stunthanger.com

General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: decamara on July 19, 2012, 02:07:22 PM

Title: Walker Cup.....
Post by: decamara on July 19, 2012, 02:07:22 PM
Can someone who was at the PAMPA meeting in Muncie please explain possible changes to the Walker cup flyoff rulings?

I thought I read something on the AMA site alluding to something with Expert class?




Thanks


Doc
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 19, 2012, 03:01:09 PM
Can someone who was at the PAMPA meeting in Muncie please explain possible changes to the Walker cup flyoff rulings?

I thought I read something on the AMA site alluding to something with Expert class?

  I think it means that we are, very unfortunately, adopting Randy's proposal to add Expert. The statement in NATS News merely states that Expert winners will not fly in the Walker Cup.

   Of course, this means that in a few years, we will ONLY be flying expert and even next year, there might as well not be any qualifying rounds (since there won't be enough entrants to warrant it). I assume we will continue doing it for the sake of ritual for a while. oo.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 19, 2012, 03:41:27 PM
 I think it means that we are, very unfortunately, adopting Randy's proposal to add Expert. The statement in NATS News merely states that Expert winners will not fly in the Walker Cup.

   Of course, this means that in a few years, we will ONLY be flying expert and even next year, there might as well not be any qualifying rounds (since there won't be enough entrants to warrant it). I assume we will continue doing it for the sake of ritual for a while. oo.

    Brett

And then there is the option of changing the format somewhat and have a fewer number of qualifiers regardless of the event, Open, Advanced and Expert.  Indeed, it makes little sense to have 20 qualifiers if there are only 30 entrants in the event.  So, why not pare down the number of qualifiers, the number being some function of the total number of entrants in that event?  It would seem that there would not need to be more quallfiers than say 33 to 50% of the total entry in that event.  In the past, there have been as few as 10 qualifiers for the finals with as many as 30 or 40 total entries.  Then, when the number of qualifiers gets to a lower number, there probably would not need to have the semifinals either.  It would still be a function of the total entry.  It would be an interesting correlation packge to generate.  

It is my understanding that if Expert is to be run at the Nats together with Open and Advanced, that indeed the number of qualifiers in any of those events is to be taken into consideration.  However, also part of my understanding, the format would still provide for each contestant their two days and four flights in the sun, as has been done now for a number of years.   That is one of the good things about the format that has evolved since PAMPA took responsibility for organizing/running the Nats.  Before PAMPA and the current format, any contestant would come to the Nats and only have a single best flight of two official flights to determine if he could advance to a finals round.  Because of weather and/or equipment problems/and/or "luck of the draw", that contestant's Nats experience that he has worked for a year could essentially become only one 8 minute flight.  Adding Expert to the schedule will not change the process which provides for two days of qualfying.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 19, 2012, 04:14:55 PM
I am a little embarassed but, could someone please fill me in on this Expert\Open thing.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 19, 2012, 05:33:50 PM
I am a little embarassed but, could someone please fill me in on this Expert\Open thing.

I hope I understand your question.

The rules for CLPA provide for 5 events.  Event 322 is for the Junior, Senor and Open categories established 60 or more years ago and the Builder of the Model (BOM) rule applies.  The pattern and some rules have been "refined" over those years.

The Skill classes (events 323, 324, 325 and 326 - Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced and Expert) became official AMA events sometime in the late 70's or early 80's.  The pattern and basic rules are the same as for Event 322 except the contestant does not need to be the BOM, however appearance points will not be awarded.  The Skill class rules do provide for appearance points if the contestant is the BOM.  There is no BOM or appearance points for Beginner. 

Essentially, there is only one contest held each year for Event 322, and that is the Nats.  At the Nats, a Junior Champion is determined, as are the Senior and Open Champions.  These three category Champions have a flyoff to determine the National Stunt Champion as the winner of the Walker Cup.

Some time in the 70's, the skill classes were run at the Nats as unofficial events.  At some later time, the Advanced category, (Event 325) was added to the Nats schedule after the skill classes themselves became official AMA rulebook events.  (For the record, Beginner and Advanced are run as unofficial vents at the Nats.  This just means that the AMA does not support those events in their official schedule.)

PAMPA is now considering a proposal to add Expert to the official Nats schedule in the future.  This would be scheduled on the same days and same circles as the current schedule for the Open and Advanced events.  This would allow expert level pilots who do not build their own airplanes, including those from other countries, to compete at the Nats who otherwise would not do so.  The proposal is clear that just as the Advanced pilots do not compete for the Walker Cup, neither would the Expert pilots compete for the Walker Cup.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 19, 2012, 05:41:26 PM
Thanks. It appears to allow the FAI guys to get in the game, thereby increasing participation at the Nats.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 19, 2012, 06:49:58 PM
  I think it means that we are, very unfortunately, adopting Randy's proposal to add Expert. The statement in NATS News merely states that Expert winners will not fly in the Walker Cup.

   Of course, this means that in a few years, we will ONLY be flying expert and even next year, there might as well not be any qualifying rounds (since there won't be enough entrants to warrant it). I assume we will continue doing it for the sake of ritual for a while. oo.

    Brett

Hi Brett,

I usually agree with your take on things, but I don't understand how the number of Open fliers will be so greatly reduced.  I believe that the guys in Open now are flying against the best (each other) with the dream of a Walker Trophy in their future, they are competitors.

Maybe I am wrong and America is no longer teeming with competitors, but I don't think so.  I truly believe that Open will stay about the same number but there will be enough Expert entries to make it viable, also.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 19, 2012, 07:06:37 PM
As long as it doesn't effect my strategy of sneaking into Beginner at the Nats, it's fine with me.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 19, 2012, 07:56:58 PM
Can someone who was at the PAMPA meeting in Muncie please explain possible changes to the Walker cup flyoff rulings?

I thought I read something on the AMA site alluding to something with Expert class?




Thanks


Doc

Hi

It means zero, the Walker Cup will NOT be affected in any way at all
Expert is a PAMPA skill class, 322 which includes OPEN , JR , and SR  is a separate event, NO Skill classes ever get to fly for the Walker cup.

Regards
Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: john e. holliday on July 19, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
And the guys currently flying Advanced at the NATS that are expert flyers will now have their event to fly.    H^^
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 19, 2012, 08:02:11 PM

Hi All
Below is the proposal to add Expert Skill class to the NATs, it passed overwhelmingly  at the PAMPA meeting
The gloom and doom scenario Brett states will not happen:


To The PAMPA EC
 Subject: Proposal to add the final skill class of Expert to the NATs schedule.
The main reason for PAMPA’s existence is to promote aerobatic C/L flying and increase the numbers of pilots doing so, With that in mind:
 We propose adding Expert to the NATs in C/L Precision Aerobatics. This will facilitate making our event more inclusive, and could increase participation, and help grow numbers of new pilots, or pilots that for BOM and other reasons, cannot fly event 322. This will include many people  that are expert pilots not advanced  , but are also not quite ready to go to OPEN, as it is now they have no choice. Adding Expert will extend that choice to them. It will give a place for many  U.S and  other foreign pilots that would travel to the U.S for our NATs, but have RTFs or ARFs to travel with ,or have bought or borrowed planes.
This proposal is designed to help increase the number of pilots flying Control Line Aerobatics, without affecting the tradition of the 322 events , (322 is Open, Jr. and Sr.) and the tradition of picking the best modeler/pilot in the U.S as the National Stunt Champion.  
Every PAMPA skill class we have added so far has turned into a great way to help increase the numbers of new pilots enjoying the NATs experience. Expert will be another feeder event for Open.
This will also help the Advanced class by allowing Advanced flyers to compete without the local Experts that far too often, now fly in that class at the Nats.
 This will not affect event 322 in Jr. Sr. or Open. The Expert class is a Skill class event, and will not fly in any flyoff with the 322 event. Just as Advanced flyer do not now or ever.
 The Expert event can be run very easily with the circles and manpower we use now, by simply adding them to the 2 qualifying circles we use for the Advanced class. Pick 10 qualifying pilots for Advanced and 10 For Expert. Their respective scores would simply be kept separate on the scoreboards. Fly off for the Expert and Advanced finals on 2 circles and use the other 2 circles for the Open Finals.
 This is not intended to affect , or to do away with the BOM in any shape form or fashion, in any event, be it Skill classes or 322. The Non-mandatory BOM rule for skill classes would still apply where non-BOM models can be flown but will not receive appearance points.
Remember ,PAMPA’s Job 1 and main reason to exist is to get more people flying this event, This is the ONLY proposal I have seen , in a long time, that has a good chance at increasing the numbers of pilots flying the US NATs in C/L Precision Aerobatics
 EXPERT is already an official event, and is in the rulebook so it takes no rule change, all we need do is just run it.
 Sincerely
 Randy Smith and Keith Trostle

This proposal has zero effect on any Flyoff for any other Event , 322 included.
 This will help in many other ways, it will help Clear the Advanced Skill Class of the local, and other   EXPERTS that fly there now.
It will take NO more personnel to do this, as it can be run inside the 4 circles we use now.
 It will help the Intermediates in moving up to a class that is full of only Advanced flyers.
 It will let other Flyers from outside the US come and have a Skill Class to fly, as well as anyone else in the US that buys or for whatever reason has a plane he did not build.
It will also help with the large gap that exist between the Advanced class and qualifying to fly Open 322
 It also may help relieve a little bit of the OPEN BOM wars
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Mike Palko on July 19, 2012, 09:21:36 PM
Are competitors who have flown Open in the recent past allowed to "drop down" a class and fly Expert?

Mike
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: PJ Rowland on July 19, 2012, 09:24:37 PM
" It will let other Flyers from outside the US come and have a Skill Class to fly, as well as anyone else in the US that buys or for whatever reason has a plane he did not build. "

Thats the part of Rule I like - Beyond that I doubt it will effect Open that much. Your not going to have many of the current Top 20 guys in Open drop down to expert.

Id be surprised anyway..

At the end of the day its about participation & numbers.

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 19, 2012, 09:37:20 PM
Hi Brett,

I usually agree with your take on things, but I don't understand how the number of Open fliers will be so greatly reduced.  I believe that the guys in Open now are flying against the best (each other) with the dream of a Walker Trophy in their future, they are competitors.

Maybe I am wrong and America is no longer teeming with competitors, but I don't think so.  I truly believe that Open will stay about the same number but there will be enough Expert entries to make it viable, also.

  About a third to half the current field will likely fly expert, if not the first year, the second or third. There may be 5-10 more entrants total. I assume that aggressive promotion will get it pretty good next year, then it will fall off again.

   It's not about how many people are flying. It's how many that can make it to the NATs, which is already more-or-less drawing 90% of the midwest group anyway. It's not likely to add anyone from larger-participation regions.

  I could be wrong, I guess we will see.

     Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 19, 2012, 09:48:38 PM
It means zero, the Walker Cup will NOT be affected in any way at all
Expert is a PAMPA skill class, 322 which includes OPEN , JR , and SR  is a separate event, NO Skill classes ever get to fly for the Walker cup.

    I think that was clear for anyone who knew about it already from the discussion here and off-line.  It may not have been entirely clear from the NATS News if you didn't already know what the proposal was.

     As before, you can keep repeating it, and when Open is dropped, we can both argue that the Walker Trophy be retired. But neither you nor I have any control over that and there will be a whole lot of people (i.e the entire, now highly-energized anti-BOM crowd) arguing the other way.

   I think this is far too big a risk to take, but I lost that argument, apparently.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 19, 2012, 10:37:44 PM

(Clip)

     As before, you can keep repeating it, and when Open is dropped, we can both argue that the Walker Trophy be retired. But neither you nor I have any control over that and there will be a whole lot of people (i.e the entire, now highly-energized anti-BOM crowd) arguing the other way.

   I think this is far too big a risk to take, but I lost that argument, apparently.

    Brett

Brett,

We have had this discussion before.  You have made your point several times here, so I am going to respond.  I cannot understand your belief that adding Expert to the Nats schedule will in any way threaten the Open event.  As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested, at least in the forseeable future as it has been for the past 50+ years.  Now what happens when the current generations of stunt fliers are long gone, what happens to this event will be in the hands of those who inherit this magnificent event from us.  I cannot see in any way that having Expert on the Nats scheudle will diminish the importance of the Walker Cup.

Now, if we loose the BOM rule in the future, then what we do with the Walker Cup will be an entirely different question.  On this point, there are no proposals in this rules change cycle to eliminate the BOM rule.  There are some proposals to change it, but not to eliminate it.  So we will have some form of a BOM rule, if not the same one, for at least the next 2 1/2 years.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Douglas Ames on July 19, 2012, 11:09:17 PM
I am a little embarassed but, could someone please fill me in on this Expert\Open thing.

I'm glad you asked that too.
I always thought Expert was a PAMPA classification.
Not a member of PAMPA, never been to the Nats.

Note: Keith T. answered this question very well. Thanx!
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Knoyle on July 20, 2012, 12:43:42 AM
Are competitors who have flown Open in the recent past allowed to "drop down" a class and fly Expert?

Mike

Until I saw this question, I would want to fly both Expert and Open (no, I'm not that good yet).  If Open is not a skill class, then why not?

If I spend the time and effort to get to Muncie I'm going to fly everything the scheduling allows.  I would want to fly as much as possible.  Also, sounds like an opportunity to fly against some international bros who I probably will never get to fly against.  

....AND how prestigious will the Walker Cup be when "Yea, but Mr Walker Cup Winner didn't fly against out of no-where Hot-Shot Expert Dude - if they only would have been able to fly against each other with the same judges ..."

Randy and Keith have a good argument, but only as long as an Open flyer can fly Expert as well.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Derek Barry on July 20, 2012, 11:21:47 AM
Until I saw this question, I would want to fly both Expert and Open (no, I'm not that good yet).  If Open is not a skill class, then why not?

If I spend the time and effort to get to Muncie I'm going to fly everything the scheduling allows.  I would want to fly as much as possible.  Also, sounds like an opportunity to fly against some international bros who I probably will never get to fly against.  

....AND how prestigious will the Walker Cup be when "Yea, but Mr Walker Cup Winner didn't fly against out of no-where Hot-Shot Expert Dude - if they only would have been able to fly against each other with the same judges ..."

Randy and Keith have a good argument, but only as long as an Open flyer can fly Expert as well.

You cant fly Advanced and Open at the same Nats so it is silly to think you could fly Expert and Open. I would be difficult to fly two events at the same time on the same day too.

You will have a choice: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Expert, OR Open (if you are over 19) You cant fly more than one though.

Derek
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 20, 2012, 12:20:30 PM
You cant fly Advanced and Open at the same Nats so it is silly to think you could fly Expert and Open. I would be difficult to fly two events at the same time on the same day too.

   Yes, that can certainly be taken care of but it needs  to be explicitly stated in the contest rules as a deviation (like it is for Advanced). Otherwise, we will be back in the same situation we were in 2005, where several people entered Advanced AND Open. There's nothing in the rule book preventing that, it's two separate events, so you have to state it up front.

   Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Dennis Toth on July 20, 2012, 02:21:15 PM
Not sure why a contestant could not fly open, senior or junior and either advanced or expert at the NATs. To fly the event you must meet the entry requirements - Open - 19 years old and above, Senior between 15 and 18, Junior under 15. Now advance and expert are more subjective and based on a standing in the flying community and you declare you status.

I could see not being able to fly expert and advance but the AMA OSJ are simply age based nothing else. I can see were the contestant needs to be at the circle when called, no "drop me to the end" but if you pay your money and make the call to the line you fly. What's the problem?

Best,       DennisT
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 20, 2012, 03:04:58 PM
Not sure why a contestant could not fly open, senior or junior and either advanced or expert at the NATs.

(Clip

...but if you pay your money and make the call to the line you fly. What's the problem?

(Clip)

Best,       DennisT

Actually, there is not a problem.  There is nothing in the rules to prevent that.  However, most who think this thing through, other than perhaps being able to do it, it is meaningless to do so.  However, following the experience where several entered both Advanced and Open a few years ago, there has been a statement on the AMA Nats entry blank that one cannot enter in both.  And the AMA rulebook for the Nats procedures allow for such restrictions.  There can be no argument here if that is the way the organizers/managers (PAMPA) chooses to do so.

The only thing that entering more than one category (as in Open and Advanced, then maybe in the future having Expert in the mix) is to serve some self promoting ambition to fly several events just because it was permitted at the time.  It adds unnecesary workload by extra flights having to be judged and extra workload on the part of tabulation and extends the day for all who are participating for no reason other than for some self agrandizement.

In short, it is not allowed.  And when it was allowed, albeit mistakenly, it was viewed upon dimly by most who witnessed it being done.  For one thing, the judges certainly did not appreciate it. 

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 21, 2012, 01:35:52 AM

(Clip)

Randy and Keith have a good argument, but only as long as an Open flyer can fly Expert as well.

If a pilot chooses to fly Open, he will not be allowed to fly in the Expert category. Some have expressed some concern about an expert flier outclassing an open flier with this arrangement.  Yes, it is possible that an Expert Pilot might post a higher score than the Open pilots.  But so what?  The Open event is a different contest than the Expert contest.  Different circles, different judges, different scores.  It is no different than seeing a pilot win Open at the Nats with an average score of 550, then a month later hearing about another pilot that scored 605 points at another contest.  There is no doubt that some very capable pilots will fly in Expert flying very competive patterns.  But that does not diminish the achievement of the pilot who entered and wins the Open event, making him eligible to fly for the Walker Cup as the National Stunt Champion.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 21, 2012, 11:07:09 AM
HI Keith,

I believe the lure of being THE National Champion and winning the Walker Trophy will bring the very best to fly Open.

I believe the majority of those that choose to fly Expert will be those who are "local" Experts from many areas who KNOW they will have no chance in Open.  Some of these have entered Advanced in the past.  We all know that there is a large disparity between different areas and the number of true Experts across the country.  To me, OPEN is the "Masters" category, the best of the best.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 21, 2012, 11:40:30 AM
HI Keith,

I believe the lure of being THE National Champion and winning the Walker Trophy will bring the very best to fly Open.

To me, OPEN is the "Masters" category, the best of the best.

Bill

Open should be renamed "Masters". We identify with that in almost all other sports Golf etc.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 21, 2012, 12:29:12 PM
Open should be renamed "Masters". We identify with that in almost all other sports Golf etc.

Hi Milt,
I believe we need to keep "OPEN".  ;D  It quantifies the Age group like Junior and Senior.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Derek Barry on July 21, 2012, 01:14:26 PM
Open is generally accepted as a masters class but it is Open to anyone of age who wishes to compete.

Derek
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 21, 2012, 01:42:40 PM
Hi Milt,
I believe we need to keep "OPEN".  ;D  It quantifies the Age group like Junior and Senior.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

Good Point. H^^
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 25, 2012, 08:31:57 PM
Open is generally accepted as a masters class but it is Open to anyone of age who wishes to compete.

Derek

Right , and Open along with Jr. and Sr is the ..only ... path to the Walker cup trophy

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 25, 2012, 09:43:21 PM
It would dilute the Nats.  I guess Orestes or Richard Kornmeier might be satisfied to come and compete in a separate-but-equal Expert event, although I kinda doubt it.  If they do, who would be the Nats winner? 

Now you big-picture guys need to get some drone to figure out the details and do the tabulating. 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 25, 2012, 10:02:23 PM
Expert Skill Class  is not a separate but equal event Howard, It is the last PAMPA Skill class that needed to be added to the NATs, it is run all over the country now, and has been for decades. In mine and most others mind it is not diluting or equal to the Open event, which is really the masters event.
The PAMPA EC, and the members voted  **  OVERWHELMINGLY ** to run this at the NATs, it will be ran next year, If it gives us more people flying the event, then it will be good for PAMPA, pilots, and all involved, if  for some reason no one wants to fly it, then no harm or foul and it can just be not ran again.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 25, 2012, 10:16:53 PM
At contests where Expert is run, Open isn't.   
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 25, 2012, 10:23:56 PM
At contests where Expert is run, Open isn't.   

    Don't worry, that will take care of itself soon enough.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Knoyle on July 25, 2012, 10:45:27 PM
Expert Skill Class  is not a separate but equal event Howard, It is the last PAMPA Skill class that needed to be added to the NATs, it is run all over the country now, and has been for decades. In mine and most others mind it is not diluting or equal to the Open event, which is really the masters event.

Does this mean that there is a consensus that a sizable number of competitors are staying home because they feel their too good for Advanced yet not good enough for Open?

For the pilots that know their at the bottom of the Open barrel, won't some of them drop to Expert for higher placement?

