8:00 PM? Even as it was, it was going to be close to unworkable with 28 per circle, if we had good air and everybody flew. No chance at all with 40. This was anticipated and steps taken that coincidentally corresponded to your proposal (that we used to use, but don't any longer - BTW, can anyone recall when we last used the mixed circle thing?)

If we start getting that many people every year, we will have to find some other format, but it was and is highly sub-optimal for a normal entry level. There weren't a lot of people very happy about this year's arrangement, and the seeding made some difference this time.

In short, it *didn't* work very well, it was a stopgap measure to try to accomodate a disproportionate imbalance between the entries. It stressed the system to the breaking point. I fully expect a return to the normal configuration next year.

The arguments at the time were to give a gauge of how much overlap there was, on the assumption that a lot of the Advanced guys were as good as most Open fliers. Well, the overlap is negligible.

You are right the size of the contest made the normal format impossible.

When I made my proposal it was just an idea to try to intermingle the flyers and get a real view of where people stand on an even playing field. Advanced mixed in will tell us if people are really where they are supposed to be. As is stands now you cant just compare the scores from class to class and make a jump based on that. It just doesnt work.

Does any of that matter? No. I am just thinking of ways to make it more enjoyable. Maybe it wouldnt be I have no idea. However with the normal amount of entries it would be different.

Also as someone else pointed out anyone can get to "fly" with the greats and see how they fair while still competing against their own class.

Would it skew the outcome? NO. All the same pros will be in the hunt as usual. However the time to time Nats attendee gets a cool experience and may want to return more often. Can the judges do the job right? Yes they always get the right guys to the top.

I was really curious to see how the overlap would go. I cant wait to see the scores on paper. I have always wondered how it really compared.

I think it skewed the outcome in a few cases this year. There was a noticable difference in the difficulty in the circles. The downfall of the system is that it makes the seeding more critical. One error on a 2- circle qualifying is 10%. One error on a 4-circle format is 20%.

>I was really curious to see how the overlap would go. I
>cant wait to see the scores on paper. I have always
>wondered how it really compared.

Not much overlap at all. I didn't go through the entire thing, but I spot checked it with obviously competitive Advanced fliers, and it was minimal. I think Allen Goff was on my circle, and I think he was ahead of only 1 Open flier (once you disregard the obvious anomalies like people who crashed). Orestes may have done some better, but nothing to suggest that it's a widespread phenomenon. Have to take into account people who enter Open as a matter of principle, not skill. Open not = Expert.

I strongly suggest further AMA scoring training a 30+ is not hard to write. The competence of the judge is not in question only the difference in scoring ANA-vs-FAI.

Well, nothing I said was related to the low scores on circle 4, per se. I was more referring to the number of potential qualifiers. Low score in and of itself is not the issue. It happens sometimes that one circle is notably lower than the others, but that doesn't necessarily effect the ranking in the NATs system.

Circle 4 was low because there were 4 judges with no tossing of high/low, one low judge, and very poor air during qualifying. It was hard because of the concentration of talent, and the increased likelihood of making a fatal mistake due to the significantly worse air.


>
>I strongly suggest further AMA scoring training a 30+ is not
>hard to write. The competence of the judge is not in
>question only the difference in scoring ANA-vs-FAI.

I don't think this is really a function of FAI vs. AMA. I seem to recall a few years back that we had a very experienced US judge that was so low that a few ego got bruised then, too. I'm no Paul Walker, but it had been quite a while since I had gotten a *435* on a NATs flight. That was from only one judge, the others were in the 520 range. Was it wrong? Not necessarily, and you can't really tell from looking at just your own scores. You need to see how the low (or high) scores move relative to the others. If it's low, but goes up on good flights and down on bad flights, it's perfectly fair.

I have seen several instances of top scores in the 500-510 range on one circle, and 550-560 on another over the years. It doesn't necessarily make any difference in the results as long as the format doesn't compare one to the other. This was the fatal flaw with PJ's theory of flying on all 4 circles and taking the best two.