If it gives us more people flying the event, then it will be good for PAMPA, pilots, and all involved, if  for some reason no one wants to fly it, then no harm or foul and it can just be not ran again.
Good point.

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 25, 2012, 10:54:35 PM
At contests where Expert is run, Open isn't.   

It will be now at the US NATs, it is a done deal Howard, rather than so much sour grapes why don't you try to come up with ideas that will help improve the numbers we have lost, if nothing is done ,nothing will improve

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 25, 2012, 10:55:21 PM
    Don't worry, that will take care of itself soon enough.

    Brett

Yep your right Brett  next July

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: PJ Rowland on July 25, 2012, 11:15:45 PM
So .. will you have a Top 20 Open 20 Expert and 20 Advanced ??

Currently Its Top 20 Advanced and Open over 4 circles ( 2 in each ) - I'm interested to know how this works.

 ???

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 25, 2012, 11:43:33 PM
Yep your right Brett  next July

   No, in a few years, when you end up with no JSO. IAWTP.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 12:20:56 AM
It would dilute the Nats.  I guess Orestes or Richard Kornmeier might be satisfied to come and compete in a separate-but-equal Expert event, although I kinda doubt it.  If they do, who would be the Nats winner? 

Now you big-picture guys need to get some drone to figure out the details and do the tabulating. 

Howard,

What is the so called "separate-but-equal Expert event"?  The proposed, now approved Expert event at the Nats is its own event, just like Advanced and Open.  Neither is "equal" to anything else.  Each will be a separate contest, but I know you already know that.  But your question about "who would be the Nats winner?" maybe shows you yet do not understand what has been proposed AND APPROVED by PAMPA to have the Expert event at the Nats.  So who would be the Nats winner?  Well there will be a Nats Advanced winner, just like there is now.  There would be a Nats Expert winner, and there would be a Nats Open winner.  That Open winner will go on to compete for the Walker Cup against the Jr and Sr Champions for the National Stunt Championship.  So I guess the answer to your question about who would be the Nats winner would be the the National Stunt Champion who wins the Walker Cup.  And behold, that is sort of the way it is now.  I am sure you know that, but you asked the silly question.

Your last comment about needing to find a "drone" leaves me a bit bewildered.  Does that mean the current drone is going to pick up his marbles and go home because he does not like the idea of figuring out how to set up a program that adds an Expert category that, in turn, handles the scores for qualifying and flying in the flyoffs just like is currently done with the Advanced category.  For a moderately capable drone, which I am not, it does not seem that it would be too complicated other than the current drone does not like the idea.

with respect,
Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 12:28:32 AM
So .. will you have a Top 20 Open 20 Expert and 20 Advanced ??

Currently Its Top 20 Advanced and Open over 4 circles ( 2 in each ) - I'm interested to know how this works.

 ???


PJ,

I think it has been explained that the current plan would be that there would still be 20 semi-finalists selected from the Open circles.  But instead of 20 finalists from the Advanced circles, there would be 10 Advanced finalists and 10 Expert finalists.  Rankings of those below the 10 qualifiers in each of the Advanced and Expert categories would still be determined just as the rankings are now determined by the non finalists in Advanced and Open.  With the entry levels experienced at the last several Nats, those numbers of finalists from the Advanced and Expert qualifying circles appears right.  As planning gets more refined, those numbers might be adjusted.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: PJ Rowland on July 26, 2012, 12:30:26 AM
Thanks Keith - that makes sense, I apologise for not seeing anything previous.



Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Knoyle on July 26, 2012, 12:37:41 AM
Just to be sure - no one pilot can fly more then one class ...correct (Beg, Int, Adv, Exp, Jr, Sr, Open) ?
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bruce Perry on July 26, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
I think that there is a distinct possibility that finally adding the expert class will not cause the sky to fall. Open will remain the premier event to which we will all aspire, including the chance to compete for the Walker cup, an internationally respected prize in stunt.  

Expert as it is flown regionally is the premier event that open Nats fliers compete in, I know many expert fliers that I believe would enjoy a Nats expert class where they could fly their BOM legal airplanes.  These pilots likely wouldn't want to fly advanced at the Nats as that would appear to be sandbagging but flying open is just allowing yourself to be judging fodder.  Expert catagory fixes the problem, the expert pilot is judged by the same judges as open allowing him to see how he stacks up.

Once the expert flier is ready, the step to open will be much more comfortable.  The very best way to see if this works is try it and support it.  I will encourage as many as I can to come to the Nats and enter the category best suited to their goals. Once they've Been to the Mecca and we can make their experience a positive one we will have new blood in our diminishing ranks.

Let's all encourage fliers to attend, let's ncourage them to build and fly, to put the Walker Cup on their goal list just like Doug did!

Or maybe the sky really is falling.....

Bruce
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 01:25:36 AM

(Clip)

 ...the expert pilot is judged by the same judges as open allowing him to see how he stacks up.

(Clip)

Bruce

Actually, the current plan is that The Expert event will be run at the same time as the Advanced category.  The judges for Expert WILL NOT be the same judges as the Open event.  The Expert categoy will be a different contest from the Open event.  Different contest, different circles, different judges. 

The Open event will remain the same as it is now where there are two days of qualification rounds, 20 pilots are picked for the semi final rounds from which 5 pilots go on to a finals round.  The Open Champion then goes on to the Walker Cup flyoff against the Junior and Senior Champions. 

The Expert event will be run similar to the current Advanced event where there will be two days of qualifying from which 10 (as now planned) pilots from each category (Expert and Advanced) will continue to the finals rounds for each category (Expert and Advanced).

And to answer another just asked question----.  Just as it is not allowed now to enter Open and Advanced, it will not be allowed for someone to enter more than one event when the Expert category is added to the Nats schedule.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bruce Perry on July 26, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
Keith

To be clear by different contest I read that to mean different category like advanced.  We are on the same page.

Different circles though, expert will be on the l pad, to me that is the same.

Different judges, there were four advanced circles and four open circles this year,  does the judging corps change as the class changes?  It would seem to be a pain for the judges if they needed to form new groups for each class they judge.  I didn't notice it happening last year but I wasn't looking either. 

Regardless, the point I hoped to convey was the new expert class would or could offer a reference even to a small degree for the evolving pilot.

Respectfully.

Bruce
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 02:03:14 AM
Bruce,

I think you understand the direction this is going.  Indeed, the Open competitors will have their own contest on their two circles with a specific combinations of judges being used during the qualifications, semi-finals throgh to the finals, just as it is done now.  The Open event does not change.

The Expert and Advanced will be flown on the same days, the same circles, and separate from the Open competition, just as the Advanced category is now also flown separate from the Open event.  Actually, the Advanced event will not change except there may be fewer qualifiers to the Advanced final rounds.  And the Expert event will be similar to the Advanced event, only with a separate score board.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Derek Barry on July 26, 2012, 04:33:03 AM
My opinion is that Open should still be flown on all 4 circles where the top 5 from each can move on to the top 20. I would then put Advanced on two of the 4 circles and Expert on the other two.

 Just my .02

Derek
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 06:04:51 AM
It will be now at the US NATs, it is a done deal Howard, rather than so much sour grapes why don't you try to come up with ideas that will help improve the numbers we have lost, if nothing is done ,nothing will improve

I was just refuting your argument that this would be the same Expert that's been run all over the country for decades.  Expert is the highest class in those other contests.  It's where you, Dave Fitzgerald, and people who want to see how they stack up against you fly.  That will be how some people perceive it at the Nats.   It will be more inclusive, more "open" than open.  People with $4K store-bought airplanes can participate.  Kids can participate.  So who's the real National Champion?

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 26, 2012, 06:15:23 AM
Why does this seem so complicated? Nothing changes. Not the flight orders, Not the judges, Not the time involved,Just the advaced class is separated into truly what it is a expert class. Ask any advanced NATS winner in the last 10 years what class he flies at his local contest? I bet 20.00 he says expert!
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Tom Niebuhr on July 26, 2012, 06:23:21 AM
Due to finances, I haven't been to a Nats in about 10 years. While adding Expert sounds good at first glance, I feel that this has been railroaded in. It sounds like the event is being watered down. It is also the start of the end of appearance points going out the back door.

The Nats is very special having a wonderful display of beautiful airplanes in one place at one time. I hope that I am wrong, but this could be start of the end for this. People have argued about appearance to the point that we are sick, but Brett has been correct in saying that the Nats is about crowning a National Champion and should demand the TOTAL package.

Many will say that you will still have Concours. The reality is that if you don't have appearance points in "Expert", how many people will really present their airplanes in one hall, if they don't feel they will be considered for Concours?  5 or 10 at best?

That wonderful display of airplanes will be gone.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 06:47:28 AM
But your question about "who would be the Nats winner?" maybe shows you yet do not understand what has been proposed AND APPROVED by PAMPA...

No, I think it shows that you don't.

Your last comment about needing to find a "drone" leaves me a bit bewildered.  Does that mean the current drone is going to pick up his marbles and go home because he does not like the idea of figuring out how to set up a program...

So I'm the bad guy for refusing to do free work to implement something I think is bad for the Nats.  Just like Warren was accused of refusing his duty to put on another Muncie team trials when he put in a bid to do one in Tucson.  I presume that "... he does not like the idea of figuring out how to set up a program" is a motivational technique to get me to prove that I am smart enough to do it.  Sometimes that works, but probably not this time.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 07:02:09 AM
   No, in a few years, when you end up with no JSO. IAWTP.

    Brett

No Brett
You are just flat wrong, this has no effect on OPEN except it will be another feeder event in which some pilots will leave and go to OPEN, it also has ZERO effect on Jr and Sr.
Trying to convince people that running an existing PAMPA skill class will make the sky fall is just way beyond belief. Expert is a Skill class event just as Advanced is, plain and simple, no one is planning or wanting this to destroy Stunt

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 07:05:51 AM
Due to finances, I haven't been to a Nats in about 10 years. While adding Expert sounds good at first glance, I feel that this has been railroaded in. It sounds like the event is being watered down. It is also the start of the end of appearance points going out the back door.

The Nats is very special having a wonderful display of beautiful airplanes in one place at one time. I hope that I am wrong, but this could be start of the end for this. People have argued about appearance to the point that we are sick, but Brett has been correct in saying that the Nats is about crowning a National Champion and should demand the TOTAL package.

Many will say that you will still have Concours. The reality is that if you don't have appearance points in "Expert", how many people will really present their airplanes in one hall, if they don't feel they will be considered for Concours?  5 or 10 at best?

That wonderful display of airplanes will be gone.

Hi Tom

and NO you and Brett are just wrong, you are trying to tell people that there are no APs in Expert, well you are not correct, there are APs in  PAMPA skill classes, What you should have said was there is no "mandatory BOM' in Skill classes. If the pilot built his model Experts will get APs.
Being chicken little and telling people the sky is falling by saying there will be no plane display  is flat wrong also, that will not happen.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 07:11:01 AM
"Just like Warren was accused of refusing his duty to put on another Muncie team trials when he put in a bid to do one in Tucson.  I presume that "


Howard I have  to ask since I am the guy that CD the Team Trials last time, who said that???  That is one I never heard of, and I am the Team Selection Chairman, Warren was not even asked to run the TTs last cycle, He had made it clear to me long before that he would not be in Muncie (however as it turned out he was there) Derek Barry was the  ED of that event.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: peabody on July 26, 2012, 07:29:31 AM
I hope that an intelligent and fair method of policing the classes that people fly locally will apply to the new Nats event...

"Cherry Picking" / "Sandbagging" sucks....

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 07:51:24 AM
Tom said
"but Brett has been correct in saying that the Nats is about crowning a National Champion and should demand the TOTAL package. "


And no one has changed that one iota !  The pilot still has to have the total package in order to even fly OPEN much less win,  That is NOT anything that has even been touched, your mis-information  post are not correct

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 08:19:17 AM
Howard I have  to ask since I am the guy that CD the Team Trials last time, who said that???  That is one I never heard of, and I am the Team Selection Chairman, Warren was not even asked to run the TTs last cycle, He had made it clear to me long before that he would not be in Muncie (however as it turned out he was there) Derek Barry was the  ED of that event.

And a very successful event it was, so I heard from those who were there.  I apologize.  I misremembered the remark in question.  Dave Fitz wrote, " If it were in Muncie again, the potential director is not interested." That is a lot less snotty than what I thought was said. 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bob Hunt on July 26, 2012, 08:20:16 AM
The way I see this is that it just might spur more participation at the Nats. And, if we find that it is a bad idea, we can then just vote to not offer it again in the Nats menu. Let's not condemn this idea until we give it a fair chance to succeed.

We all have been lamenting the turnout at the Nats in recent years as compared to the past. Perhaps this idea will reverse that trend. It seems that enough want it to happen, so let's respect their wishes and give it an honest try.

Guys: We are grown men flying toy airplanes. Can't we agree to let each group have a venue in which to do that in their own chosen way? Seems that this makes stunt more inclusive, rather than exclusive, without endangering the "Open" class status or prestige.

Like Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced, we will need to come up with a perpetual trophy for the Expert class. If no one else wants to take on that expense and duty, I will.

There are so few of us in the entire universe who fly stunt that you would think it adviseable to work to pull together rather than pulling apart.

That's my 2-cents - Bob Hunt
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 08:29:16 AM
We might consider dropping the age classes and having skill classes instead of the age classes, rather than in addition to them.  Award the Walker trophy to the Expert winner.  That would remove the ambiguity.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 08:34:45 AM
The way I see this is that it just might spur more participation at the Nats.

Look at what event proliferation has done to CL racing and combat.  All those added diddly events were promoted as increasing participation.  Not having a clear Nats winner decreases my interest in participation. 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Moon on July 26, 2012, 09:06:31 AM
My opinion is that Open should still be flown on all 4 circles where the top 5 from each can move on to the top 20. I would then put Advanced on two of the 4 circles and Expert on the other two.

 Just my .02

Derek


 I think we need to pay attention to our history.  In the past, prior to world champs and the huge entry that brought with it, the Open and Advanced flyers were separated.  The two events were run as separate contests.   Advanced on circles one and two and Open on circles three and four.  I heard first hand some grumblings from judges about going to the Nats and being placed on the Advanced circles and not getting to judge the Open fliers.  Advanced guys please don’t take that the wrong way, I was in Advanced when this was said to me and I understood exactly what was being said.  The judges, just like us flyers, want to perform at their best and to do so they need to see all of the flying possible at all levels offered.  As it stands now, the Open and Advanced flyers are merged together across all four circles.  The flyers randomly pick flying order and the judges, unless they feel the need to remove themselves from a certain flyer (possible family member), randomly pick circle assignments.  It is extremely important that we work Expert into the contest across all four circles just as Open and Advanced is done today.  This way it keeps the random circle placement of both judge and flyer.  All judges will have the opportunity to work all levels of flying.  Both the judge and flyer will benefit from this and only make the contest that much better for everyone involved, judges, flyers, CD, ED, admin, support staff, computer programmer, etc.

Word to the wise, if you separate this out like it used to be you run the chance of losing judges.  That is already one of if not the most difficult tasks of running the nats.  Let’s not make it any harder than it already is.

On another note, preliminary rounds and the number of flyers that move from onto the finals where Advanced and Expert is concerned.  I am reading about a different number being moved onto the finals than the usual 20.  If in fact this is going to be changed to a smaller number this needs to be determined at once and posted at the top of the forums, yes plural, for all who spend the money and time to come and compete.  Everyone needs to know far in advance what they are in store for when planning and spending a large amount of vacation time, and money, to attend the nats.  A % of entrants would be one way to make the cutoff as the number fluctuates year to year.  Whatever method is chosen it needs to be public knowledge for a long time prior to the nats.  Since this goes into affect 2013 it would be good to have that posted by November 2012 on the forums, in SN and Control Line World, along with notice to the AMA to go out in the entrant letter if need be.  This way there is no confusion and a possible past entrant not returning due to what they feel is on the fly changes that make the event less enjoyable.

KT mentioned less rounds if participation is down.  That is a real possibility.  If this is the case then the schedule would need to be looked at as well.  Process on Monday, then fly on Thursday and or Friday.  That break in there is not needed if less rounds are going to be flown.  If the processing day continues to be on Monday with the contest starting on Wednesday for Open then other events should fly these days as well or participation will wane as it makes no sense to process on Monday and sit there until Thursday or Friday.

Just my .02 + a little bit more.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Steve Fitton on July 26, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
We might consider dropping the age classes and having skill classes instead of the age classes, rather than in addition to them.  Award the Walker trophy to the Expert winner.  That would remove the ambiguity.  

What the hell are you playing at?  No, no, no, a thousand times no! Open is Open and the Walker Cup goes to the Open winner.  Your backdoor sarcasm about awarding the Walker Cup to the Expert winner, knowing full well that such a decree would bring on the demand to retire the Walker Cup from the likes of Ted and a host of other Cup winners, is completely uncalled for.  Nothing is more infuriating to somebody who would like their shot at winning the Open Championship than the thinly veiled threats of taking the prize and going home and the hell with everybody else.

If you want to really kill stunt, keep making retarded suggestions like replacing Open with Expert.  Eventually, somebody at AMA will think your sarcastic remarks are real and actually believe thats what you want.  Then when Ted places the Cup in a dusty case in the museum, you can watch Stunt fall on its face.

NONE of these imagined evils will happen if you and the rest of the Open class flyers remain vigilant and say "no" to any attempt to merge Open and Expert.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Tom Niebuhr on July 26, 2012, 09:11:33 AM
Randy,
Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Moon on July 26, 2012, 09:16:13 AM
.

NONE of these imagined evils will happen if you and the rest of the Open class flyers remain vigilant and say "no" to any attempt to merge Open and Expert.

BOOOOOOOM!!!!

What he said.......
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 09:19:18 AM
Randy,
Thanks for the clarification.

Hi Tom
your welcome, I maybe need to post the passed proposal in a separate thread so people can read it for themselves if they have not done so already

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bob Hunt on July 26, 2012, 09:23:51 AM
Perhaps there are potential Nats judges out there who are intimidated by the prospect of judging Open, but who would gladly volunteer to come and judge Advanced and/or Expert.

There is a lot of the day at the Nats that is not used for competition. Perhaps we could run Advanced and Expert as separate contests - on the L-Pad - later in the day. Or, perhaps let them be the first to fly. After all, if the Open fliers are touted to be the best, then flying later in the day in more wind is appropriate.

The point is, we can work out the logistics if we but try. Let's not condemn an idea just because it is new or different than that which we are used to.  

Later - Bob Hunt
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 09:25:04 AM
Look at what event proliferation has done to CL racing and combat.  All those added diddly events were promoted as increasing participation.  Not having a clear Nats winner decreases my interest in participation.  

Hi Howard

That is not going to happen because of this.  I heard  much the same stuff when we added Advanced.

We have added 3 of the PAMPA skill classes to our schedule, it did nothing to kill off stunt, it only bought in more people and more people flying planes at our NATs
We added Old Time, this added more numbers of people flying the NATs
we Added  Classic , this did nothing but add to the numbers of people flying

If we listened to the logic of never adding anything the we would need to DO AWAY  with all these other events, Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, OLD TIME, Classic, etc  and only run event 322, cause after all the NATs is **only** about the walker Cup winner and his crowning,  and no one else has a place there unless they can win the Trophy and National Championship in 322

All PAMPA skill class events are a separate contest from 322 event (Open, JR. , Sr.)

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 09:30:49 AM
What the hell are you playing at?  No, no, no, a thousand times no! Open is Open and the Walker Cup goes to the Open winner.  Your backdoor sarcasm about awarding the Walker Cup to the Expert winner, knowing full well that such a decree would bring on the demand to retire the Walker Cup from the likes of Ted and a host of other Cup winners, is completely uncalled for.  Nothing is more infuriating to somebody who would like their shot at winning the Open Championship than the thinly veiled threats of taking the prize and going home and the hell with everybody else.

If you want to really kill stunt, keep making retarded suggestions like replacing Open with Expert.  Eventually, somebody at AMA will think your sarcastic remarks are real and actually believe thats what you want.  Then when Ted places the Cup in a dusty case in the museum, you can watch Stunt fall on its face.

NONE of these imagined evils will happen if you and the rest of the Open class flyers remain vigilant and say "no" to any attempt to merge Open and Expert.

I was actually being serious.  I like things as they are, but I prefer replacement to addition.  I don't think anybody wants to retire the Walker trophy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 09:31:59 AM

(Clip)

Word to the wise, if you separate this out like it used to be you run the chance of losing judges.  That is already one of if not the most difficult tasks of running the nats.  Let’s not make it any harder than it already is.

KT mentioned less rounds if participation is down.  That is a real possibility.