I have no idea how the judges tracked on Circle 4, so I would reserve judgement on whether there was something really wrong, or that it was just low.

Doug,

I'd also remind you that at the time you made that suggestion I pointed out that flying the advanced and open entries intermingled for qualifying was exactly the way it was done for the first several years of the multi day format. I don't remember precisely how many but it could probably be looked up in the stunt *history* books.

At that time I also mentioned that I preferred the intermingled format for pretty much the same reasons you were suggesting we try it out (actually, return to the original format, although you were understandably unaware of that fact since you weren't yet involved).

As I recall (and I am perfectly willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong) the reason we changed was because a few flyers in the open category feared that by flying after an advanced entrant (known or unknown to the judges)the judges scores for the following open flyer would be artificially lowered by that exposure.

Pretty much the same argument that eliminated the practice of flying the Junior and Senior Champs along with the Final Five Flyoff rather than having the separate Walker Cup competition as has been done since 2000. While that argument could be and was made, I didn't personally find it persuasive.

NOnetheless, what this years return to that format did do very well was put to rest the concern of some about the "sandbagging" issue. I think when you see the numbers in the STUNT NEWS nats coverage you'll see a pretty clear separation between the advanced and open entrants. They pretty much placed themselves where they belonged based on the scores they received.

One of the few good things one could say about the difficult conditions during qualifying is that it made the difference between the advanced and open flyers distinct. As you well know, in ideal conditions a lot of people can fly pretty decent patterns and, when judged on separate circles by different judging crews, the scores can end up displaying some pretty big numbers.

Flown on the same circle under difficult conditions the superior ability of the open flyers to deal with the conditions became so clear that the differences in performance were clearly reflected in the scores.

That says a lot for the format and a lot more for the ability of the judges to make the distinctions. Kudos to them all.

*SNIP*
Pretty hard not to take offense when the system has been used successfully for 25 or so years and continually refined by the administrators who work their
butts off to make it as fair and enjoyable an experience as possible.

>
>Better still.. Why not just continue the event? Becasue a
>few lost there models?? Big DEAL Fly or dont fly its the
>FLYERS choice.

Well, yes. Repeated destruction of a year's hard work is something any administrator might be expected to take into consideration. We aren't there curing cancer, we're flying model airplanes. Doing so at great risk to the hard work expended has a practical limit. When other options exist it doesn't surprise me when someone who actually has to make the decision considers that aspect.

----

Ive given careful thought to the whole event and the process and weighed up the pro's and cons of my own argument, and I sincerley apologise for my outburst. I now realise in ALL SERIOUSNESS that it was the best way to acheive the outcome. You make a very valid point in saying " Its still flying amongst the same group "
All i was really trying to get across was the point of trying to eliminate "favorites" Having only 2 flights in front of the same judges means if a group of judges is favored slightly by a certain plane .. or a certain pilot then allowing that SAME group to have a 2nd shot at a 2nd set of judges would even out the whole groups score.
Get a different perspective.

**I take back what I said about it being a joke**, It was easily the best competition Ive flown in ( toping the worlds ) And i would be back in a heartbeat to have another crack at your walker cup!

I just feel that having 2 goes would have been better, I realise this is how it SHOULD have been and weather made it not possible. So its a lose / lose situation for my argument.

The other point i was trying to make, and perhaps i was to childish with how i phrased it was simply.. Once the event starts, let it be flyers choice to fly or not to fly. I know just as well as anyone else how long it takes to build a model not to mention painting ! I never want to see a crash, but its part of flying.

Once again i apologise for not being constructive, i hope ive rephrased what I wanted to say more clearly.

Do you have any idea how many flyers have advanced in just two years?

The entire Advanced Top 10 from 2 years ago flies in Open now.

I say leave it the way it is. Keeps the judges on their toes. Cuts down on the "bracketing".

Jose,

That guy never seems to go away does he?