(Clip)  


Doug,

By the way, CONGRATULATIONS!!

Having the Expert event at the Nats will not make it any more difficult to recruit judges.  It is difficult now, it will be difficult in the future.  I have been on both sides of that fence and to me, it does not make any difference what circle I am judging on.  If I volunteer to judge, I will go where the ED thinks I will do the most good, whatever his criteria is.

I do not think I ever said that there would be less rounds using this new format.  To the contrary, the outline that Randy and I developed was careful to preserve the same number of rounds for anyone who entered either Open (qualification rounds, semi-finals and finals) or either the Expert and Advanced (qualifications and finals).  In all cases, there would still be two days of qualifying rounds which is the hallmark of the format evolved by PAMA so that a competitor who has worked for a year to prepare for the Nats can participate, have 4 official flights over two days rather than in the old days where the whole experience would often be one 8 minute flight on one day, subject to weather, luck of the draw, mechanical problems or whatever.  This is preserved and should be with the Expert addition proposal.

What is in the outline is that there would only be 10 Expert finalists and 10 Advanced finalists.  It makes little sense, as was the case this year, to take 20 Advanced finalists from fewer than 24 entries.  Even with 10 finalists, the placings for those below 10th place will still be determined just as the placings are determined now for those in 21st and below. So there will still be bragging rights for those who think it is important to know they placed 13th instead of 15th.  And I respect that.  It is just we do not need to drag the judges and officials through those additional flight to determine those positions when essentially they have already been determined.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Moon on July 26, 2012, 09:33:44 AM

 Or, perhaps let them be the first to fly. After all, if the Open fliers are touted to be the best, then flying later in the day in more wind is appropriate.


wind.....and rain....and mist...and??  ~> ~>

That is how it works now, Adv guys are up first, then Open guys.  Now we would have Adv, Exp, then Open. Seems pretty simple to me.  

There really isnt much need to change it all around make it separate and re-engineer what is already working very well.

I would wager Adv might go down a little bit first few years while many move to Exp just like they fly locally. So the load would be similar to what it is now.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Moon on July 26, 2012, 09:35:11 AM
I don't think anybody wants to retire the Walker trophy

Well, then you havent seen the posts by some, pretty well regarded individuals and for good reason, who say if the BOM goes then so does the Walker Trophy.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Moon on July 26, 2012, 09:36:15 AM
Hey Bob,

I still have your can of No Touch.  I meant to get it back to you before we left.  Sorry about that.  I get you another one next year.

Thanks again.

Doug
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 09:37:07 AM
I maybe need to post the passed proposal in a separate thread so people can read it for themselves if they have not done so already

Good idea.  I haven't seen the fine print.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 09:37:14 AM
We might consider dropping the age classes and having skill classes instead of the age classes, rather than in addition to them.  Award the Walker trophy to the Expert winner.  That would remove the ambiguity.  

Why?  What ambiguity?
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
Well, then you havent seen the posts by some, pretty well regarded individuals and for good reason, who say if the BOM goes then so does the Walker Trophy.

Those may be the sarcastic ones.  I may have made them; I don't keep track.  Maybe Bill Lee is right: I need to use smileys, but I hate to taint serious Jive Combat Team pronouncements with smileys.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bob Hunt on July 26, 2012, 09:44:10 AM
Hey Bob,

I still have your can of No Touch.  I meant to get it back to you before we left.  Sorry about that.  I get you another one next year.

Thanks again.

Doug


Hi Doug:

Please keep it along with my most profound congratulations! It was the neatest thing I've seen yet to witness you and your brother, Steve, and Bob Gieseke posing together for photos afterwards. Priceless!

Well done my friend - Bob Hunt
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Moon on July 26, 2012, 09:46:12 AM
Doug,

By the way, CONGRATULATIONS!!


Thanks!   :)



I do not think I ever said that there would be less rounds using this new format.  To the contrary, the outline that Randy and I developed was careful to preserve the same number of rounds for anyone who entered either Open (qualification rounds, semi-finals and finals) or either the Expert and Advanced (qualifications and finals).  In all cases, there would still be two days of qualifying rounds which is the hallmark of the format evolved by PAMA so that a competitor who has worked for a year to prepare for the Nats can participate, have 4 official flights over two days rather than in the old days where the whole experience would often be one 8 minute flight on one day, subject to weather, luck of the draw, mechanical problems or whatever.  This is preserved and should be with the Expert addition proposal.


Good deal!


What is in the outline is that there would only be 10 Expert finalists and 10 Advanced finalists.  It makes little sense, as was the case this year, to take 20 Advanced finalists from fewer than 24 entries.  Even with 10 finalists, the placings for those below 10th place will still be determined just as the placings are determined now for those in 21st and below. So there will still be bragging rights for those who think it is important to know they placed 13th instead of 15th.  And I respect that.  It is just we do not need to drag the judges and officials through those additional flight to determine those positions when essentially they have already been determined.

Keith

This is what I was talking about.  This would need to be posted pretty early on so everyone involved would know what they are getting into.  It has been the top 20 for many years.  It wouldn’t be good for someone to feel blindsided by a change like this.  This being posted in long threads with many different inner topics will certainly be missed by some.  Once it is nailed down a simple sticky at the top of the forums and a post in SN and CLW concerning format is all that is needed.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 09:49:17 AM
This is what I was talking about.  This would need to be posted pretty early on so everyone involved would know what they are getting into.  It has been the top 20 for many years.  It wouldn’t be good for someone to feel blindsided by a change like this.  This being posted in long threads with many different inner topics will certainly be missed by some.  Once it is nailed down a simple sticky at the top of the forums and a post in SN and CLW concerning format is all that is needed.



Has already been done, and all who look will see this as it will be made public for all to see


Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 09:54:29 AM
Look at what event proliferation has done to CL racing and combat.  All those added diddly events were promoted as increasing participation.  Not having a clear Nats winner decreases my interest in participation. 

Where is it shown that adding Expert to the schedule at the Nats is "Event Proliferation"?  The Expert skill class is already an established official event and has been for decates.   Having Expert at the Nats will not require a new type of model to be built (as happens when new events are incorporated in other CL activities).  In fact, having Expert at the Nats will allow more models to be flown at the Nats than now being restricted by the Open BOM requirement.  Where Event Proliferation has perhaps hindered other events, it is because there became a proliferation of different rules, requiring different airplanes, different standards, different everything, to where depending on the part of the country, contests would be held where many airplanes built for something similar could not be flown.  That has not ever happened in CLPA, even when the Skill classes were incorporated as unofficial events (as referred to by PAMPA skill classes) to now that Skill classes are official AMA events.    And if anything, incorporating skill classes to our CLPA rules has primarily been responsible for the continued level of activity our event enjoys compared to any other CL event which has suffered from Event Proliferation.

Howard, I know that you know that Expert is already an official event.  Adding it to the Nats format is analogoous to adding Advanced to the Nats format.  It when the skill classes were added to the Nats, stunt entry levels increased and stunt still remains the best attended Nats CL event.

Your sky is falling warnings that adding Expert to the Nats format is Event Proliferation and will decrease participation just do not make sense.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Douglas Ames on July 26, 2012, 10:14:07 AM
Could I say something that is glaringly obvious as an observer outside the circle? (I don't compete)

Why not add EXPERT and declare a PAMPA EXPERT National Champion in addition to the AMA OPEN National Champion?

Create a new trophy - "The Aldrich Cup" for the PAMPA Champ. Would GMA turn over in his grave if you did that?
 
The Walker Cup is a separate deal. EXPERT would NOT be eligible for the flyoff.

AMA would be BOM, PAMPA - NO-BOM. Both would have Appearance Points.

Flame me if you like  f~  :-\
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 10:31:08 AM
Why not add EXPERT and declare a PAMPA EXPERT National Champion in addition to the AMA OPEN National Champion?

That's what will happen.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 10:40:06 AM
Where is it shown that adding Expert to the schedule at the Nats is "Event Proliferation"?  The Expert skill class is already an established official event and has been for decates.   Having Expert at the Nats will not require a new type of model to be built (as happens when new events are incorporated in other CL activities).  In fact, having Expert at the Nats will allow more models to be flown at the Nats than now being restricted by the Open BOM requirement. 

It does involve different airplanes and different rules, yet one cannot fly both.  It's sorta in between an added skill class and event proliferation. 

Precisely because we all know Expert as the top class from those decades, you'll have the ambiguity.  See Douglas's post above; I told you so.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 11:48:37 AM
The TOP Class  is  OPEN, and always will be, The fact that OPEN is the  ONLY way to the  Walker Cup , and OPEN requires full modelers skills makes this the most desired event for the pilot wanting to prove himself against the  very best of the best.  Expert will  NEVER  get to fly  for the most prestigious trophy in PA  period!!

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: dirty dan on July 26, 2012, 11:50:04 AM
Those may be the sarcastic ones.  I may have made them; I don't keep track.  Maybe Bill Lee is right: I need to use smileys, but I hate to taint serious Jive Combat Team pronouncements with smileys.


No, no, no! Don't crack, don't bend! Smileys are merely a crutch for those who can't write in accomodating those who can't read.

PTG may have used smileys; I'm not sure.  But you and I know he doesn't share our lofty standards.

So hold that line...

Dan
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 11:52:34 AM
The average  age of  PAMPA  members is around 70 years  old,
People ..... we need  to do as much as we can, within reason , to help keep membership to grow on the upside.  If we fail in this, all of this argueing will be a moot point !

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Steve Helmick on July 26, 2012, 12:46:34 PM
Due to finances, I haven't been to a Nats in about 10 years. While adding Expert sounds good at first glance, I feel that this has been railroaded in. It sounds like the event is being watered down. It is also the start of the end of appearance points going out the back door.

The Nats is very special having a wonderful display of beautiful airplanes in one place at one time. I hope that I am wrong, but this could be start of the end for this. People have argued about appearance to the point that we are sick, but Brett has been correct in saying that the Nats is about crowning a National Champion and should demand the TOTAL package.

Many will say that you will still have Concours. The reality is that if you don't have appearance points in "Expert", how many people will really present their airplanes in one hall, if they don't feel they will be considered for Concours?  5 or 10 at best?

That wonderful display of airplanes will be gone.

Tom, I think you're wrong on this. There are AP's for Intermediate, Advanced and Expert, just as for JSO. The only ones that won't get AP's will be those flying ARF's, ARC's, and new or old planes sold or given to the flier. I'm not a NATS guy, but as I understand it, Advanced and JSO planes are currently all judged together, and Intermediate planes (that are BOM legal) are judged for AP's on the circle.  Classic entries? Expert planes that are BOM legit will join them. The Advanced and Expert planes that are not BOM legit will not/should not be there. 

Having not been there, and with no plans to go, I would personally choose to enter Open over Expert. Of course, I'm not an Expert flier locally, and I don't have a BOM legal plane, but if I was an Expert, and had a BOM plane, I'd enter Open. It looks to me like the Expert class will be small, and full of high dollar ARF's. I'd rather finish 21st in Open than 6th in Expert, and I don't think that would be an unusual viewpoint.  H^^ Steve 

 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 12:57:37 PM
Tom, I think you're wrong on this. There are AP's for Intermediate, Advanced and Expert, just as for JSO. The only ones that won't get AP's will be those flying ARF's, ARC's, and new or old planes sold or given to the flier. I'm not a NATS guy, but as I understand it, Advanced and JSO planes are currently all judged together, and Intermediate planes (that are BOM legal) are judged for AP's on the circle.  Classic entries? Expert planes that are BOM legit will join them. The Advanced and Expert planes that are not BOM legit will not/should not be there.  

Having not been there, and with no plans to go, I would personally choose to enter Open over Expert. Of course, I'm not an Expert flier locally, and I don't have a BOM legal plane, but if I was an Expert, and had a BOM plane, I'd enter Open. It looks to me like the Expert class will be small, and full of high dollar ARF's. I'd rather finish 21st in Open than 6th in Expert, and I don't think that would be an unusual viewpoint.  H^^ Steve  

 

Hi Steve

This is how it works, anyone entering official NATs events such as  322 (jr , sr open)  and advanced, and now expert  will be required to bring their planes to processing and Apperance judging, they will be weighed and judged, one that do NOT meet the BOM rule will be with all of the other planes, but will be set in the last row.
Again this will change Nothing about this process, all of the planes will still be in the same room for APs  and processing, just as they are now.

Regards
Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Steve Helmick on July 26, 2012, 01:52:00 PM
Thanks for the explaination, Randy. To tell the truth, the term "processing" for stunt models kinda makes me giggle, after 15 years of flying FAI FF, where everything is weighed...and measured (in French), projected areas calculated, and each part stamped and stickered! Is there anything to "processing" a stunt model, other than weighing? I'd bet that nobody is going to measure the engine size, and of course, the line size will have to be checked by the pit boss...if it is checked at all. Do fliers hafta bring their lines to "processing" to be measured 4 length and diameter?  H^^ Steve

  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bob Reeves on July 26, 2012, 02:19:00 PM
I'm a nobody with my only claim to fame winning Advanced in 2011 at Brodaks with a 4 stroke but I do have an opinion. 

I think adding Expert to the NATS schedule is a fantastic idea and am happy to see it pass. I believe it will increase attendance and all the negative effects some are touting will not come to pass. As has been said it isn't like anyone has to build a special airplane or buy a special engine, heck you can fly stunt with a borrowed carrier airplane or combat ship if you are brave enough.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 26, 2012, 03:37:31 PM
Hi Brett,

I usually agree with your take on things, but I don't understand how the number of Open fliers will be so greatly reduced.  I believe that the guys in Open now are flying against the best (each other) with the dream of a Walker Trophy in their future, they are competitors.

Maybe I am wrong and America is no longer teeming with competitors, but I don't think so.  I truly believe that Open will stay about the same number but there will be enough Expert entries to make it viable, also.

Bill
Hi Bill,

What do you believe will be the incentive for high quality fliers to enter Expert instead of Open?

Ted
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 03:54:03 PM
I read "Expert Skill Class will be ran at the 2013 NATs", as you so eloquently put it.  I see unsupported sales pitch, but few details. 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 26, 2012, 03:56:32 PM
Hi Bill,
What do you believe will be the incentive for high quality fliers to enter Expert instead of Open?
Ted

ability to fly Sharks and other RTF airplanes.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 04:02:18 PM
Hi Bill,

What do you believe will be the incentive for high quality fliers to enter Expert instead of Open?

Ted

Hi Ted,

No, I am not Bill, but I have my own take on an answer to your question.  Actually, a real "high quality flier" (whatever that is but I think I understand what you are trying to say) will actually have no "incentive" to enter Expert instead of Open.  Some of those "high quality fliers" will, or just might, want to fly Expert instead of Advanced as many "local Expert high quality fliers" now choose to enter Advanced rather than Open at the Nats.  Will there be a lot of individuals that somehow fall in these categories? I really doubt it. Will we see the fences being torn down by the onslaught of some category of "high quality fliers to fly at our Nats?  I doubt it, but we will see some people who, for whatever reason, just might want to choose to fly Expert instead of Open.  Some of these will be from foreign contries who do not build their own models.  Some will be those who choose to bring their purchased machine to be able to compete with other self professed Experts.  Will there be a tremendous increase in total entries, I doubt it, but I will wager a steak dinner for you and Shareen that there will be an increase if we will ever be able to measure that number and normalize it for the effect of the economy and gas prices on total entry.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 04:20:38 PM

From Steve Ames:  Why not add EXPERT and declare a PAMPA EXPERT National Champion in addition to the AMA OPEN National Champion?

Howard's response:

That's what will happen.

So my question to Howard is "So What?"  Every year now, we have a "National Beginner Champion", a "National Intermediate Champion", and a "National Advanced Champion"  So what is being proposed is that there will be a "National Open Champion".  That in no way diminishes one of the primary purposes of the Nationals which is to determine the National Stunt Champion as the winner of the flyoff between the Junior and Senior and Open Champions. 

And let's not forget that at the Nationals there is a Classic National Champion and an OTS National Champion.  We have been living with this situation for a number of years.  Funny, nobody has ever claimed that this number of events at the Nats is proliferation and is harmful to our event.  But woe is me if we add Expert to the schedule, THAT IS REAL PROLIFERATION and the sky will fall.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Powell on July 26, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
I suppose we could go full balkanization. 4 Pampa classes, junior, senior, open, a Northeast Nats, A southwest Nats, etc. Look what it's done for Boxing.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 04:41:33 PM
I read "Expert Skill Class will be ran at the 2013 NATs", as you so eloquently put it.  I see unsupported sales pitch, but few details. 

Gee Howard, what are you looking for?   The proposal as submitted to the PAMPA EC is posted at the beginning of this section.  In case you missed it, this matter was discussed by the PAMPA EC at their annual Nats meetig and they approved it by a vote of 10 to 1.  Except for a few vocal naysayers on this forum,  some individuals and the PAMPA EC apparently recognize some merit to the idea.  Granted, there will have to be some adjustments to the very clever computer programs that have been generated to support the current Nats process.  I would like to think that the very clever guru (which I am not) who generated those very clever computer programs would be able to adjust the programs that in reality makes a subdivsion of a group of fliers with judge assignments and another scoreboard.  Yes, from one perspective, there is an additional administrative burden on the organizers/officials.   But the Nats are not for the pleasure of the organizers/officials. The Nats is the responsibility of PAMPA to organize and administer.  And PAMPA has chosen to add Expert to the Nats schedule.

Adding Expert to the Nats schedule will not:

1.  Hasten the elimination of the BOM rule

2.  Be the demise of the Walker Cup

3.  Cause the elimination of the Open event at the Nats

4.  Destroy the stunt event because of proliferation




Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 04:49:05 PM
Could I say something that is glaringly obvious as an observer outside the circle? (I don't compete)

(Clip)

Create a new trophy - "The Aldrich Cup" for the PAMPA Champ. Would GMA turn over in his grave if you did that?

(Clip)
 

There already is an Aldrich Cup.  It was made from one of George's Nats trophies.  Does anybody know what happened to it.

Also, there was a Rene Mechen Cup to commemorate a real gentlement of this event.  Does anybody know what happened to that one?


I think one was for the Sr winner and the other was for the Advanced winner to be awarded as perpetual trophies.


Keith

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 05:12:15 PM
Well, then you havent seen the posts by some, pretty well regarded individuals and for good reason, who say if the BOM goes then so does the Walker Trophy.

Doug,

Some of this was discussed last week when I think you were pretty busy.  

For one thing, we have discussed that as long as we have a BOM rule, there will be National Stunt Champion as the winner of the Walker Cup.  Now, if the BOM rule is eliminated for whatever reason, then I think there is a consensus that the Walker Cup should be retired and placed on permanent display in the AMA museum.  (The AMA owns the Walker Cup anyway.)  If that time ever comes and there is still a Nats Stunt event (without BOM) then the movers and shakers of PAMPA at that time will be able to make a decision if there should be some kind of perpetual trophy to represent what will then be called the National Stunt Champion.  It will not carry the same connotation or meaning that the Walker Cup has for many of us now.  I do not see that happening in the near future.

Now, as the current generation of stunt competitors pass, we may see the elimination of the BOM rule.  There have been any number of attempts to do so in the past by a relatively small but very vocal minority.  But, the BOM rule has survived, and there will still be a BOM requirement in our rulebook for at least the next 2 1/2 years.

There are predictions of doom that adding Expert to the Nats will hasten the demise of the BOM rule and correspondingly the elimination of the Open event as we know it at the Nats.  Adding Expert will have no more effect on the BOM rule or the Open event than when skill classes were added to the Nats schedule over 30 years ago.  If someone can prove otherwise, then I would like to see how or why.  Whether or not the BOM rule survives in the future will have nothing to do with having Expert scheduled at the Nats.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 26, 2012, 05:31:37 PM
Hi Bill,

What do you believe will be the incentive for high quality fliers to enter Expert instead of Open?

Ted

Hi Ted,

I don't think that the very high quality fliers WILL enter Expert with but a few exceptions.  Those exceptions possibly being Foreign competitors who fly "bought" models yet want to experience our NATS.  And maybe a few really good US pilots who do not build their own. 

I believe that the majority of fliers who enter Expert will be local experts, many of which have historically entered Advanced at the NATS because they know they would not be competitive in Open.  A flier who is moving up the ladder and just landed in Expert on the local scene will have a place to fly at the NATS.

Again, and it is my opinion only, I don't believe that Open will be harmed at the NATS.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 26, 2012, 05:52:16 PM
Ill just keep paying my $25.00 per flight till I make top 20. Stuff happens
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 06:13:21 PM
Gee Howard, what are you looking for?   The proposal as submitted to the PAMPA EC is posted at the beginning of this section.  In case you missed it, this matter was discussed by the PAMPA EC at their annual Nats meetig and they approved it by a vote of 10 to 1.  Except for a few vocal naysayers on this forum,  some individuals and the PAMPA EC apparently recognize some merit to the idea.  Granted, there will have to be some adjustments to the very clever computer programs that have been generated to support the current Nats process.  I would like to think that the very clever guru (which I am not) who generated those very clever computer programs would be able to adjust the programs that in reality makes a subdivsion of a group of fliers with judge assignments and another scoreboard.  

I am looking for the thought that went into this.  After challenging you to produce details, I still don't see them.  For example, how will you do seeding?  How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?  I think this is a bad, poorly thought-out idea, and the arguments and abuse haven't convinced me to put work into implementing it.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: PJ Rowland on July 26, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
" I still have your can of No Touch.  I meant to get it back to you before we left " - Doug Moon




Did you have to hand back the can of WhipA$$ also ?

or is it still all over Circle # 3 ? 8)

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 26, 2012, 07:23:32 PM
I am looking for the thought that went into this.  After challenging you to produce details, I still don't see them.  For example, how will you do seeding?  How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?  I think this is a bad, poorly thought-out idea, and the arguments and abuse haven't convinced me to put work into implementing it.  

Tell me something Howard.  Is there any amount of justification, polls, details that would convince you that this might really be a good idea?

Is there seeding in Advanced?  If not, why not?  If there is, why not use the same method for Expert?  Sure, there will be some uncertainty with certain individual pilots, but a "reasonable" spreading of talent should not be too much of a stretch for certain experienced administrators and gurus.  There has nothing yet been set in concrete regarding the ten and ten profile.  Given the expected entries, that would be an initial starting point for start planning  and establishing the number of finalists in the two events.  Over time, that could certainly be refined with some sort of sliding scale just as the number of finalists in the 60's Nats (pre-PAMPA) were sort of determined on the go based on total entry and number of circles that filled up.  It certainly was not a constant number from year to year.  There has been no poll.  Neither was there a poll when we initiated Skill classes at the Nats.  We (PAMPA) did it because a few people thought it was a good idea.    The format was not fixed when we started that.  It got refined as we went along.  Why is it so difficult for you to see that this might be a good idea.  If it turns out to be not such a good idea for whatever reason or reasons, then fine, it can be scrapped, but the Open event will not be tarnished in anyway because we tried to include Expert at the Nats.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 07:31:28 PM
I am looking for the thought that went into this.  After challenging you to produce details, I still don't see them.  For example, how will you do seeding?  How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?  I think this is a bad, poorly thought-out idea, and the arguments and abuse haven't convinced me to put work into implementing it.  

Hi Howard

I can answer those questions: I thought this out for a long time and asked over 160 flyers, EDs and others, what they thought,
I also know of at least 15 people that would have flown this class had they been able and had the choice, which they did NOT.
I am the one that decided on putting 10 and 10 in the initial proposal so that we would have the same number of flyers and flights on Friday that we have now,  (40) and it would NOT be any extra burden on the judges, or the tabulators, also with the Advance number decreasing, and Expert being new, 10 is a good number, All the pilots will still get 2 days flying and will get their placing.
 This is fluid and is not carved in stone, If the ED wants to have more, he could, this was just a basic way that it can be done and accommodate what I was hearing from many sources, including Previous EDs.
The proposal was NOT poorly thought out, or brought forward as you say.
 You just did not have that information.
In regards to the seeding, as with any new event if there is any problem the ED of the NATs should have the power to tweak the seeding system until the people there have a history to seed them by. The only problem I see with seeding Expert, is the same one we would have with Advanced or OPEN if we got in a number of pilots that had no history at the US NATs.  
Some of the people that fly Expert will most likely have a history, And what do you do if someone like..for example Al Rabe came and signed up to fly the NATs, he would Not be seeded because he has  no history with the system we are using now.
In addition to the Q&A session at the PAMPA meeting, The EC Dist, director has previously polled their districts for what the membership wanted, or at least that was what they were to do, I cannot speak for all of them, but I know for a fact that many of the Directors did just that.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: PJ Rowland on July 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
I think its a great idea.

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 26, 2012, 09:30:06 PM
Brett,

We have had this discussion before.  You have made your point several times here, so I am going to respond.  I cannot understand your belief that adding Expert to the Nats schedule will in any way threaten the Open event.  As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested, at least in the forseeable future as it has been for the past 50+ years.  Now what happens when the current generations of stunt fliers are long gone, what happens to this event will be in the hands of those who inherit this magnificent event from us.  I cannot see in any way that having Expert on the Nats scheudle will diminish the importance of the Walker Cup.

Now, if we loose the BOM rule in the future, then what we do with the Walker Cup will be an entirely different question.  On this point, there are no proposals in this rules change cycle to eliminate the BOM rule.  There are some proposals to change it, but not to eliminate it.  So we will have some form of a BOM rule, if not the same one, for at least the next 2 1/2 years.

Keith

Hi Keith,

Ergo, there will be no effect on the Walker Cup for at least 2 1/2 years.  Sort of makes your "As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested..." assurance sound a bit hollow.  Also a lot different from Randy's "no effect" on 322 declaration to me.

While I mostly held my comments as I sat in for Jim Hoffman and voted his "District X aye" to the proposal I couldn't help wondering what the proponents of the change were thinking when they championed the idea as "necessary to increase participation at the nats" and then cited the loss in participation in recent years as proof.  What I couldn't understand is that when they talked "numbers of lost participation" the vast majority of the reduction in recent years has been in the Advanced (skill class!) event.  They cited only 25 entries last year and I couldn't help but notice that, this year, while Open continued to attract mid 40s participants, all but three Advanced entrants "qualified" for the Advanced "TOP 20" finals!!!!  If skill classes are the supposed savior of participation why has "open" remained comparatively healthy while the "prototype" of the acclaimed Expert event (Advanced) has lost a large percentage of its previous participants????  The  arguments in favor of the proposal astounded me in their mutually illogical advocacy.

What the heck.  They're only toys for grey haired boys.  What difference will it make.  Proliferate away and join the ranks of speed, racing, combat and carrier...although the word "ranks" seems hollow in light of the vacant parking lots around their sites this year.  LIke the rest of America we're going to pave the road to CLPA perdition by dumbing the event down to its lowest common denominator.  Has anybody noticed how Doug Moon's realization of the inherent specialness of the event as originally structured has driven him to excel and proudly earn a place on our small community's symbol of stunt excellence?  Something deep down inside of him realized that the Walker Trophy was special and winning it would take a special effort by a special man.  Now that he's done that "something special" better than those who shared that passion he is unlikely to applaud a pretender to the spots below him on the base of that trophy.

I give Open two or three rules cycles at best and then they'll be giving the cup to one of the remaining handful of guys with the big credit cards and zero knowledge of or respect for the efforts of those names that preceded his/her own.  I'd also be willing to bet he/she'll have to beat a lot fewer competitors to "earn" that place.

One might ask what makes me so positive about the ultimately deleterious effects of attempting to buy participation at any cost.  It's really pretty personal.  I once ate, lived and breathed stunt yet, now,  just the debate has turned that 50+ year passion into a passing interest I engage in when there is nothing good on TV.

Ted

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 09:40:36 PM
""Hi Keith,

Ergo, there will be no effect on the Walker Cup for at least 2 1/2 years.  Sort of makes your "As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested..." assurance sound a bit hollow.  Also a lot different from Randy's "no effect" on 322 declaration to me."


Hi Ted

Keith was addressing ...rule change cycle with rules...  The Expert proposal  was NOT  a rule issue, and had nothing to do with any rule change, or the rule cycle Keith was speaking of.
My addressing the EC about this proposal had nothing to do with rules, either changing or adding new one. The Expert proposal need  NO rule change.
Apples and oranges my friend.

Our average age in PAMPA is a little over 70 years old, if we go away from old age, it wll make no difference what goes on as I am afraid when that happens this event will be  dead!
I am not willing to go without trying to help increase our numbers, and would encourage others to suggest way to go about this too.
Regards
Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Matt Colan on July 26, 2012, 09:49:50 PM
For what it's worth, if we went to the NATS next year and depending on whether or not I'm old enough to fly in open, I'd enter in expert.

I think we will see the top guys in advanced move into expert since most of them probably are expert at the local level.  Then, if the stars are alligned right, the guys who are truly advanced will see they have a shot at winning the advanced trophy rather than an expert who didn't feel he was good enough to fly in open.

It might also be too much of a financial commitment to attend the NATS for some..
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 26, 2012, 09:50:01 PM
What the hell are you playing at?  No, no, no, a thousand times no! Open is Open and the Walker Cup goes to the Open winner.  Your backdoor sarcasm about awarding the Walker Cup to the Expert winner, knowing full well that such a decree would bring on the demand to retire the Walker Cup from the likes of Ted and a host of other Cup winners, is completely uncalled for.  Nothing is more infuriating to somebody who would like their shot at winning the Open Championship than the thinly veiled threats of taking the prize and going home and the hell with everybody else.

If you want to really kill stunt, keep making retarded suggestions like replacing Open with Expert.  Eventually, somebody at AMA will think your sarcastic remarks are real and actually believe thats what you want.  Then when Ted places the Cup in a dusty case in the museum, you can watch Stunt fall on its face.

NONE of these imagined evils will happen if you and the rest of the Open class flyers remain vigilant and say "no" to any attempt to merge Open and Expert.

Hmmmm, Howard.  I think you net snared one!

Ted
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 09:55:30 PM
Tell me something Howard.  Is there any amount of justification, polls, details that would convince you that this might really be a good idea?

Yes is the answer, but no amount of arm-waving bluster.  I was afraid when I wrote it that I wasn't writing clearly when I asked, "How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?"  That probably should have been one sentence.  I also left out some steps that I thought were obvious.  Here's what I was thinking and what I meant by a poll: Sometimes an event doesn't get many more than 20 entrants.  This time, for example, there were 25 in Advanced, 23 of whom flew.  Some circles had five guys on them, all of whom qualified.  I proposed to recent EDs having a finals cutoff based on number of entries, but they elected to stick with 20-- not a bad decision based on years of attendance numbers.  I would think that your estimate of attendance in either Advanced or Expert next year would have a high probability of being less than ten, so you should either: a) conduct a poll to see how many will attend each event if you are going to set a hard number, or b) publish in advance a formula for how many contestants go to the finals based on entry.  Pulling numbers out of your - um - intuition is easy, but you could be having a bunch of people renting hotels from Tuesday through Thursday for no particular reason.  Not doing the planning and just waiting to see what happens seems kinda irresponsible.  

Is there seeding in Advanced?  If not, why not?  If there is, why not use the same method for Expert?  

I rest my case.  

Do a search on Nats Seeding either here or SSW to get our annual explanation of how its done.  Then come up with a process for seeding Expert.  How will you weigh Expert placings for seeding after the first Expert Nats?  Will you chuck Advanced and Expert together or seed them separately?  How will you balance circles?  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 10:04:57 PM
Yes is the answer, but no amount of arm-waving bluster.  I was afraid when I wrote it that I wasn't writing clearly when I asked, "How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?"  That probably should have been one sentence.  I also left out some steps that I thought were obvious.  Here's what I was thinking and what I meant by a poll: Sometimes an event doesn't get many more than 20 entrants.  This time, for example, there were 25 in Advanced, 23 of whom flew.  Some circles had five guys on them, all of whom qualified.  I proposed to recent EDs having a finals cutoff based on number of entries, but they elected to stick with 20-- not a bad decision based on years of attendance numbers.  I would think that your estimate of attendance in either Advanced or Expert next year would have a high probability of being less than ten, so you should either: a) conduct a poll to see how many will attend each event if you are going to set a hard number, or b) publish in advance a formula for how many contestants go to the finals based on entry.  Pulling numbers out of your - um - intuition is easy, but you could be having a bunch of people renting hotels from Tuesday through Thursday for no particular reason.  Not doing the planning and just waiting to see what happens seems kinda irresponsible.  

I rest my case.  

Do a search on Nats Seeding either here or SSW to get our annual explanation of how its done.  Then come up with a process for seeding Expert.  How will you weigh Expert placings for seeding after the first Expert Nats?  Will you chuck Advanced and Expert together or seed them separately?  How will you balance circles?  

Howard  
as I stated earlier, the was NO planning pulled out of neather regions, to say that is flat WRONG, I explained how this was done

I also have explained how and why the seeding and qualifying number are what they are and why those were included in the proposal.
It would help if you would stop putting out misinformation, just because you didn't know this doesn't mean it was not done, discussed, thought about carefully, and people polled.

If you had bothered to get the correct information you would also see that the hotel reservations you are worried about and people not needing them because the will not fly through Thursday is also  FLAT WRONG. There is no change in qualifying days and pilots will still fly for 2 days at least, as they do now.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 10:16:39 PM
In regards to the seeding, as with any new event if there is any problem the ED of the NATs should have the power to tweak the seeding system until the people there have a history to seed them by. The only problem I see with seeding Expert, is the same one we would have with Advanced or OPEN if we got in a number of pilots that had no history at the US NATs.  
Some of the people that fly Expert will most likely have a history, And what do you do if someone like..for example Al Rabe came and signed up to fly the NATs, he would Not be seeded because he has  no history with the system we are using now.

Seeding doesn't matter much, but if you start getting arbitrary with it, people holler.  If you don't like Paul's formula, just write a new one and populate it with data.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 26, 2012, 10:18:09 PM
To increase participation at the NATS we need to lobby for lower fuel prices. Attrition and high costs to travel are the biggest factors in NATS entry's.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 26, 2012, 10:20:18 PM
Seeding doesn't matter much, but if you start getting arbitrary with it, people holler.  If you don't like Paul's formula, just write a new one and populate it with data.  

Howard

I agree with that ,and your right, I like the seeding system that is in yours and Paul's seeding program, If this works with the pilots that show up, great, but if not it will need to be the E.D.s call on how to do it fairly, and if you get some total unknowns I do not see how they can possibly be seeded, Just as they could not be seeded in OPEN now.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 26, 2012, 10:20:58 PM
Hi Keith,

Ergo, there will be no effect on the Walker Cup for at least 2 1/2 years.  Sort of makes your "As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested..." assurance sound a bit hollow.  Also a lot different from Randy's "no effect" on 322 declaration to me.

While I mostly held my comments as I sat in for Jim Hoffman and voted his "District X aye" to the proposal I couldn't help wondering what the proponents of the change were thinking when they championed the idea as "necessary to increase participation at the nats" and then cited the loss in participation in recent years as proof.  What I couldn't understand is that when they talked "numbers of lost participation" the vast majority of the reduction in recent years has been in the Advanced (skill class!) event.  They cited only 25 entries last year and I couldn't help but notice that, this year, while Open continued to attract mid 40s participants, all but three Advanced entrants "qualified" for the Advanced "TOP 20" finals!!!!  If skill classes are the supposed savior of participation why has "open" remained comparatively healthy while the "prototype" of the acclaimed Expert event (Advanced) has lost a large percentage of its previous participants????  The  arguments in favor of the proposal astounded me in their mutually illogical advocacy.

What the heck.  They're only toys for grey haired boys.  What difference will it make.  Proliferate away and join the ranks of speed, racing, combat and carrier...although the word "ranks" seems hollow in light of the vacant parking lots around their sites this year.  LIke the rest of America we're going to pave the road to CLPA perdition by dumbing the event down to its lowest common denominator.  Has anybody noticed how Doug Moon's realization of the inherent specialness of the event as originally structured has driven him to excel and proudly earn a place on our small community's symbol of stunt excellence?  Something deep down inside of him realized that the Walker Trophy was special and winning it would take a special effort by a special man.  Now that he's done that "something special" better than those who shared that passion he is unlikely to applaud a pretender to the spots below him on the base of that trophy.

I give Open two or three rules cycles at best and then they'll be giving the cup to one of the remaining handful of guys with the big credit cards and zero knowledge of or respect for the efforts of those names that preceded his/her own.  I'd also be willing to bet he/she'll have to beat a lot fewer competitors to "earn" that place.

One might ask what makes me so positive about the ultimately deleterious effects of attempting to buy participation at any cost.  It's really pretty personal.  I once ate, lived and breathed stunt yet, now,  just the debate has turned that 50+ year passion into a passing interest I engage in when there is nothing good on TV.

Ted



Just from what I read on the forums it seems that most of the opposition to the "Expert" class seems to come from what I would call "Masters".  Most seem to be past Walker Cup winners.
While emotionally I can understand that these folks would be a little arrogant about any potential to dumb down recognition of the Walker Cup.   I don't, after reading the objections and prophesies of doom, understand why anyone would think that a new "underling class" would have any effect on the 10 or 12 folks with enough applied talent to actually have any chance at flying for the cup let alone winning it.
I'm not trying to promote anything, but do think there must be some other folks out there like me that fly Expert in local events with scores typically in the 530's to 540's on a good day (which by the way does not win, place, or show in anything here in Tucson) and do not attend the Nationals to compete because of personal feelings that they certainly have no prayer of qualifying for the Walker Cup and do not wish to travel thousands of miles to finish 30th.
I can only really speak for myself but I am thrilled that there will be an Expert class and I intend to attend the next Nationals (for the first time in over 25 years) with hopes of at least making a descent showing in the Expert class...That's what I consider myself and have been flying for 30+years.  I make no pretense about being able to compete with the Fitzgeralds, Walkers, Moons, Hunts or the dozen or so folks that consistently finish in the upper ranks through talent and lots of hard work.
When the "new"wears off this new class it may die, as some new things often do.  However it is my considered opinion that it and folks like me deserve an honest shot at making it work.

I sincerely wish to thank all those folks who worked hard at securing this new class.

Randy Cuberly

 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 26, 2012, 10:45:16 PM
Howard  
as I stated earlier, the was NO planning pulled out of neather regions, to say that is flat WRONG, I explained how this was done

I also have explained how and why the seeding and qualifying number are what they are and why those were included in the proposal.
It would help if you would stop putting out misinformation, just because you didn't know this doesn't mean it was not done, discussed, thought about carefully, and people polled.

If you had bothered to get the correct information you would also see that the hotel reservations you are worried about and people not needing them because the will not fly through Thursday is also  FLAT WRONG. There is no change in qualifying days and pilots will still fly for 2 days at least, as they do now.

Randy

I must have missed the seeding part of the proposal, but since Keith doesn't know that Advanced qualifications circles are seeded, I presume not much was there.

So if eight guys show up for Expert, you'll have them go through the motions for two days to qualify for the eight-person finals and have the judges stand out in the sun and watch them.  Alternately, you could just arbitrarily pick a number to take to the finals and announce it on the spot, but, as with seeding, there are perils with being arbitrary even if your intentions are pure.

I stand by what I wrote.  Although I wasn't among the 160 authorities you consulted, I am familiar with the mechanics of operating the last few Nats.  I don't see the level of detail needed for that process.  

(Edited for meaning)
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 26, 2012, 10:46:29 PM
Just from what I read on the forums it seems that most of the opposition to the "Expert" class seems to come from what I would call "Masters".  Most seem to be past Walker Cup winners.
While emotionally I can understand that these folks would be a little arrogant about any potential to dumb down recognition of the Walker Cup.   I don't, after reading the objections and prophesies of doom, understand why anyone would think that a new "underling class" would have any effect on the 10 or 12 folks with enough applied talent to actually have any chance at flying for the cup let alone winning it.
I'm not trying to promote anything, but do think there must be some other folks out there like me that fly Expert in local events with scores typically in the 530's to 540's on a good day (which by the way does not win, place, or show in anything here in Tucson) and do not attend the Nationals to compete because of personal feelings that they certainly have no prayer of qualifying for the Walker Cup and do not wish to travel thousands of miles to finish 30th.
I can only really speak for myself but I am thrilled that there will be an Expert class and I intend to attend the next Nationals (for the first time in over 25 years) with hopes of at least making a descent showing in the Expert class...That's what I consider myself and have been flying for 30+years.  I make no pretense about being able to compete with the Fitzgeralds, Walkers, Moons, Hunts or the dozen or so folks that consistently finish in the upper ranks through talent and lots of hard work.
When the "new"wears off this new class it may die, as some new things often do.  However it is my considered opinion that it and folks like me deserve an honest shot at making it work.

I sincerely wish to thank all those folks who worked hard at securing this new class.

Randy Cuberly

 

Hi Randy,

A well stated argument.  I wonder, however, if you would have been willing to drive, say, only five hundred miles to compete in Open if that were an option?