BTW a low judge can decide your contest. All he has to do is give a reasonable score to whoever he chooses, and no one is the wiser, becasue his score is regarded as reasonable, since he stayed low all day.

The only way to get rid the phenomenon you described is go to ALL PILOTS JUDGE like RC Pattern. When you are not flying, you are judging.

Actually, any judge can decide your contest. Indeed, a judge who scores particularly low has more leeway to give a proportionally higher score on a flight that might not deserve it, but still, any judge can still sway the outcome of a contest by inaccurate scoring, not by low scoring. This is true even if there are 7 judges and high and low scores are thrown out. Actually, the removal of high and low scores has very little effect on the outcome of a contest. This has been checked over several world championships. There might be some changes in ranking in some instances, say between 3rd and 4th, but overall, the ranking remains essentially the same regardless if high and low scores are used or not.

As long as a judge is consistent in how he or she assesses a flight, it makes no difference if that judge is scoring particularly low or high. Ideally, the same judge will always score low and another single judge will will always score high. If their ordinal placing of the flyers match the final placings of the flyers, they are doing their jobs.

There is one exception to this statement regarding any single judge always being low or always being high. That is the judge (a rarity) who uses a very broad range in his scoring where he or she scores particularly low on particularly poor flights and scores really high on really good flights. This person will look like very inconsistent because he or she has low scores on some and high scores on others. Yet, if the ordinal placings are reviewed, this judge can be accurately placing each individual flyer. (These things are looked at concerning individual judge performances during and after our Nats and Team Trials.) Some judges are very consistent, others are not. These considerations are used in assigning judges to the various circles (as well as trying to remove any apparent biasing given what pilots are assigned to the various circles.)

People need to get over the percieved or imagined problem where an individual judge scores low or high. Until the details are reviewed on the ordinal placings determined by each individual judge, there cannot be any complaint that a judge scores particularly lower or higher than the other judges on a circle. A low scoring judge or a high scoring judge can be very accurately placing the order of each individual flyer, just as well as the judges who scores in the middle of the range available.

>As I recall (and I am perfectly willing to stand corrected
>if I'm wrong) the reason we changed was because a few flyers
>in the open category feared that by flying after an advanced
>entrant (known or unknown to the judges)the judges scores
>for the following open flyer would be artificially lowered
>by that exposure.
>

I never bought that argument either. In fact, it just seems to be a red herring. Maybe Cook and I can argue over that one for a few months!

But one thing the 5 each from 4 format does do is make the seeding more critical. If one is a potential winner, it probably doesn't make any difference, but it makes a huge difference to those on the edge, or who might be having problems. It was exaggerated by the large entry, but it was present before, too. My vote is to return to 10 on two, unless a similarly large and also unequal entry is anticipated.

It was also perfectly clear to me that the site and administration would have expand quite a bit to accomodate this many people, if it becomes common. Maybe even to the point having pre-qualifying contests. The work load on everyone and everything was over-the-top. It was probably OK as a one-shot, but it would burn everybody out pretty quickly if it was like this every year.

>At that time I also mentioned that I preferred the
>intermingled format for pretty much the same reasons you
>were suggesting we try it out (actually, return to the
>original format, although you were understandably unaware of
>that fact since you weren't yet involved).

I do remember that and I didnt forget either...

>
>As I recall (and I am perfectly willing to stand corrected
>if I'm wrong) the reason we changed was because a few flyers
>in the open category feared that by flying after an advanced
>entrant (known or unknown to the judges)the judges scores
>for the following open flyer would be artificially lowered
>by that exposure.

Well that sounds to me like those guys need to work on their patterns. (like I dont, yeah right)

I would take a flight behind an Advanced pilot who really flys and Advanced pattern every day of the week! (THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE AND NOT ME BRAGGING ON MY FLYING BECAUSE AS ALWAYS I NEED LOTS OF WORK) Let's say this pilot flys a mediocore hourglass. They score it OK. Then I come along next and Blister the hourglass. My score goes through the roof on that maneuver. They see the ok one and think huh that is about a .... Then they see a really good one and they say WOW now that is what it should look like. The high score on that maneuver follows.

I had a judge after a local contest tell me this happened to him. All day he saw something wrong with this particular maneuver. Then when I flew it he thought it was what it should look like. I went back and looked on my sheets and started comparing them with other pilots in casual conversation and my thoughts proved out right. My score on that one manuever was noticably higher on that one maneuver especially compared to the guy I followed.

On the opposite you follow a really good guy and you miss one you are in the dumper. I guess those who oppose have their reasons and maybe their research proves out what they are saying in their area. Also sounds like they are looking for a few extra points if everybody is "perceived" as really good than most will get good scores. We all know they judges dont give it if it isnt there.

>
>Pretty much the same argument that eliminated the practice
>of flying the Junior and Senior Champs along with the Final
>Five Flyoff rather than having the separate Walker Cup
>competition as has been done since 2000. While that
>argument could be and was made, I didn't personally find it
>persuasive.

Me niether.

Clip

>Maybe starting a day earlier would allow for there to be a
>bad weather day.

Hi Doug,

It has been a while since we have communicated. Sorry you could not make the Nats this year.

You and several others have mentioned that an extra day could be had during the week by starting the event a day sooner. From the outside, this sounds like a sensible idea. There is a slight administrative problem with this. The final entry is not known until Monday of the Nats week. For administrative purposes, it helps to have appearance judging on Monday. Then it takes a while, like most of the next day to set up the circle assignments, judge assignmnents and score sheets. Let's see here: there are 4 circles, about 30 competitors on each circle, 3 judges on each circle (sometimes 4), and each competitor gets 4 flights. That is over 1,400 score sheets that have to be prepared with competitor names, judges' names, circle assignment, flight number and appearance points awarded from the day before. Also flight order sheets for the pull test pit bosses must be prepared. Then, these score sheets need to be put in order for the judges for each round. This is a huge task, it needs to be done accurately, and cannot be done in just a few hours.

If there is a simple and quick, or even a quick way to do this and to do this accurately, please offer your ideas and suggestions and services to the contest management for the next Nats as soon as possible.

I think suggestions and ideas that come from this forum and other sources are good. I would recommend that for those making such suggestions sometimes consider the logistics involved in supporting some of the ideas that come up from time to time. There are the administrative problems and time requirements as I outlined above to take into consideration. Judge work load is always a problem. Assessment of individual judge performances is always going on during and after our major competitions. Assignment of competitors to various circles, including seeding is definitely an inexact science, but efforts are made by contest management to level the playing field as much as possible. Judge assigment during the qualifying rounds is a tricky process. Judge selection for the semi-finals rounds and the finals requires a considerable amount of understanding of who is flying, perceived regional biases, individual judge performance during the qualifying rounds and on and on.

In short, there is more going on behind the scenes to make the Nats process as seamless as possible to the casual observer. To make suggestons on how to improve this process, one should take into consideration the many factors involved in planning and running a major stunt contest like our Nats.

I believe Warren had several options to consider given the wind that was encountere that Wednesday. Of the options available to him, there was no single best solution. At least there would be no single solutin that would be totally satisfatory to all of those participating in this Nats. In my opinion, Warren made the best possible decision given the situation with which he was confronted.

Basically, with the Wednesday rounds eliminated, we were in a format that was like the Nats used to be where flyers were assigned to on of several circles, depending on the size of the entry, there would be 2 or 3 or 4 and sometimes we considered 5 circles. Everybody got two flights during the qualifying day, single best flight determines the finalists, a certain number of finalist from each circle goes to the finals round, the best of two more flights (this is the way is used to be done, and there sometimes were only 10 or 12 finalists from an entry of 60) and an Open champion was determined. The current format evolved from that and I think most agree the current format is superior for many reasons. The weather forced a decision to be made. Some perhaps benefited from the decision. Others perhaps did not benefit from the decision. In all liklihood, no single decsion would have pleased everybody.