FWIW, my feelilng is that the problem with participation at the Nats is more a matter of propinquity than of holding "one class per contestant".  We've got an ocean of fine fliers on the West Coast, many of whom bit the bullet for a number of years but who now are simply worn out by the effort and, not unlike you, are in need of an "incentive" to justify the time and cost to compete.  I'm curious how many years you would drive 2000 miles to participate if you came in  20th in Expert the first few times?  Would you make the effort more often to finish 20th after only a few hundred miles of drive?  Which has prevented you from participating in the past?  Too few classes?... or too much time, expense and effort?  AMA made a financially driven choice all those years ago with their fingers crossed that modelers would be willing to bite the bullet to participate.  For a while they did but a variety of circumstances have, at least for the present, dulled their willingness to do so and the Nats this year seemed to me like a vast wasteland (although stunt alone maintained a large albeit diminished presence).

I simply fear lest we throw out the baby with the bath water in our attempts to "fix" the participation problem.  Have a good time at the Nats next year.  I hope you do well and become engaged enough to continue to undertake the journey.

Ted
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 26, 2012, 10:49:06 PM
To increase participation at the NATS we need to lobby for lower fuel prices. Attrition and high costs to travel are the biggest factors in NATS entry's.

Bingo, Sparky!
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 27, 2012, 12:05:47 AM
Hi Keith,

Ergo, there will be no effect on the Walker Cup for at least 2 1/2 years.  Sort of makes your "As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested..." assurance sound a bit hollow.  Also a lot different from Randy's "no effect" on 322 declaration to me.

(Clip)

Ted

Ted,  

Obviously, I did not make mayself clear regarding the current BOM rule, the current BOM rule change proposals, this Expert at the Nats proposal, and then I further obfuscated the matter by talking about the Walker Cup and what might happen if the BOM rule is ever removed from our CLPA rulebook.  It is clear that you did not understand what I was trying to say.

I think it best to explain to you that there have been several rules change proposals in this rules change cycle regarding the BOM rule that applies to our CLPA event.  Several of those proposals were not approved for any further consideration.  Two other proposals were approved for further consideration and there has been a cross proposal submitted for each of those two basic proposal for further consideration by the Contest Board during their Interim Vote procedure next month.  These proposals and their cross proposals retain a BOM rule tailored for our CLPA event rather than the dated rule (from the 50's) that currently applies to CLPA found in the AMA General rules.  The Contest Board will choose one of these proposals or will vote each of them out in the mid-August Interim vote.  Whatever the outcome of that vote, and then if one proposal survives the interim vote, there will be a final vote in September.  There will either be a change to our BOM rule which will be included in the CLPA rulebook or we will continue with the current AMA General BOM rule.  Either way, there will still be a BOM rule for our CLPA event.  Therefore, we will have a BOM requirement for at least the next 2 1/2 years which puts us at the end of the next rules change cycle.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with adding the Expert event at the Nats or anticipating that the Expert event at the nats will somehow jeopardize the current or any future CLPA BOM rule.  Somehow you seem to have confused this with the Expert at the Nats proposal.  I guess that is my fault because I was writing about both subjects in the same post.

Now, and I do not want to sound like I am speaking for you, but I think that you and I agree that, sometime in the future, IF the BOM requirement is eliminated completely from our CLPA rulebook, then the matter of the Walker Cup completely changes in character.  If there is no BOM, then the Walker Cup would no longer represent the model airplane stunt event as it has for the past 60 plus years where it has been required that the model be BOM compliant.  If that happens, the Walker Cup should be retired to the AMA museum and it will be up to the PAMPA leadership, if there still is a PAMPA at that time, to initiate whatever new tradition they see fit to do.  

(Is it possible that the BOM rule could be eliminated?  Absolutely!!  I do not have to remind you that there is a very vocal minority that has been trying to eliminate the CLPA BOM rule for years.  Until this change cycle, there have been proposals to eliminate the CLPA BOM for at least the past 12 to 16 years.  Obviously, these have all failed.  But for now, we have a BOM rule of some kind for the next 2 1/2 years.)

Some people are trying to build an argument that having Expert at the Nats will somehow hasten the demise of the BOM rule.  To the contrary, I believe that having Expert at the Nats will enhance the arguments to retain the BOM rule.  The Walker Cup will be preserved for the National Stunt Champion using the time honored BOM requirement as a prerequisite to enter Event 322 as it always has been.  Then, for those who want to compete on a Nationals stage, but to compete with others that are at their local skill level of Expert or choose to compete with a non-BOM model, there is the Expert skill level event at the Nats to do so.  Yes, there are those who profess to prefer to fly against others with their local level Expert capability than to lock horns with say the top 15 to 25 fliers in the country.  This is evidently a difficult concept to grasp or understand for at least a handful of those in that upper echelon of 15 to 25 top fliers in the country.

It is those same people who believe (I know some do and I used to be in that camp -- as PAMPA President at the time and a recent Nats ED, I was strongly against adding skill classes to the Nats schedule) that the sole purpose of the Nats is to determine the National Stunt Champion and that all of the other activities are superfluous.  Our National Stunt event is much more than that as evidenced by the continued support it gets by stunt fliers of all capabilities and by a multitude of volunteers to help run this tremendous event that takes a week to play out.  

There, I got on my soapbox and probably further confused the whole matter.  All I can ask is that you try not to intentionally misquote and misrepresent what I am trying to say.

I am really sorry that the event no longer holds the allure for you that it once did.  In the early 90's, you are the one who brought me back into this event.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 27, 2012, 01:05:46 AM
I must have missed the seeding part of the proposal, but since Keith doesn't know that Advanced qualifications circles are seeded, I presume not much was there.

(Clip) 

(Edited for meaning)

Gee whiz Howard,

I thought we had put this petty stuff behind us.  It does get a bit tedious.

I will try to speak slooowly and  be MORE CLEAR.  When I asked about the Advanced seeding process, it was in response to your question about Expert seeding at the Nats.  I was asking you if there was a seeding process for Advanced at the Nats.  And of course there is.  The procedure that Paul implemented with your help has been a big plus for people to understand the process and I think that you and Paul are to be commended for it.  What I could not understand is why you even asked the question because why would the seeding process for an Expert event at the Nats be any different than your seeding process for the Advanced event?  And before you say it; yes, I was not clear in what I wrote.  But the question still remains, why would you, of all people ask such a question when you have already devised a system that works as well as could be expected with the anticipated unknowns on the entry list?  I write this as a compliment and would hope that you take it as such and also hope that there is not a trite response. 

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: PJ Rowland on July 27, 2012, 01:08:13 AM
The fact that the average age is 70 + according to Ted was Interesting. I cannot see the history of Stunt being altered in any period of time with the addition of Expert.

If you look to the future who are the guys whom will probably still be doing this in 20 years ?

Id like to say the current guys : Derek Barry, Ryan, Matt - Throw myself into that mix - we respect the event too much to see it diluted for future Buy to Fly idea's. I think give yourselves credit for instilling such respect for our forefathers that to be put along side the Names of a Ted Fancher or a Doug Moon and how they did it is something we all aspire to.

My outlook of I must build it - I must fly it - I must win it is stronger today that it's ever been - I was only talking to Matt Colan a few days ago who said his goal is to get to a Front row level of building - fit and finish. Look at Derek winning the concourse. I cannot speak for my age grouped peers, but I cannot see a time where I PERSONALLy would vote out an Open contest with strict adherance to BOM. The only reason for this is : Like Doug Moon when I win I want to be able to look at myself and say - I DID IT alongside every other name on the trophy.

No matter how much jumping up and down an RTFer wants - History is just that and cannot be changed. Ted flew for 50 years I will still be doing it in another 20 years, and I'm not alone.


Wimbledon will always be played on grass - Open will always be a BOM contest for the Walker Cup.


Fuel Prices ? How about an airline ticket ??? If your REALLY keen to compete for the Walker cup, you make it happen.

If I was able to get time off this year from work I would have attended, I will be back in 2013 to fly in open with a take apart model I built and I will continue to regularly attend until I win it.



Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 27, 2012, 01:34:14 AM
Hi Randy,

A well stated argument.  I wonder, however, if you would have been willing to drive, say, only five hundred miles to compete in Open if that were an option?

FWIW, my feelilng is that the problem with participation at the Nats is more a matter of propinquity than of holding "one class per contestant".  We've got an ocean of fine fliers on the West Coast, many of whom bit the bullet for a number of years but who now are simply worn out by the effort and, not unlike you, are in need of an "incentive" to justify the time and cost to compete.  I'm curious how many years you would drive 2000 miles to participate if you came in  20th in Expert the first few times?  Would you make the effort more often to finish 20th after only a few hundred miles of drive?  Which has prevented you from participating in the past?  Too few classes?... or too much time, expense and effort?  AMA made a financially driven choice all those years ago with their fingers crossed that modelers would be willing to bite the bullet to participate.  For a while they did but a variety of circumstances have, at least for the present, dulled their willingness to do so and the Nats this year seemed to me like a vast wasteland (although stunt alone maintained a large albeit diminished presence).

I simply fear lest we throw out the baby with the bath water in our attempts to "fix" the participation problem.  Have a good time at the Nats next year.  I hope you do well and become engaged enough to continue to undertake the journey.

Ted

Hi Ted,
Your question of going to the Nationals to fly Open if it was only a 500 mile drive really goes to the heart of the problem and the answer is YES!
I also did not mean to imply that my inability to win the Walker cup was my only reason for not attending the NAT's during all that time.  Work travel and some health problems (that do not exist now) were primary reasons for a long time.
The travel and expense is certainly a current reason, especially since now being 71 years old makes the likelihood of being able to apply myself to the extent that I could actually be more competitive than I am right now (which obviously is not competitive enough) unlikely.
I do occassionally travel approximately that 500 miles to go to California to compete and and find it very satisfying.  But the time and effort to do that  cannot compare with a 2000 mile 10 day or so long trip to the nationals either in time or financial commitments.
I will make that commitment at least once and will build and practice between now and then to be as competitive as possible just to see how I would stack up against other "Experts".  I certainly know how I would stack up against the REAL guys.  Several of them come to VSC every year...

Randy Cuberly

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 27, 2012, 06:30:47 AM
Gee whiz Howard,

I thought we had put this petty stuff behind us.  It does get a bit tedious.

I will try to speak slooowly and  be MORE CLEAR.  When I asked about the Advanced seeding process, it was in response to your question about Expert seeding at the Nats.  I was asking you if there was a seeding process for Advanced at the Nats.  And of course there is.  The procedure that Paul implemented with your help has been a big plus for people to understand the process and I think that you and Paul are to be commended for it.  What I could not understand is why you even asked the question because why would the seeding process for an Expert event at the Nats be any different than your seeding process for the Advanced event?  And before you say it; yes, I was not clear in what I wrote.  But the question still remains, why would you, of all people ask such a question when you have already devised a system that works as well as could be expected with the anticipated unknowns on the entry list?  I write this as a compliment and would hope that you take it as such and also hope that there is not a trite response.

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for speaking slooowly so even I can understand.  Your asking whether there is seeding in Advanced indicated clearly to me that you did not know how the present Nats works, which would be a prerequisite to putting into your proposal how you would integrate Expert.   If you look at it, you will see that there are different ways of doing it. 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Dennis Moritz on July 27, 2012, 06:51:57 AM
People don't build things today. Also the fascination of flight, much less, does not animate youth. For instance, it is almost impossible for the backyard hacker to work on a new car. In the fifties when this hobby was everywhere in the USA, craftsmanship, working with our hands, people commonly did that. Barely had the TV distraction, back then. Now a days the cyber reality(?) has captivated youth. Look at us, even, reading these screes, debating in this, what the heck is this place. The pleasure of cutting, shaping and gluing balsa, painting, constructing something that flies, something that we can control and perfect how we fly, even the general fascination of making models-- the current culture does not support activities like that. More than that. It doesn't assist the discovery of the pleasures that is our hobby. It pulls attention elsewhere. How do we fight forces like that? It's the culture. Our moment in human history. Not conducive to control line building and flying. So. Expert class. Provides a venue for those who wish to fly, but do not build. Are we cutting the baby in half, as in the Solomon parable? Or are we creating a situation where half of a hobby can survive, so that we'll have a bit more left. Really. Far as I can tell. Who knows. About the usefulness of the "Expert" approach.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Dennis Moritz on July 27, 2012, 07:01:39 AM
Nice to see that there are so many old coots willing to "rage against the dying of the light." Meet you next year at the Dairy Queen, Muncie IN. I hope.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Dennis Moritz on July 27, 2012, 07:06:03 AM
On the positive side, I have periodically thought, if it wasn't for internet this hobby would have been medically judged dead years ago. No efficient way to keep in touch with our fellow modelers. Economically a dead end to make CL essential stuff.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Moon on July 27, 2012, 08:02:34 AM
People don't build things today. Also the fascination of flight, much less, does not animate youth. For instance, it is almost impossible for the backyard hacker to work on a new car. In the fifties when this hobby was everywhere in the USA, craftsmanship, working with our hands, people commonly did that. Barely had the TV distraction, back then. Now a days the cyber reality(?) has captivated youth. Look at us, even, reading these screes, debating in this, what the heck is this place. The pleasure of cutting, shaping and gluing balsa, painting, constructing something that flies, something that we can control and perfect how we fly, even the general fascination of making models-- the current culture does not support activities like that. More than that. It doesn't assist the discovery of the pleasures that is our hobby. It pulls attention elsewhere. How do we fight forces like that? It's the culture. Our moment in human history. Not conducive to control line building and flying. So. Expert class. Provides a venue for those who wish to fly, but do not build. Are we cutting the baby in half, as in the Solomon parable? Or are we creating a situation where half of a hobby can survive, so that we'll have a bit more left. Really. Far as I can tell. Who knows. About the usefulness of the "Expert" approach.

There must be a nail close by, because you are smashing it on the head with your giant hammer!!

Good post.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: PJ Rowland on July 27, 2012, 08:27:03 AM
" , back then. Now a days the cyber reality(?) has captivated youth. Look at us, even, reading these screes, debating in this, what the heck is this place. The pleasure of cutting, shaping and gluing balsa, painting, constructing something that flies, something that we can control and perfect how we fly, even the general fascination of making models-- the current culture does not support activities like that. "


Well in all fairness Its too dangerous.

The Pleasure of cutting ?
Cant do that anymore Johnny might Cut himself with the Knife and sue the blade manufacture.
shaping ? - Cant do that, might get dust in Johnny's lungs and he can get Cancer.
gluing balsa ? - Have you read those warnings ? May glue eyes shut - Cant do that Johnny might glue his eyes shut.
painting  ? - Cant paint - Dont you know all the paints we use are deadly ? Just ask Howard.
Something that flies ? - Cant do that either - Johnny might hit someone and get sued.  
Something that we can control ? - Its not Politically correct to "control" anything.

I wanted to go electric just so I could reduce my carbon footprint, then I realized I could stick a fork into the power socket..


"Back in the day" things were just different ( being serious for a moment ) I remember every summer if I didnt stub my big toe, break an arm, break someone elses arm or scrape my knees , then I was'nt being a kid and having fun.

Much of my rhetoric was tongue in cheek but there is a sad under-lying reality of my actual point.


 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: john e. holliday on July 27, 2012, 09:22:38 AM
And you also keep buildingthose gorgeous planes to compete in Open with.    H^^
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 27, 2012, 11:16:54 AM
Hmmm.  Maybe I'm tilting at semantics. 

Maybe it's the EC's decision to attach the word "Expert" to a "subordinate" event that will "never replace 322" that has me scratching my head. 

Isn't Open the logical "url" for locating the "Experts"? 

I'm uncomfortable using the word "Gods" to describe those who fly Open so maybe, to make the distinction clear in the Nationals categories, we should use the phrase "sub-expert" or "Expert-minus" or “(small ‘e’) expert” to logically identify the acceptable performance level of entries in the new event.

Just kidding about the choice of words but still scratching my head over how we can have an event for some pilots that is allegedly superior in performance to Expert?????

Of course, on the other hand, it would make it easier for fliers from other than the mid-west to compete in Muncie every year.  Out here on the forsaken Left Coast we could ship one Yatsenko to Muncie and then Paul and Howard and Bruce and David and Brett and Ted and Whitely and Jimby and PTG and Bart and Keith and Randy and Lou and John and a dozen other quality fliers from the West Coast could take turns flying the airplane after a relaxing flight into Indy on the big jets. 

There’d also be a lot more room in the pits! 

We couldn’t fly in Open with the Yansenko but…what the heck…all but two of those named plus the “dozen or so others” don’t fly at the Nats now for reasons having nothing to do with the event’s “competitive format”.

There, I’ve named 13 (if I counted correctly) real people that could profit from the event.  Maybe I’ll change my opinion and buy a ticket!  Who’s going to order the Yatsenko???  Can we submit a suggestion to the EC to eliminate Open and award the Walker Cup (still can’t get used to “trophy”) to the winner of the “expert (small 'e') event for icing on our joint mission?

Ted

p.s. Please don’t be offended by the above.  Its “style” is altogether too emotive and tongue in cheek but the reality underlying the hyperbole is, nonetheless, “real”.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Steve Fitton on July 27, 2012, 11:28:14 AM
Ted,

  Why did you save your eloquence for the forums, and not for the EC meeting where perhaps it might have made a difference?

Steve
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 27, 2012, 11:36:39 AM
""Isn't Open the logical "url" for locating the "Experts"?  "

I would say, along with many other that it is a great place to find "Masters"  Open is the Master Class of our event.

nuff said

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Dave_Trible on July 27, 2012, 11:50:25 AM
"Democracy is the worst system there is-except for everything else".  This thread was the first I for one ever saw or heard of this.  Was it ever presented in some forum to be understood and debated BEFORE a vote in the formerly-smoke filled room?

Dave
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 27, 2012, 12:02:37 PM
""Isn't Open the logical "url" for locating the "Experts"?  "

I would say, along with many other that it is a great place to find "Masters"  Open is the Master Class of our event.

nuff said

Randy

Even though Bill little is right, (he is always right), the name Open, better denotes the age category, I still think it should be called Masters. Masters sounds more prestigious. Especially now that we have Expert, Masters really signifies the elite class-the end game-the final rung on the ladder.

Our RC pattern friends, (I sincerely hope you look on them as friends) have Intermediate, Advanced, Masters and F3A. Masters is so hotly contested because; the title Masters Champion in Pattern is so prestigious.

If Doug Moon was at an RC Field with Tony Frankowiak, Tony could tell Doug that he is the current Masters Champion in RC Pattern. And, Doug could reply in kind, “well, I’m the current Masters Champion in Control Line stunt. To me, it smacks of equal footing and status.

We don’t fly for money or endorsements like other sports, at the very least, we should try to make changes that enhance the desirability of the event, even if it is just a name change.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 27, 2012, 12:12:21 PM
Ted,

  Why did you save your eloquence for the forums, and not for the EC meeting where perhaps it might have made a difference?

Steve

Very simple, Steve.  I was asked to sit in at the EC meeting as a favor to the District X Director who was unable to attend.  He advised that his polling of the membership in his district was overwhelmingly in favor and I agreed to vote as directed despite my personal disagreement with the concept.  I abided by that pledge and did as Jim asked.  It was evident from the beginning that my point of view was in a distinct minority which further convinced my it would have been out of place to express thoughts contrary to those of the elected Director.

I feel under no such ethical restriction when discussing the matter in on-line forums and, as a result, feel free to address possible unintended consequences of the EC's decision from my point of view.  The good news is that the decision is not cast in concrete and could be amended or eliminated if my concerns prove to be valid.  If not, however, I'll be smart enough to keep my mouth shut about it rather than expose myself to the predictable "we told you so responses"!!!  

Plus, quite frankly, I enjoy the give and take and, in particular, advocating a point of view.

Ted
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 27, 2012, 12:21:44 PM
Even though Bill little is right, (he is always right), the name Open, better denotes the age category, I still think it should be called Masters. Masters sounds more prestigious. Especially now that we have Expert, Masters really signifies the elite class-the end game-the final rung on the ladder.

Our RC pattern friends, (I sincerely hope you look on them as friends) have Intermediate, Advanced, Masters and F3A. Masters is so hotly contested because; the title Masters Champion in Pattern is so prestigious.

If Doug Moon was at an RC Field with Tony Frankowiak, Tony could tell Doug that he is the current Masters Champion in RC Pattern. And, Doug could reply in kind, “well, I’m the current Masters Champion in Control Line stunt. To me, it smacks of equal footing and status.

We don’t fly for money or endorsements like other sports, at the very least, we should try to make changes that enhance the desirability of the event, even if it is just a mane change.