It was right to stop flying that round as a destruction derby does not make a National stunt contest.

RO,

Only because one of my pet ways of addressing perplexing issues is to take them to extremes let me pose this scenario.

Say we do make the qualifying rounds the priority at all costs. We fly one round on Wednesday morning and thunderstorms hit making flying impossible. Now let's say the horrid weather stays around all day Wednesday, Thursday and Friday making flying impossible. To make the plot thicker (but real world given the extended Nats format for all the events)RC pattern has the field starting Saturday afternoon after the "scheduled" Walker Fly Off.

80 to 120 flyers show up Saturday morning and hang around until 10 or 11 AM when, amazingly, the thunderstorms clear up and the sun comes out and it's stunt heaven. You now have left three scheduled rounds of qualifying (#1 priority and 240 to 360 flights); a scheduled top twenty flyoff including two flights (and attempts if needed)...let's call that the second priority because it involves more people than; the Final Five Flyoff involving 15 scheduled flights; and finally, the Walker Flyoff involving three pilots and a possible nine flights. And that's only the Open half of the equation.

What do you do?

Ted

p.s. I know it's an extreme example but that's precisely why I use the method to help me make decisions on lots of things (including toy stunt model design). Every day removed from the schedule takes you one day closer to exactly this scenario.

>You and several others have mentioned that an extra day
>could be had during the week by starting the event a day
>sooner. From the outside, this sounds like a sensible idea.
> There is a slight administrative problem with this. The
>final entry is not known until Monday of the Nats week. For
>administrative purposes, it helps to have appearance judging
>on Monday. Then it takes a while, like most of the next day
>to set up the circle assignments, judge assignmnents and
>score sheets. Let's see here: there are 4 circles, about
>30 competitors on each circle, 3 judges on each circle
>(sometimes 4), and each competitor gets 4 flights. That is
>over 1,400 score sheets that have to be prepared with
>competitor names, judges' names, circle assignment, flight
>number and appearance points awarded from the day before.
>Also flight order sheets for the pull test pit bosses must
>be prepared. Then, these score sheets need to be put in
>order for the judges for each round. This is a huge task,
>it needs to be done accurately, and cannot be done in just a
>few hours.
>
>If there is a simple and quick, or even a quick way to do
>this and to do this accurately, please offer your ideas and
>suggestions and services to the contest management for the
>next Nats as soon as possible.
>
>I think suggestions and ideas that come from this forum and
>other sources are good. I would recommend that for those
>making such suggestions sometimes consider the logistics
>involved in supporting some of the ideas that come up from
>time to time. There are the administrative problems and
>time requirements as I outlined above to take into
>consideration. Judge work load is always a problem.
>Assessment of individual judge performances is always going
>on during and after our major competitions. Assignment of
>competitors to various circles, including seeding is
>definitely an inexact science, but efforts are made by
>contest management to level the playing field as much as
>possible. Judge assigment during the qualifying rounds is a
>tricky process. Judge selection for the semi-finals rounds
>and the finals requires a considerable amount of
>understanding of who is flying, perceived regional biases,
>individual judge performance during the qualifying rounds
>and on and on.
>
>In short, there is more going on behind the scenes to make
>the Nats process as seamless as possible to the casual
>observer. To make suggestons on how to improve this
>process,

>>>>>>>one should take into consideration the many factors
>involved in planning and running a major stunt contest like
>our Nats.

Now wait a minute there. You are right about your above statement. I never even thought about any of that stuff.

Would you like to know why?

I have never seen it printed anywhere about what it takes to run a large contest. As far as I know they dont want to overlap Classic and OTS. At least that is what I have heard. Then you get to post on here and show me how I dont know what I am talking about.