Just curious.  Are  RC Masters required to build their own airplanes?  Do many of them do so?

Ted
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: John Lindberg on July 27, 2012, 12:30:57 PM
I flew (or attempted to) R/C Pattern for about 10 years, just got too expensive. Most of the higher classes fly ready made planes, which can run $5000.00 (or more) per plane, and a competitive flyer needs two or more planes.. As far as I know, there is no BOM rule, never has been in R/C Pattern. Masters has a set slate of manuevers to fly, FAI changes from contest to contest and that makes it real HARD! Are you burnt out, Ted?
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 27, 2012, 12:34:38 PM
Hi Ted,

I respect your position in our event and I feel sure that you understand that simply saying "Expert" doesn't always mean the very best of those in our event.  We all attend local contests and there is always an Expert class.  But the Expert class at a local meet contains several pilots who will never make the top 20 at the NATS in Open.  But they fly Expert because they have grown out of the local Advanced class.
 
I am sure that you are aware of the actual location you live in, the fact of so many Walker Trophy winners who live in the general location and that they do appear at the "local" contests.  We do not have that luxury.  I say "luxury" because if we did, the overall level of competition would rise, for sure.  Competitors get better by competing against those who are better than they are.  We do have Derek Barry at most of our meets.  Derek has shown that he is of that NATS level of competitiveness.  Randy Smith, Steve Fitton, and Tom Dixon will occasionally fly, but it is not the same as having You, Brett, David, Paul,  Alfadawg, Howard, and several others, who are of that level, or even a higher level.

I have said it before, there is a Masters Class, but it is just not officially recognized by PAMPA and the AMA.  You see it exposed as the Top 20 in Open at the NATS.

The addition of Expert at the NATS will cause me to be a bit more excited about making a trip, spending a week on asphalt that feels like it is 2000* C., and spending a ton of money to compete.  I would now be in the Advanced class.  It is more appealing to me because I know that the local Experts now have a class for them to compete in, and they will not be in Advanced.  I have been competing in some form of activity since I was 6 years old.  I do believe in competing against the best, and have done so in the past.  But at my present age and condition I fully realize that entering Open at the NATS would be a tremendous waste of my time and money.

Do we need to give a trophy to everyone? NO  But adding Expert to the NATS program has the very real potential of adding participants to our event, and that is only a good thing.  Open will only disappear when there is no longer any one flying CLPA.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 27, 2012, 12:39:25 PM
I flew (or attempted to) R/C Pattern for about 10 years, just got too expensive. Most of the higher classes fly ready made planes, which can run $5000.00 (or more) per plane, and a competitive flyer needs two or more planes.. As far as I know, there is no BOM rule, never has been in R/C Pattern. Masters has a set slate of manuevers to fly, FAI changes from contest to contest and that makes it real HARD! Are you burnt out, Ted?

Hi John.  When I first started flying in contests back in 1957 I was under the impression that all events required the BOM.  We signed a form saying we complied with the requirement.  My first exposure to pattern fliers (Doc Ralph Brookes from my area in Washington state was a National Champion in the event when I was young, for instance) left me with the distinct impression that BOM was a requirement.  Could be wrong, however.  I know there used to be a lot of RC Pattern construction articles published in the magazines.  Pretty much, nowadays, any articles seem to be flight tests of RTFs and ARFs.

Burnt out?  probably  :(

Ted
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Chris McMillin on July 27, 2012, 12:42:57 PM
Expert sounds like a great idea.
Some people that could not make the journey before might now be able to justify the trip to the Nats.

An airline ticket on a reliable discount carrier with high frequency, a model waiting at the site, and just the rental car and hotel costs for the minimum days required for the contest, a benefit may be seen by this new event for certain people.

BOM is cool and all, but it does make a difference in who is competing. Cost and time wise. This might be a perfect solution.

Thanks Keith and Randy for your persistence on this thread!

Chris...

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Chris McMillin on July 27, 2012, 01:33:01 PM
Even though Bill little is right, (he is always right), the name Open, better denotes the age category, I still think it should be called Masters. Masters sounds more prestigious. Especially now that we have Expert, Masters really signifies the elite class-the end game-the final rung on the ladder.

Our RC pattern friends, (I sincerely hope you look on them as friends) have Intermediate, Advanced, Masters and F3A. Masters is so hotly contested because; the title Masters Champion in Pattern is so prestigious.

If Doug Moon was at an RC Field with Tony Frankowiak, Tony could tell Doug that he is the current Masters Champion in RC Pattern. And, Doug could reply in kind, “well, I’m the current Masters Champion in Control Line stunt. To me, it smacks of equal footing and status.

We don’t fly for money or endorsements like other sports, at the very least, we should try to make changes that enhance the desirability of the event, even if it is just a mane change.



Milt and Ted,
Pattern is now skill classes and FAI, (I don't know why they insist on an FAI max weight limit in the AMA skill classes, it drives the price up...). Hence, no BOM, though several guys do build there own, some cool bipes and some low cost balsa kits available were seen this year. Price craziness of ARF's is being worked on by two available and one soon to come, budget 2M designs which are very competitive for a sixth of the price of some of the others and electric component prices have come way down, too.
Chris...
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: John Lindberg on July 27, 2012, 02:22:37 PM
Hi, Ted, I remember Dr. Brooks, one of the pioneers of Pattern. The last contest I went to, the fellow that used to write the column  (Pattern) for Model Aviation had a turn-key Pattern plane for sale for $3500, which is reasonable for a used plane. I used to buy used stuff mainly, the guys wanted the latest "hot set-up" no BOM wherever I went. Central Hobbies sells the basic air-frames, think they start out around $2500.00. Keep the comments coming, Ted, I enjoy them. One can pretty much count on humans beings to find the lowest common denominator, which, would seem to be the case here.  H^^ 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 27, 2012, 02:36:10 PM
"Democracy is the worst system there is-except for everything else".  This thread was the first I for one ever saw or heard of this.  Was it ever presented in some forum to be understood and debated BEFORE a vote in the formerly-smoke filled room?

Dave

Hi Dave

Are you a PAMPA member?  This was NOT railroaded through as someone stated earlier, It was presented to the competition committee, approved 100%, then it was sent to to EC of PAMPA , the EC members then polled their people in their district to find out what they wanted. It was  then discussed again between the EC , and then finally discussed at the EC meeting in Muncie and voted on after a lengthy Q&A session which I attended and provided answers for.

One of the EC reps can also tell you how this process works

Regards
Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Shawn Lenci on July 27, 2012, 03:46:06 PM
Hmmm.  Maybe I'm tilting at semantics. 

Of course, on the other hand, it would make it easier for fliers from other than the mid-west to compete in Muncie every year.  Out here on the forsaken Left Coast we could ship one Yatsenko to Muncie and then Paul and Howard and Bruce and David and Brett and Ted and Whitely and Jimby and PTG and Bart and Keith and Randy and Lou and John and a dozen other quality fliers from the West Coast could take turns flying the airplane after a relaxing flight into Indy on the big jets. 

There’d also be a lot more room in the pits! 

We couldn’t fly in Open with the Yansenko but…what the heck…all but two of those named plus the “dozen or so others” don’t fly at the Nats now for reasons having nothing to do with the event’s “competitive format”.

There, I’ve named 13 (if I counted correctly) real people that could profit from the event.  Maybe I’ll change my opinion and buy a ticket!  Who’s going to order the Yatsenko???  Can we submit a suggestion to the EC to eliminate Open and award the Walker Cup (still can’t get used to “trophy”) to the winner of the “expert (small 'e') event for icing on our joint mission?

Ted

p.s. Please don’t be offended by the above.  Its “style” is altogether too emotive and tongue in cheek but the reality underlying the hyperbole is, nonetheless, “real”.


Ted,

If you can get all 13 fliers you mentioned to commit to signing up for "Expert" in 2013 and attending, I would like to sponsor the Yatsenko Shark for the contest.  ;D  I'd end up with one well trimmed out model that had been flown by all my heroes.  I would also like to sponsor the trophy for the event.  We can leave the "Walker Cup" in Open and have the "Walker Trophy" for Expert.  See photo below!

Shawn

By the way that trophy in the photo is a really cool trophy.  It is from the 1949 Third International Plymouth Model Airplane Contest in Detroit.  The plate below says 2nd Place Open Division Gas Powered Control Line Stunt.  My High School friends found it in a Good Will Store in Modesto CA about 25 years ago and bought it for me as I flew model airplanes.  It is a treasure in my shop!


Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 27, 2012, 03:49:55 PM
Hi Shawn,

Actually the award given to the overall winner of Jr., Sr., and Open at the NATS is the Walker Trophy.

The Walker Cup is an award given by the FAI in the World Champs.

You'll have to come up with something different for Expert! LL~ LL~

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Shawn Lenci on July 27, 2012, 03:55:17 PM
Sorry...My Bad! ;D

Shawn
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 27, 2012, 04:05:11 PM
Sorry...My Bad! ;D

Shawn

Don't worry  everyone has called it the walker Cup here for decades......  ;D
I have even heard it called the Walker Cup Trophy

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 27, 2012, 04:17:24 PM
I was corrected (in a very polite way) by Mr. Robin Hunt who has won both. ;D

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Crist Rigotti on July 27, 2012, 04:19:06 PM
I would think that the Expert winner would be booted to Open and the Advanced winner booted to Expert.  This would also include the rule that any one person can only place in the top 5 of Advanced 3 times then will be booted so the same thing would apply to Expert?
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 27, 2012, 04:36:09 PM
I would think that the Expert winner would be booted to Open and the Advanced winner booted to Expert.  This would also include the rule that any one person can only place in the top 5 of Advanced 3 times then will be booted so the same thing would apply to Expert?

Hi Crist

No, Expert is the Top of the PAMPA Skill class events, so one can fly there as much as they want,  however with most pilots being so competitive I would think they would move to OPEN as soon as they won. That would be up to them

You do not see the Expert winners at regional contest being not allowed to fly after they win.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Crist Rigotti on July 27, 2012, 05:44:49 PM
Hi Crist

No, Expert is the Top of the PAMPA Skill class events, so one can fly there as much as they want,  however with most pilots being so competitive I would think they would move to OPEN as soon as they won. That would be up to them

You do not see the Expert winners at regional contest being not allowed to fly after they win.

Randy

Randy,
That makes perfect sense.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Crist Rigotti on July 27, 2012, 09:59:59 PM
Randy,
Another question.  If I fly Expert at local contests, will I have to enter Expert at the Nats?  The reason I ask this is because when I first entered Advanced at the Nats, there were a lot of expert flyers there.  It was explained that most flying Expert at the local contests the skill level is really Advanced at the Nats.

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 27, 2012, 10:11:52 PM
Expert is expert and advanced is advanced. No sandbagging
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 27, 2012, 11:15:05 PM
Expert is expert and advanced is advanced. No sandbagging


Amen Robert,
There needs to be commonality throughout competition for the skill classes.  If you fly Expert in local contests you should be flying in front of judges that have the same qualifications as those at the Nationals.  If you are consistently flying scores in the 500's you are an "Expert" and should not take advantage of the less experienced fliers that fly scores in the 400's...that is what advanced fliers should be flying.
Sandbagging seems to be rampant and it's wrong...We should make a point of ostracising those people who constantly fly expert scores in the advanced class.
They don't get away with it in AZ and should not get away with it at the Nationals.  

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 28, 2012, 12:13:50 AM
My opinion is that Open should still be flown on all 4 circles where the top 5 from each can move on to the top 20. I would then put Advanced on two of the 4 circles and Expert on the other two.

   I think the issue is going to be that there will be relatively few Open entrants. I expect that you will get maybe 20-25 total after a bunch of them drop to Expert.  Then you will be sorely tempted to have less than 20 on Top 20 day, or else drop qualifying completely for Open. If you decide to take, say, 75% of the field, you don't want to use 4 circles because that makes it maybe 2 or 3 people per circle, which means one oddball seeding knocks someone out.

   If we only have 15-25 Open entrants, but took 20 regardless, I wouldn't want to make the judges stand out there for two days while we do practice flights. Just forget qualifying and just do the finals on Friday with whoever shows up.

    I think that since we are so bound and determined to add Expert, that running Open separately on 2 circles as Keith suggests is a practical solution  - for Open. That's how we did it for a long time, until 2004 when the entries became grossly imbalanced.

    I think you will also find that it doesn't work so good for Advanced and Expert because I think there will be about as many Adv as always (maybe 30ish) and maybe 10-15 Exp (mostly people who used to fly Open) and then the ADV/EXP circles take all day while Open is either not flying at all or getting in two rounds before lunchtime. If that is the case, it makes sense to use 2 circles for each, then just flip the circles on Thursday, so the judges  workload is evened out. Also, just like before 2004.

    I know it's cast in stone - you win, we lose, I get it, congratulations, so I don't need any more reminders of the "10:1" vote. But this is why I think we will not be able to support another class. You will not get a long-term increase in attendance, the class structure is a non-factor in attendance - it's the cost and the travel time, not that we aren't giving out enough trophies for 30th place

   I think it will quickly become obvious for Open, when you cancel qualifying or end up with 10 people on "Top 20 day" due to lack of entrants. And you still have to show up on Sunday or Monday for appearance judging, futz around all week waiting for Friday, and have most people spend 2 weeks of travel to get 2 flights.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: PJ Rowland on July 28, 2012, 05:49:18 AM
" it's the cost and the travel time "

I'm yet to be convinced of that point.

Seems irrelivant - if you want to go and compete... you GO - Seems a no brainer cost and travel time are involved. Its a once a year deal - something I look forward to and with it taking 8 - 12 months to BUILD A MODEL - then gearing up for that contest.

If you dont enjoy that - Then don't come.. plenty of guys travel long ways to attend.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 07:37:51 AM
Randy,
Another question.  If I fly Expert at local contests, will I have to enter Expert at the Nats?  The reason I ask this is because when I first entered Advanced at the Nats, there were a lot of expert flyers there.  It was explained that most flying Expert at the local contests the skill level is really Advanced at the Nats.



Crist

Many flew Advanced because there was no Expert being flown, and they did not want to fly Open where they felt not competitive.'If you are a local Expert, you should fly Expert.. There is no difference in PAMPA skill classes at local or NATs, besides maybe a numbers difference

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 08:02:13 AM
  I think the issue is going to be that there will be relatively few Open entrants. I expect that you will get maybe 20-25 total after a bunch of them drop to Expert.  Then you will be sorely tempted to have less than 20 on Top 20 day, or else drop qualifying completely for Open. If you decide to take, say, 75% of the field, you don't want to use 4 circles because that makes it maybe 2 or 3 people per circle, which means one oddball seeding knocks someone out.

   If we only have 15-25 Open entrants, but took 20 regardless, I wouldn't want to make the judges stand out there for two days while we do practice flights. Just forget qualifying and just do the finals on Friday with whoever shows up.

    I think that since we are so bound and determined to add Expert, that running Open separately on 2 circles as Keith suggests is a practical solution  - for Open. That's how we did it for a long time, until 2004 when the entries became grossly imbalanced.

    I think you will also find that it doesn't work so good for Advanced and Expert because I think there will be about as many Adv as always (maybe 30ish) and maybe 10-15 Exp (mostly people who used to fly Open) and then the ADV/EXP circles take all day while Open is either not flying at all or getting in two rounds before lunchtime. If that is the case, it makes sense to use 2 circles for each, then just flip the circles on Thursday, so the judges  workload is evened out. Also, just like before 2004.

    I know it's cast in stone - you win, we lose, I get it, congratulations, so I don't need any more reminders of the "10:1" vote. But this is why I think we will not be able to support another class. You will not get a long-term increase in attendance, the class structure is a non-factor in attendance - it's the cost and the travel time, not that we aren't giving out enough trophies for 30th place

   I think it will quickly become obvious for Open, when you cancel qualifying or end up with 10 people on "Top 20 day" due to lack of entrants. And you still have to show up on Sunday or Monday for appearance judging, futz around all week waiting for Friday, and have most people spend 2 weeks of travel to get 2 flights.

    Brett

Brett

Your gloom n doom scenario above is just your opinion on what will be ,based on what you want it to be ,to fit your feelings about Expert being added. I know you would like people to believe this and kill it before it is ran. No One here is a seer soothsayer or has a crystal ball, WE are trying to help get more people flying model airplane and generate more interest in P/A.

You say we will have only 30 in Advanced?? we had about 21 flying Advanced this year, if a few leave to go to Expert, and , as you say money keeps others away, where will the 30 come from you say will fly?
The fact we had only 21 people flying Advanced is a good reason to take the top 10, as we wrote up in the proposal.

You say we will only have about 15 to 25 Open pilots flying? who are the 30 who will leave and give up their shot at the Walker fly off and the top 5 fly off??
I do not see that will happen at all, maybe a couple will leave to fly Expert, that is OK, Expert will also  naturally ,start to provide more pilots into OPEN  as they want to move up into competing for the Top 5 flyoff and a shot at the Walker Cup Trophy

As far as putzing around and wasting time in qualifying for days, that has already happened, this year, without my proposal in effect. We only had about 21 Advanced guys that actually flew,(has gloom n doom already happened?) and we qualified the to the top 20.  this was not done this way for any money, time, or percentage of numbers reason.
It was decided years ago to have 2 qualifying days so that pilots would NOT have 1 flight and then have to go home. It was thought out that it would be better to give them at least 2 rounds of flying before the finals.
If you have any ideas on how to try to increase our numbers and get more flying please tell us, write it up make a proposal on other ways to do this.
I proposed about 3 things to do, to help increase our numbers to the PAMPA EC when I was at the meeting, at the NATs, I think they are going to do all three items suggested, I hope sincerely that they work. If not we are in dire need of ones that will.

If it is inevitable that money the economy and attrition along with non interest from young people doom our event, then nothing will prevent this and it is all a moot point, I for one would rather keep trying, rather than just waiting around, doing nothing, to see.
Trying things that may help and doing **something**  is far better than doing ***nothing**  , as we already know what doing nothing will do.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Crist Rigotti on July 28, 2012, 08:24:49 AM
Crist

Many flew Advanced because there was no Expert being flown, and they did not want to fly Open where they felt not competitive.'If you are a local Expert, you should fly Expert.. There is no difference in PAMPA skill classes at local or NATs, besides maybe a numbers difference

Randy

Randy,
I agree that what you flew at local contests, you should fly at the Nats, I wanted to be sure it was clear.  There was a time where that kind of thinking wasn't the way the Nats were run.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Gordan Delaney on July 28, 2012, 08:36:42 AM
I thought if your flying open your are an expert flyer. And if your flying expert you should compete in open. So why add another event. Let them build there own planes. If they don`t know how let them fly advance. Just my thoughts ABOUT THIS. Why did`nt the members vote on this instead of the board members?

Gordy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 28, 2012, 10:07:19 AM
Brett

Your gloom n doom scenario above is just your opinion on what will be ,based on what you want it to be ,to fit your feelings about Expert being added. I know you would like people to believe this and kill it before it is ran. No One here is a seer soothsayer or has a crystal ball, WE are trying to help get more people flying model airplane and generate more interest in P/A.

   Right, as mentioned, I got that the first 20 times you ignored my point. You got your way, no need to continue trying to convince me or the many other people who disagree. And yes, doom and gloom, I am well established as a moron who doesn't known anything or care about the event, and I have certainly never been able to accurately evaluate future developments, so quite right to disregard the issue. You know us overly emotional types.

     Back to the format. And bear in mind I am not trying to argue with you, but to understand the theory. So we are going have a separate competition (regardless of which class it is) that has two days full days of qualifying to winnow it down to 20 - even if there are only 21 entrants? Or 15? Or 7? What happens of someone passes all 4 flights, do they go through anyway?  I would note that we don't currently guarantee 4 flights, one year we only had two and another three.

     I think it will be necessary to reformat the contest as you find out how many people show up for the various classes.

 *IF* you are going to take 20 on Top 20 day regardless, then it seems clear that you probably want to maintain the same 4 circle format with the classes mixed and evenly distributed.  That way you avoid a severe imbalance if one of the classes is disproportionately small and it doesn't matter how many show up for each class. So this way is immune to the imbalance issue (which is why it got put back that way in 2004).

 *IF* you are going to split the circles (two groups of two combined classes, and two groups of the third class), you probably have to decide "on the fly" which groups fly together. Say it's exactly even - 20-20-20. That makes the decision easy but you can't  (OK, probably don't want to) do as Keith suggests and keep them ADV/EXP and Open entirely separate, because whoever gets tagged to judge ADV/EXP has two very long days, and those tagged for Open are done at noon (both groups for flights that mean nothing competition-wise anyway). At the very least you want to use two of the circles for ADV/EXP on the first day, then flip it for the second day. The same applies to any other grouping.    If you have a significant imbalance (say, 20-40-20) the you have to combine ADV and Open and then fly EXP by itself to even it out.

     Point being you can't know the ideal grouping before you get to the contest and if you lock yourself in beforehand you can wind up with a lot of work for basically no effect.

   I think in rather short order it will become obvious that you don't want to always take 20 entrants for the Finals (Top 20 day) in classes that only have 22, or 15, or 10, or whatever entrants. Presuming that we set some sort of threshold (75%,  evenly divisible by 2 or 4 maybe) that means that you DO want to fly a class in two groups, not four - otherwise you have the "quantization" problem. So you take the two smallest classes and fly them combined on two circles and take the top half of the finalists from each, then the third larger class on two different circles I still think you want to flip the circles on the qualification days.

   I won't belabor the next obvious step.

    Brett

   

 
     

   
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 28, 2012, 10:18:17 AM
Hi Gordy,

The fact is, there are "local" Experts who fly in Advanced at the NATS.  And don't always win......  There is such a diversity of flying abilities and numbers of pilots across the country that these things happen.

On the West Coast, there exists what I have always called a "Masters" class.  The top of the Expert class in those regions is far and above what "Experts" might be in my region.  At least when it comes to the number of those who could win (and have won) the Walker trophy at any given year.

Open at the NATS would be the equivalent of a MASTERS class locally (which, of course, doesn't exist).

Giving local Experts a class to fly in at the NATS is simply like adding Advanced years ago.  It gives more people a class where they can actually compete.  And it takes local Experts out of the Advanced class at the NATS.  This could actually increase the number of pilots willing to take the trip.  NO ONE knows FOR SURE what the effects will be, and it isn't "irreversible".

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 28, 2012, 10:31:58 AM
I thought if your flying open your are an expert flyer. And if your flying expert you should compete in open. So why add another event. Let them build there own planes.

   OOOH, weren't supposed to mention that one! Another doom and gloomer.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 28, 2012, 10:44:19 AM
   OOOH, weren't supposed to mention that one! Another doom and gloomer.

    Brett

HI Brett,

I really do not understand the "Us versus Them" side you are taking.  Do you REALLY believe this action was taken to eliminate the BOM at the NATS?

I do not even see the BOM as a point in this discussion.  I believe there will be less impact of that single point than anything else involved in the proposal.

Let's say I was flying Expert at the local contests around here.  I get to fly 3 or 4 contests a year and most of the other Experts are near my level.  Am I going to spend a couple thousand dollars to leave home for over a week and go through  the grind of a NATS week just to fly the qualifying rounds in Open?  Oh, yeah, I am supposed to fly more, get better and then be able to compete with you, Doug, Paul, Derek, Bob, Kaz, Bill, etc..  What if that is not a physical possibility?  As in no place to actually practice on a regular basis?  This scenario is more prevalent than you can imagine.  There are very few areas in the country that provides the facilities with in driving distance that you are able to partake of.  It is not always a matter of building the model.  I've been doing that for over 50 years.

Lets go back to the argument over ST .60s versus pipes, it makes more sense.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Gordan Delaney on July 28, 2012, 10:46:07 AM
HI Bill,

Thats my point. If there expert flyers at local contest but not up to The Master class as you called it. I fill they should fly advance at the nats.

Food for thought.

Gordy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 11:04:50 AM
" Back to the format. And bear in mind I am not trying to argue with you, but to understand the theory. So we are going have a separate competition (regardless of which class it is) that has two days full days of qualifying to winnow it down to 20 - even if there are only 21 entrants? Or 15? Or 7? What happens of someone passes all 4 flights, do they go through anyway?  I would note that we don't currently guarantee 4 flights, one year we only had two and another three. "

Brett

That is what happened this year, and It had nothing to do with me. Or this proposal,  Advanced had about 21 pilots flying to qualify 20. Again  I suggested on next year this would go to 10, Expert would go to 10, and Open will be the 20 we normally do, If your predictions come to pass and only 15 sign up for the NATs, we will have to deal with that, and we will be seeing the end happening of our event.

I didn't win anything, if this works all PAMPA members and pilots win, if we go down to less than 20 open flyers, and less than that in advanced then we will be in BIG trouble and it doesn't matter  what format we use.

On your other point again your wrong.. I never said we gaureentee 4 flights, 4 flights are they way we run the NATs, only when bad things happen does that go away. Normally we do get in 4 flights.

It boils down to trying to improve things and get more interest in the NATs and C/L stunt in general, or just sitting around and watching it die off.  I choose to try to do something. To your other statement, no one  has said your a moron, or don't care about the event , I know you care very much about our event. We just have a differant opinion

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 11:11:47 AM
I thought if your flying open your are an expert flyer. And if your flying expert you should compete in open. So why add another event. Let them build there own planes. If they don`t know how let them fly advance. Just my thoughts ABOUT THIS. Why did`nt the members vote on this instead of the board members?

Gordy

Gordy

If you read the thread I have explained how this works in PAMPA look up a few posts and you will see it. Your  EC Rep voted for you, that is what they are there for.
Also many cannot fly Advanced, they are those who have won advanced and are not allowed to fly there, but are not ready to fly, or do not want to fly OPEN, There are also other reasons why one would want to fly Expert.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 28, 2012, 11:50:34 AM
I thought if your flying open your are an expert flyer. And if your flying expert you should compete in open. So why add another event. Let them build there own planes. If they don`t know how let them fly advance. Just my thoughts ABOUT THIS. Why did`nt the members vote on this instead of the board members?

Gordy
Well Gordon,
You certainly have a point.  However I believe this is just a roundabout way of establishing a Masters class that flys for the Walker Cup.  I believe that is a good thing and I think it has a potential to increase attendance at the Nationals.  I don't understand why it wasn't just established that way, but then I'm a terrible politician.   I don't like the idea of not building you own airplane either and certainly I will build mine.  If someone is willing to give up 15 to 20 points per flight I can't see him (or her) being competitive at that level anyway.  But they will get to fly, which is important to a lot of folks.

I sincerely hope things are going well for you!  Hope to see you here in Tucson...maybe in the fall?

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 28, 2012, 11:54:33 AM
HI Bill,

Thats my point. If there expert flyers at local contest but not up to The Master class as you called it. I fill they should fly advance at the nats.

Food for thought.

Gordy

Hi Gordie,

The local Experts have been flying Advanced at the NATS.  That leaves the true Advanced pilots at a disadvantage.  If they cannot beat the local Experts in local contests how will they at the NATS?  If the local Advanced pilots drop to Intermediate, where do the Intermediate pilots go?  Adding Expert at least helps to put people in the skill class where they actually belong.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 28, 2012, 12:12:25 PM
Hi Gordie,

The local Experts have been flying Advanced at the NATS.  That leaves the true Advanced pilots at a disadvantage.  If they cannot beat the local Experts in local contests how will they at the NATS?  If the local Advanced pilots drop to Intermediate, where do the Intermediate pilots go?  Adding Expert at least helps to put people in the skill class where they actually belong.

Bill

Hooray for you Bill...I tried to express that earlier but didn't do a good job.  You made it crystal clear.
I can't understand what all the objections are about?

Brett...because of your attitude we've decided not to let you fly in the "Expert Class".   LL~ LL~ LL~ H^^

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 28, 2012, 12:15:15 PM
I really do not understand the "Us versus Them" side you are taking.  Do you REALLY believe this action was taken to eliminate the BOM at the NATS?

     No, I don't think that it was the intent to get rid of the BOM. I think that it will result in the elimination of Open as redundant in relatively short order regardless of the intent -  because it wasn't thought through carefully. The intent appears to be as stated - to try to gen up attendance. I think it's an over-reaction that several people have expressed that we have to *do something*, *right now!*, *it's all going away if we don't do something*. A major reason that attendance is falling off is that a lot of the die-hards from the West (PNW, California, AZ), typically 10-15ish or more people, have simply worn out on the 6 days of driving on a regular basis. In the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. As accurately predicted in about 1997.

    When it turns out, in a few years, that attendance is only marginally enhanced and that one or the other event (Open or Expert) is redundant, the one that will go is Open.  Then there will be a massive push to keep awarding the Walker Trophy to the winner of Expert. Bear in mind, we have already had people, intelligent people, seriously suggest that we add the Advanced winner to the Walker Flyoff. It's a much shorter leap to either include Expert, and it's almost not leap at all to award it to the Expert winner. Particular when it's at least possible that some former winners will be flying Expert because it allows their Yatsenko plane.

   I know that everybody says that will never be permitted but this incident shows that any idea might be adopted regardless of whether it's a good idea or not.


Quote
Let's say I was flying Expert at the local contests around here.  I get to fly 3 or 4 contests a year and most of the other Experts are near my level.  Am I going to spend a couple thousand dollars to leave home for over a week and go through  the grind of a NATS week just to fly the qualifying rounds in Open?  Oh, yeah, I am supposed to fly more, get better and then be able to compete with you, Doug, Paul, Derek, Bob, Kaz, Bill, etc..  What if that is not a physical possibility?  As in no place to actually practice on a regular basis?  This scenario is more prevalent than you can imagine.  There are very few areas in the country that provides the facilities with in driving distance that you are able to partake of.  It is not always a matter of building the model.  I've been doing that for over 50 years.

Lets go back to the argument over ST .60s versus pipes, it makes more sense.

   I don't know what you are getting at with any of this. Or do you think that because someone else voted on it, the rest of us no longer have a right to comment?  Like 2004? That didn't work out too well, as I recall.

    I also don't know why you are discussing "no place to actually practice on a regular basis" with me of all people. My nearest permanent site is 88 miles from my house through the worst traffic in the country, bare minimum an hour and 45 minutes on a weekday and usually more like 2 hours, 2 hours 15 minutes. That's to get in maybe 6 but more likely 4 flights for an entire lost work day. I fly maybe 20 practice flights a year outside contest weekends. I am not complaining about it, I make do, but I don't need a primer on the topic.

    I note that the burden of the "Grind" of attending the NATs from North Carolina doesn't really resonate that well, either. It's one very easy day of driving (~600 miles)  I have driven further than that for for a one-day contest and returned the same day. Same with almost everyone involved with this change, it's what we call a local contest.

   And in any case it seems that you will get a full 3 days/6 rounds in any case since the qualifying will be held whether it is needed or not, so it doesn't appear to change much of anything in terms of the value you receive for your investment. On the other hand, a lot of the rest of the likely "added attendance" is looking at 6 very hard days of driving (averaging 800 miles+ a day), 2 weeks of lost vacation or wages, show up on Sunday for a contest with no competition until Friday. Oh, and have to compete in conditions for which we have no reasonable way to prepare. Again I am not complaining but I don't need to hear about burdens. I work for a living too, and the current situation costs me something over $10000 if you count the value of the vacation days. $20000 if you count the TT.

    I am not angry about the change to add Expert. I think it is a big mistake, but we have made mistakes before. I will admit it if, in 10 years or so after it sorts itself out, I prove to be wrong.  I am getting a little irritated about the attempts to stifle discussion of the topic by accusing me of not understanding the issue or not caring or not having a stake in the results, and introducing side issues.

  I was only discussing the format options, I know we are going to have Expert whether I think it's a good idea or not.

   Brett

   
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 28, 2012, 12:31:53 PM
Brett,

My comment to you was NOT an attempt to stifle discussion.  If I had wanted to stifle discussion I would not have asked for you position.

In this matter I will have to disagree that it will automatically end Open in a matter of a few short years.

I don't know YOUR situation about being able to practice.  I also wasn't aware of you traveling from the southern part of NC to Muncie.  I have done it a few times, and boy do I wish it only took  "an easy 6 hours".  Of course it is not the time and effort you must make.  But that doesn't diminish what effort it does take.  I also do not believe you understand the situation across the country.  Yes, I am jealous of the West Coast when it comes to flying facilities and the amount of talent there.  And the fact that many areas can fly year round.  And yes, none of this is crucial to the argument.

I do agree that the economic situation is probably more crucial to all participation in all areas than any other singular point.

I respect your opinion, but I cannot agree with the overall scenario you predict.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Larry Fernandez on July 28, 2012, 12:39:40 PM
" it's the cost and the travel time "

I'm yet to be convinced of that point.


Sorry P J, I completely disagree with you here. For myself and MANY west coast fliers, it IS a matter of cost and travel time.
Its been ten years since I've been to the NATs. As much as I wish to attend, the costs and time off have made it impossible to make it.

I know it will never happen, but attendance would increase if the NAT's were rotated around other parts of the country.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 28, 2012, 12:44:25 PM

That is what happened this year, and It had nothing to do with me. Or this proposal,  Advanced had about 21 pilots flying to qualify 20. Again  I suggested on next year this would go to 10, Expert would go to 10, and Open will be the 20 we normally do, If your predictions come to pass and only 15 sign up for the NATs, we will have to deal with that, and we will be seeing the end happening of our event.

    All I think is that we needn't try to hasten it. If we are trying to deal with declining numbers I can't see how splitting it up further solves the problem. By the way, I expect that for a few years it may work out the way you intended until the new people wear out from the effort.

    But my comment is not about the wisdom of this plan, it's about how to deal with the format changes based on likely attendance. It makes sense to have a plan that is flexible enough to accommodate the several possible variations. That's why, for instance, I would suggest that we come up with some sort of plan to determine how many go into "Top 20 Day" ahead of time. I suggested 75% of the field or 20 people, whichever is less, rounded off to the nearest multiple of 2 or 4 (depending on how you distribute the classes in the circles). A 4-circle distribution always evens the work load, but creates a serious problem with "quantization" with less that 20 competitors. A 2-circle distribution solves that as well as possible, but then creates an imbalance in some cases.

   For example, with your 21 Advanced fliers, it would have been 16 people on "Top 20 day" and you would have taken 4 people from each circle instead of 5. 10 wouldn't have worked, you can't take 2.5 people from each circle,you could have made it 3 from each for 12. If you had run Advanced on 2 circles, you could have had 7 from each.
  
    If you lock yourself in to a fixed format you can end up with a very sub-optimal workload situation, or a very flaky and prone-to-error qualification results.

  This may seem like the usual sort of thing that we deal with at local contests all the time (like, which circles have which classes) but bear in mind that if you are planning on using something akin to the current software, it will have to deal with all this, and preferably be tested to show that it can deal with the flexibility. That has been a very severe issue with most variations of the software used to date. It may well be that you have to use software to generate the scoresheets and tabulate, but not necessarily keep track of the scores, groupings, and judge assignments. Might have to do that by hand.

   I am trying to apply some analysis to the format issue based on the same principles we have had, and my fairly extensive observations of the process from close at hand over the years. It is intended to help, despite my misgivings.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 28, 2012, 12:50:54 PM
Sorry P J, I completely disagree with you here. For myself and MANY west coast fliers, it IS a matter of cost and travel time.
Its been ten years since I've been to the NATs. As much as I wish to attend, the costs and time off have made it impossible to make it.

I know it will never happen, but attendance would increase if the NAT's were rotated around other parts of the country.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

On this I agree!
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 28, 2012, 12:54:27 PM
No mathematical formula will work as you don't know how many will enter at this time. So coming up with anything is simply speculation on past numbers. It could increase or it could decrease but at this time my Crystal ball is not working.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 28, 2012, 01:06:51 PM
No mathematical formula will work as you don't know how many will enter at this time. So coming up with anything is simply speculation on past numbers.

   ??  Deciding ahead of time what fraction of the field will qualify is simple. And important, if you are going to use software to aid in running the contest, you darn well better think through the variations. This not the sort of thing you can invent between close of entries on Sunday at noon and appearance judging on Monday afternoon. You can't predict the entries but you can have a plan on how to deal with whatever you get.

    Brett

   
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 28, 2012, 01:08:33 PM
No mathematical formula will work as you don't know how many will enter at this time. So coming up with anything is simply speculation on past numbers. It could increase or it could decrease but at this time my Crystal ball is not working.

Well...
We could require advance entry for Expert and Open.  Most of the big contests around the country do this.  Certainly VSC requires it and it's never been a problem.
OK...why won't that work???

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 28, 2012, 01:11:45 PM
Well...
We could require advance entry for Expert and Open.  Most of the big contests around the country do this.  Certainly VSC requires it and it's never been a problem.
OK...why won't that work???

   It would solve the planning problem. And eliminate a number of people who won't or can't commit to attending until after the cutoff. I think even I have only pre-registered a few times because I can never know whether or not I am can go a month out. I think in a usual year something like 25% or more do not pre-register.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 28, 2012, 01:20:29 PM
  ??  Deciding ahead of time what fraction of the field will qualify is simple. And important, if you are going to use software to aid in running the contest, you darn well better think through the variations. This not the sort of thing you can invent between close of entries on Sunday at noon and appearance judging on Monday afternoon. You can't predict the entries but you can have a plan on how to deal with whatever you get.

    Brett

    

What a meant by this is, lest say you have predetermined that only 10 will pass to next round and 60 show up? I guess you can have a sliding scale of people passing to the next round.

As you stated and I misunderstood.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 28, 2012, 01:21:03 PM
   It would solve the planning problem. And eliminate a number of people who won't or can't commit to attending until after the cutoff. I think even I have only pre-registered a few times because I can never know whether or not I am can go a month out. I think in a usual year something like 25% or more do not pre-register.

    Brett

Well,
I said "REQUIRE".  I realize that it's a commitment but for the few that had to opt out at the last minute entry fees could be returned.  We do that for VSC.
At least it would allow planning to take place.  Very few of the pre-entries for VSC do not show up.

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 28, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
 
(Clip)
    When it turns out, in a few years, that attendance is only marginally enhanced and that one or the other event (Open or Expert) is redundant, the one that will go is Open. 

(Clip)
   
        I am not angry about the change to add Expert. I think it is a big mistake, but we have made mistakes before. I will admit it if, in 10 years or so after it sorts itself out, I prove to be wrong.  I am getting a little irritated about the attempts to stifle discussion of the topic by accusing me of not understanding the issue or not caring or not having a stake in the results, and introducing side issues.

  I was only discussing the format options, I know we are going to have Expert whether I think it's a good idea or not.

   Brett   

Brett,

One thing that you and others have suggested is that if Expert is added to the schedule, that action will eventually lead to the elimination of the Open event.  I do not see the logic to that.  As long as we have any BOM rule for CLPA, there will be an Open event.  That is why we have Event 322 at the Nats now.  Without a BOM requirement, then Event 322 is no different than the current skill classes except for recognition that there are Junior and Senior  age categories, and the participation numbers there certainly do not warrant their continuation except for the tradition of Event 322 and the Walker Cup flyoff.  Please do not misunderstand, where others seem prone to do, I am NOT advocating the elimination of Event 322, or the BOM rule, or the idea of of eliminating the BOM rule to be eligible for the Walker Cup.


If this idea about adding Expert to the schedule does not work and it is obvious that any adjustment to make it work is not practical, then I will be among the first to stand up and say it did not work, let's scrap the idea.  It should probably not take more than a couple of years so to figure that out.  (I felt the same way about the initial idea of adding skill classes at the Nats, but the whole concept of skill classes, including having them at the Nats has been one of the factors for the continued success of CLPA , at least compared to other CL events, locally, across the nation, and at the Nats.  Now, we are really only expanding the schedule to include Expert which overall has been a positive thing for the past 30 plus years.)

I do not think it will take several years to sort itself out.  Given the current situation with diminished entries, I think we need to make some adjustments now given the entry level experienced the last several years.  This probably will not change dramatically until the economy turns around.  (Another side issue is that over the years, I think we can track PAMPA membership as well as Nats participation with the health of our economy.  Oh, and PAMPA membership is entirely dependent on having a robust newletter.  But, those are items for other discussions.)

Brett, I for one, and I think everyone on these forums respect your (and "others") concerns and thoughts on this.  I do not think, however, that the arguments you hear to support the idea are attempts to stifle your input on this.   It has been posted here that to some it appears there are those who are at the apex of the Nats Champion contenders' list appear are not able to comprehend why others not in that category might be interested in competing at the Nats, either in the Advanced or Expert events.  I know you abhor the charge of elitist, as I do, but there are suggestions to that effect.