Truth is I should know what it takes to run one of these. It should be printed in the pages of SN. This is what PAMPA is all about. This contest and the FAI. Yet the news letter says nothing about how the nuts and bolts of the contest really go together. Nothing about why decisions are made the way they are.

This is EXACTLY why I think it would be very beneficial to the members of PAMPA to have the format and how the administrative duties are handled and the time line that is needed to complete these tasks be printed at least once every two years or printed out right after the nats if there was a change in format like this year. The options and the final decision and why that option was chosen. Every year there should be a write up about the "stuff" (you know the unforeseen stuff, especially if there were a protest of some sort, and all the official steps taken to carry it out or deny it) that happened and how it was handled and why the decisions were made. Let's face it Warren and Shareen arent going to run this thing forever. If how they do thier jobs is out there for the masses then it will be much easier to take on the task when they decide it is time for a break. They have forgotten more about this then I or most anyone else on the planet will ever know. Just think...if they print this "Time line" and the steps needed in the proper order on how to run the nats at the begining of each year then highlight any changes that were made at the actual contest when it is over in the following issue this would create a bank of knowledge for anyone to use in their contests on how to solve problems and run constest like the pros do. As it is now there is no way on earth I could ever know how to do it unless I hunt everyone done and ask questions that I do not know to ask. Heck once it (general format and positions involved, PAMPA and AMA) it wont ever have to be changed unless a perminant change is made. Just reprint it each year. The same goes for the FAI. I think this would be pages well worth the cost in SN! People all over can use their SN to answer contest questions during the contest. Also if you report on how it is run and why then I would know why it starts when it does and I wouldnt post out some idea.

If all the steps taken to run the Nats and TT such as how to seed circles, how to pick judges, who the judges are going to be, how the judges are placed together, how many score sheets are needed(never thought of that before), when all this starts, how the AMA is involved and on and on and on. Then all rumors would be laid to rest. So many people just dont know how it is really done. Me included. But I would like to know.

I posted this idea last year and got little response. I know it adds work to those in these positions but this information is priceless.

>
>I believe Warren had several options to consider given the
>wind that was encountere that Wednesday. Of the options
>available to him, there was no single best solution. At
>least there would be no single solutin that would be totally
>satisfatory to all of those participating in this Nats. In
>my opinion, Warren made the best possible decision given the
>situation with which he was confronted.

Warren is the man. He can do what he wants. That position affords him that. Now a write up in the following or future issue of SN as to why he did what he did would be so helpful to CDs and pilots everywhere. People can kind of know what to expect. If similar situation should arise elsehwere or at the nats again people will already know what will happen, or have good idea of what might happen.

Knowledge is a good thing, sharing it is even better.

Doug,
PAMPA publishes Guides that describe what must be done like you are asking. See the PAMPA products list. They are under PAMPA Guides. They are:
NATS Event Director Guide
NATS Tabulators Guide
NATS Judging Guide

I suggest you get a copy and read them. You'll soon realize how much effort and detailed the planning is. It opened my eyes. Hats off to the writers of such guides.

I personally think this thread is now out of hand with more that three arguments going on covering three different topics.

I can solve all of them quite logically and methodically.

1: Judges : Dont blame the judges, ESPECIALLY ones from australia who's credibility is BEYOND DOUBT. Im sure (most) judges view it like it is, and give a score that reflects it. - PLEASE DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE JUDGE-BASHING..

2: Wind : Keep the rules as they are "if wind speed exceeds 40mph Event is postponed - till winds drops below 40mph and holds it for 30 minutes or more, then recommence.

3: Qualify Flights : I Still maintain flying infront of 2 sets of judges for more than TWO qualifying flights would even out any problems encountered with problem 1:)
As far as seeding goes, well thats another matter, bottom line is there can only ever be ONE winner, xx amount come in 2nd !

*deep breath*
Now dont take my advice or interest to heart american boys, I hope to back one day but i live along way away, and I cannot see myself getting back to USA to contest every nats for the next 10 years. So take my "interest" with a grain of salt.