I can fully appreciate that adding anything new to the Nats format represents additional work to the organizers.  I can appreciate the daunting task to even start getting ready to organize and run the Nats, but this addition of Expert at the Nats does not seem to be much more of a change or adjustment that should probably be needed anyway given the number of entries, particularly this year.  As proposed, this is a step to make maybe a necessary adjustment.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: John Lindberg on July 28, 2012, 01:36:35 PM
It seems like AMA should allow the Nats to move around the country, at least maybe the Team Trials, after all, you have the one man who probably knows more about running a contest than anyone else, that is, Warren Tiahart, , living in the Southwest. It really is ALOT for the West Coast guys to show up. And they have contributed alot over the years! As far as manpower goes, the fliers in the Northwaest run a pretty big contest now.  H^^
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 01:45:33 PM
   All I think is that we needn't try to hasten it. If we are trying to deal with declining numbers I can't see how splitting it up further solves the problem. By the way, I expect that for a few years it may work out the way you intended until the new people wear out from the effort.

    But my comment is not about the wisdom of this plan, it's about how to deal with the format changes based on likely attendance. It makes sense to have a plan that is flexible enough to accommodate the several possible variations. That's why, for instance, I would suggest that we come up with some sort of plan to determine how many go into "Top 20 Day" ahead of time. I suggested 75% of the field or 20 people, whichever is less, rounded off to the nearest multiple of 2 or 4 (depending on how you distribute the classes in the circles). A 4-circle distribution always evens the work load, but creates a serious problem with "quantization" with less that 20 competitors. A 2-circle distribution solves that as well as possible, but then creates an imbalance in some cases.

   For example, with your 21 Advanced fliers, it would have been 16 people on "Top 20 day" and you would have taken 4 people from each circle instead of 5. 10 wouldn't have worked, you can't take 2.5 people from each circle,you could have made it 3 from each for 12. If you had run Advanced on 2 circles, you could have had 7 from each.
  
    If you lock yourself in to a fixed format you can end up with a very sub-optimal workload situation, or a very flaky and prone-to-error qualification results.

  This may seem like the usual sort of thing that we deal with at local contests all the time (like, which circles have which classes) but bear in mind that if you are planning on using something akin to the current software, it will have to deal with all this, and preferably be tested to show that it can deal with the flexibility. That has been a very severe issue with most variations of the software used to date. It may well be that you have to use software to generate the scoresheets and tabulate, but not necessarily keep track of the scores, groupings, and judge assignments. Might have to do that by hand.

   I am trying to apply some analysis to the format issue based on the same principles we have had, and my fairly extensive observations of the process from close at hand over the years. It is intended to help, despite my misgivings.

    Brett

Brett
You keep saying this was not well thought out, NOT so , It was very well thought out, The suggested format was just that, "suggested"  I Told The EC that ,in the meeting, and It will work just fine if we do not face numbers under 20, I believe we will get many more than that.
It is also silly to think I would run 4 circles with 10 or 15 total also, 2 would be the logical way to do that, and that is what would be the way it's done.
It was NOT my place to mandate that PAMPA uses my criteria.
So Brett, it is not my place, nor our intention to force the NATs ED to use the exact criteria we suggested, If another fits better, so be it. I have no problem with that.
You are correct, someone did need to think about how, and what we do, I did this, and talked it over with several others. The program we use now could be used as is if we had too, and if the bottom falls out and we get a pitiful attendance, it still can be used even if it was just used to generate forms, if the attendance is that tiny, it won't make that much of a difference anyway, and it will have nothing to do with this proposal.
Also, about the days to qualify, the PAMPA  EC, in a previous discussion , made the call to run 2 days of qualifying, I can explain that here, but Ted has done so many times over the years, They wanted to NOT have someone drive 1500 miles, and then go home after an 8 min flight.

The AMA does have pre registering and we will have a good clue as to how many we have, before the NATs. I have no doubt that if a change is needed the ED will be able to handle that with little problem. We are not changing the format much at all, we are just adding 1 additional class to the same format, same number of circles, same number of days, same number of judges, and on finals, no more than the same number of flights.

I still believe the "likely attendace" will be as many or more than this year, so if that holds, we have no problems of running it as described, Trying to beat me over the head about what could happen with no one showing has very little to do with this, and thinking that what we proposed had to be ran by the ED is carved in stone is not the case.
Not that I think it would not be a large problem, but if what you are predicting comes true, and we get less than the numbers from this year, then we need prayers , cause I know of nothing else to try.
If the numbers increase , then maybe we need to keep thinking of ways to keep it that way, and not let them fall back.

As I said, I am all ears to you or anyone who wants to put forth any ideas to help with the declining problem.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 02:10:17 PM
"I am not angry about the change to add Expert. I think it is a big mistake, but we have made mistakes before. I will admit it if, in 10 years or so after it sorts itself out, I prove to be wrong.  I am getting a little irritated about the attempts to stifle discussion of the topic by accusing me of not understanding the issue or not caring or not having a stake in the results, and introducing side issues. "

Brett

Who has done that? I have not seen that.  you and anyone else are free to discuss this, no one is telling you anything to the contrary.

However when you post that so and so happened, or so and so did not think things thru, or say this will happen, I am free to add my input also, Some of the things you posted about how and why and what was discussed or thought out, I can state for facts, other may not know the facts.  Also when people mischaracterize things about this, and I know better, I will state that too.

and again no one is accusing you of not caring about the event, and not wanting it to succeed, we just seem to have a difference of opinion.

Randy



Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 28, 2012, 02:16:33 PM
OK, I will now recuse myself from further comments on this subject.  After all, my name will never go on any NATS Trophy, so my interests are evidently a moot point.

Thanks!
Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 28, 2012, 02:23:35 PM
OK, I will now recuse myself from further comments on this subject.  After all, my name will never go on any NATS Trophy, so my interests are evidently a moot point.

Thanks!
Bill

Bill,

You should not trivialize your input.  If you never intend to attend the Nats, or if you have no interest in what goes on at the Nats, then sure, why bother.  But you are a student and seem to care about CLPA in general and the Nats, among other things, in particular, so yes, your opinions count.  Contrary to what some have charged in the past, there are no elitists in this fraternity.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 28, 2012, 02:49:41 PM
After all, my name will never go on any NATS Trophy, so my interests are evidently a moot point.

Thanks!
Bill

Now Bill, were not going to have none of that. Get off your keester, get busy with that 72 big block, you get out there, and make them wish they were never born!! :)
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 28, 2012, 03:00:41 PM

Brett, I for one, and I think everyone on these forums respect your (and "others") concerns and thoughts on this.  I do not think, however, that the arguments you hear to support the idea are attempts to stifle your input on this.   It has been posted here that to some it appears there are those who are at the apex of the Nats Champion contenders' list appear are not able to comprehend why others not in that category might be interested in competing at the Nats, either in the Advanced or Expert events.  I know you abhor the charge of elitist, as I do, but there are suggestions to that effect.

    Oh, now we are on that? You are acting on and accusing me of elitism on the assumption that my goal is to keep Expert out for personal emotional reasons, and I am coming up with bizarre excuses to justify it. I assure you, my reason is exactly and entirely what I stated above - that you are creating what will be, obviously to me, a redundant category and by doing so, making it more-or-less certain that Open will go away as soon as it becomes obvious to everyone else.

 J/S/O is perfectly inclusive, there is no distinction between skill levels of the participants, and everyone has exactly the same opportunity to end up the National Champion and a Walker Trophy. Creating EXP at the Nats creates a category that absolutely prevents someone winning the National Championship (given that it means that 1st place in Expert is 25th overall) and absolutely prevents someone from winning the Walker Trophy (because they will never get a chance to fly for it by rule).

    Which approach creates barriers to the big prize by making class distinctions and permits a, dare I say it, "Elite" category? Half the responses here talk about "Masters" class.

     Repetitively stating that "This WILL happen, it was a 10:1 vote" is exactly and precisely a statement that this is no longer debatable and that everyone shall just go along without comments by decree, i.e. "Brett and Ted, shut the hell up".  Either that, or it's rubbing our noses in the fact that our argument didn't carry the day. The fact that no one seems to be able to distinguish between discussion of the wisdom of the idea VS the implications and possible solutions to the fairly obvious logistical issues is clear in the completely non-responsive comments. 

    My recent comments have largely addressed the logistics and planning aspects of this, and possible approaches to dealing with it without having to "wing it" at the last minute. What I have gotten back is "You don't understand, we have already agreed to have Expert"  - a fact which I am not debating. It's not a good idea but I see that we are going to go ahead with it anyway.


   But since you asked - I will try again to explain why it seems like a bad idea.

    Suppose you end up with maybe 20 EXP and 20 Open competitors, ignore ADV. I expect there will be a bump the first few years.  That's more than the total entry this year in Open, so maybe mission accomplished. Are you going to take 10 people qualifying from each?  Fine - we are now cutting out half the field during qualifying. We still have 20 people total on Friday, half the field for the Walker flyoff, and roughly the same workload, but twice the number of trophies, double the administration.
 
   Of course, you could do as suggested above and still take 20 for "Top 20 Day" regardless of the entries. Now you *have* doubled every workload and made Qualifying a fun-fly/practice session.

    Suppose, as I expect, in a few years you have more-or-less 15-15 people in each? It won't take long before someone notices that EXP and Open look redundant, or at least excessive. Add to that the possibility that there will be former National Champs flying Expert because they didn't build their own airplane, and it looks even more like that. Creating a class that takes your 30 people and puts them in one class together makes eminent sense.

At that point, the debate is which class to get rid of. You and Randy say you won't let it be Open, and if you think I am an elitist, wait till hear what you get called for eliminating people from competition because the airplane they bought to fly in the established Expert class is now going to be excluded. You think the anti-modeling crowd is aggressive beyond their numbers now, just wait the blood gets in the water from this one.

     You clearly don't see it (or maybe you do...), but this appears to be a one-way decision, it's not reversible in any practical way. At best it's a transition state until the contest is strictly skill-classes with maybe a "Best Junior" and "Best Senior" picked out of it.

  Another thing- the underlying theory is that there are a significant number of expert fliers that don't come to the NATs because they are uncompetitive in Open and they won't enter advanced, and that splitting it off gives them a category. Who does this attract? People who are only willing to go to the greatest contest in the world if they have a chance of winning something. They can participate now, just enter Open, so it must be about prizes. Which is exactly what you are accusing me of for some reason.

     I haul my butt cross-country every time I can and I *know* that my chances aren't that good most of the time. I enjoyed the experience even the year I crashed before the first flight of qualifying and finished 55th. Hardly that I "appear are not able to comprehend why others not in that category might be interested in competing at the Nats", I would say. I don't appreciate the implications - I don't have to prove my dedication or seriousness about this event to anyone, not even you.

    I also note that I was on the hook to be the ED in 2014 and 2015, but can't commit ahead of time that far right now. So I am hardly a casual observer/straphanger on the topic of the operation of the NATs. 

     I am actually trying to think through the issues that this decision (and yes, please don't tell me again that it is some immutable truth, I am well aware of it) and trying to offer some way of assisting the planning in lieu of me actually doing it. i would be happy to stick with that topic but everyone keeps trying instead to convince me it is a good idea instead.

     Brett

   

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 28, 2012, 03:26:47 PM
Bill,

You should not trivialize your input.  If you never intend to attend the Nats, or if you have no interest in what goes on at the Nats, then sure, why bother.  But you are a student and seem to care about CLPA in general and the Nats, among other things, in particular, so yes, your opinions count.  Contrary to what some have charged in the past, there are no elitists in this fraternity.

Keith

HI Keith,

I have flown at a couple NATS and intend to do so again.  Probably more of a help to Aaron than just my participation.  I do entirely love CLPA and I am very interested in what happens at the NATS.  I have been a columnist for Stunt News and a District Director.  I DO care.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 03:27:13 PM
" Quote from: Trostle on July 28, 2012, 03:21:47 PM


Brett, I for one, and I think everyone on these forums respect your (and "others") concerns and thoughts on this.  I do not think, however, that the arguments you hear to support the idea are attempts to stifle your input on this.   It has been posted here that to some it appears there are those who are at the apex of the Nats Champion contenders' list appear are not able to comprehend why others not in that category might be interested in competing at the Nats, either in the Advanced or Expert events.  I know you abhor the charge of elitist, as I do, but there are suggestions to that effect. "


    Oh, now we are on that? You are acting on and accusing me of elitism on the assumption that my goal is to keep Expert out for personal emotional reasons, and I am coming up with bizarre excuses to justify it. I assure you, my reason is exactly and entirely what I stated above - that you are creating what will be, obviously to me, a redundant category and by doing so, making it more-or-less certain that Open will go away as soon as it becomes obvious to everyone else.

Brett please go back and read that again. That is NOT what Keith was saying, at least I did not read it that way, I do not know of anyone that is accusing you of being and Elitist,  

 J/S/O is perfectly inclusive, there is no distinction between skill levels of the participants, and everyone has exactly the same opportunity to end up the National Champion and a Walker Trophy. Creating EXP at the Nats creates a category that absolutely prevents someone winning the National Championship (given that it means that 1st place in Expert is 25th overall) and absolutely prevents someone from winning the Walker Trophy (because they will never get a chance to fly for it by rule).

Sorry Not correct The Expert winner will be the Expert Nats Champ, and will have a separate Trophy of his own. They will not be 25th in Open either, that is a stretch.

    Which approach creates barriers to the big prize by making class distinctions and permits a, dare I say it, "Elite" category? Half the responses here talk about "Masters" class.

To be clear when I say Masters, I am referring to what I believe, and that is OPEN has Master Modelers, and It takes a Master Modeler to win at that Level. It has nothing to do with Eliteism

     Repetitively stating that "This WILL happen, it was a 10:1 vote" is exactly and precisely a statement that this is no longer debatable and that everyone shall just go along without comments by decree, i.e. "Brett and Ted, shut the hell up".  Either that, or it's rubbing our noses in the fact that our argument didn't carry the day. The fact that no one seems to be able to distinguish between discussion of the wisdom of the idea VS the implications and possible solutions to the fairly obvious logistical issues is clear in the completely non-responsive comments.  

No One has told you or Ted to shut up, and if you would read the replies, the logistical issues have been address, just because all of the possible scenarios suggested don't all fit one solution doesn;t mean this can't be handled.
Also this does NOT create double work, double circles, double time, or double admintration problems nor does it require double people to run this. It is basically the same.
 



Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Douglas Ames on July 28, 2012, 03:32:34 PM
Sorry P J, I completely disagree with you here. For myself and MANY west coast fliers, it IS a matter of cost and travel time.
Its been ten years since I've been to the NATs. As much as I wish to attend, the costs and time off have made it impossible to make it.

I know it will never happen, but attendance would increase if the NAT's were rotated around other parts of the country. Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

Now there's a concept!! How about each District host the Nats on a rotating basis?
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 28, 2012, 03:44:50 PM
Now there's a concept!! How about each District host the Nats on a rotating basis?

Hi Douglas,

I believe there has been a lot of people wishing for that since shortly after the AMA held the first NATS in Muncie in 1996.  For various and sundry reasons, I do not believe that the AMA will ever allow it as long as there is a "National Flying Site" provided by the AMA.

Once we lost the NAVY as the host for the NATS, the idea of rotating NATS pretty much started to disappear.  This has been discussed many many times on the forums.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 28, 2012, 03:45:42 PM

    Suppose, as I expect, in a few years you have more-or-less 15-15 people in each? It won't take long before someone notices that EXP and Open look redundant, or at least excessive. Add to that the possibility that there will be former National Champs flying Expert because they didn't build their own airplane, and it looks even more like that. Creating a class that takes your 30 people and puts them in one class together makes eminent sense.

At that point, the debate is which class to get rid of. You and Randy say you won't let it be Open, and if you think I am an elitist, wait till hear what you get called for eliminating people from competition because the airplane they bought to fly in the established Expert class is now going to be excluded. You think the anti-modeling crowd is aggressive beyond their numbers now, just wait the blood gets in the water from this one.

     I haul my butt cross-country every time I can and I *know* that my chances aren't that good most of the time. I enjoyed the experience even the year I crashed before the first flight of qualifying and finished 55th. Hardly that I "appear are not able to comprehend why others not in that category might be interested in competing at the Nats", I would say. I don't appreciate the implications - I don't have to prove my dedication or seriousness about this event to anyone, not even you.

      Brett


Brett,
All the past National Champs I know, which is a considerable number that includes you, build their own airplanes.  Why does this keep coming up?
Am I missing something here?

To All,
What happened to my suggestion about requiring pre-entry.  Was it considered too "stupid" to discuss, or what?

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Alex Becerril on July 28, 2012, 05:19:50 PM
Yep your right Brett  next July

Randy

Anything that make CL Stunt grow must be welcome!
There is nothing to loose to try it!
Nats entries have to grow one way or another
This event have no OWNERS
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Alex Becerril on July 28, 2012, 05:32:00 PM
Due to finances, I haven't been to a Nats in about 10 years. While adding Expert sounds good at first glance, I feel that this has been railroaded in. It sounds like the event is being watered down. It is also the start of the end of appearance points going out the back door.

The Nats is very special having a wonderful display of beautiful airplanes in one place at one time. I hope that I am wrong, but this could be start of the end for this. People have argued about appearance to the point that we are sick, but Brett has been correct in saying that the Nats is about crowning a National Champion and should demand the TOTAL package.

Many will say that you will still have Concours. The reality is that if you don't have appearance points in "Expert", how many people will really present their airplanes in one hall, if they don't feel they will be considered for Concours?  5 or 10 at best?

That wonderful display of airplanes will be gone.

I don't agree at all. Expert flyers know that they have no chance to win without AP (of course flying against another expert)
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Alex Becerril on July 28, 2012, 05:50:11 PM
Look at what event proliferation has done to CL racing and combat.  All those added diddly events were promoted as increasing participation.  Not having a clear Nats winner decreases my interest in participation. 

Simple Math with a positive result:
If you looses 2 Open contestant that are unhappy with the changes And add 3 new entries that got interested in flying the new expert class you end up with more Nats participants and 3 new open flyers in the near future.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Alex Becerril on July 28, 2012, 06:36:39 PM
   I think the issue is going to be that there will be relatively few Open entrants. I expect that you will get maybe 20-25 total after a bunch of them drop to Expert.  Then you will be sorely tempted to have less than 20 on Top 20 day, or else drop qualifying completely for Open. If you decide to take, say, 75% of the field, you don't want to use 4 circles because that makes it maybe 2 or 3 people per circle, which means one oddball seeding knocks someone out.

   If we only have 15-25 Open entrants, but took 20 regardless, I wouldn't want to make the judges stand out there for two days while we do practice flights. Just forget qualifying and just do the finals on Friday with whoever shows up.

    I think that since we are so bound and determined to add Expert, that running Open separately on 2 circles as Keith suggests is a practical solution  - for Open. That's how we did it for a long time, until 2004 when the entries became grossly imbalanced.

    I think you will also find that it doesn't work so good for Advanced and Expert because I think there will be about as many Adv as always (maybe 30ish) and maybe 10-15 Exp (mostly people who used to fly Open) and then the ADV/EXP circles take all day while Open is either not flying at all or getting in two rounds before lunchtime. If that is the case, it makes sense to use 2 circles for each, then just flip the circles on Thursday, so the judges  workload is evened out. Also, just like before 2004.

    I know it's cast in stone - you win, we lose, I get it, congratulations, so I don't need any more reminders of the "10:1" vote. But this is why I think we will not be able to support another class. You will not get a long-term increase in attendance, the class structure is a non-factor in attendance - it's the cost and the travel time, not that we aren't giving out enough trophies for 30th place

   I think it will quickly become obvious for Open, when you cancel qualifying or end up with 10 people on "Top 20 day" due to lack of entrants. And you still have to show up on Sunday or Monday for appearance judging, futz around all week waiting for Friday, and have most people spend 2 weeks of travel to get 2 flights.

    Brett

I am more optimistic
40 -45 entries in open
15 - 20 in expert
25 -30 in advance
A glass of water fill up to the half could be seeing almost empty OR almost full
Let be optimistic!

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 28, 2012, 09:55:36 PM
My recent comments have largely addressed the logistics and planning aspects of this, and possible approaches to dealing with it without having to "wing it" at the last minute. What I have gotten back is "You don't understand, we have already agreed to have Expert"  - a fact which I am not debating. It's not a good idea but I see that we are going to go ahead with it anyway.

I have missed this the last day or so.   I've been traveling to a stunt contest.  I went through the same argument with Randy and Keith.  Had I proposed something to my bosses like what was proposed to the EC, I'd have been cut off and sent back to do my homework.  The pig in the poke having been purchased, I am hopeful that some detail-minded peon comes up with a process.  Red type is not a process.  The Nats was fun while it lasted.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 10:28:33 PM
 "  Had I proposed something to my bosses like what was proposed to the EC, I'd have been cut off and sent back to do my homework.  The pig in the poke having been purchased, I am hopeful that some detail-minded peon comes up with a process.  Red type is not a process.  The Nats was fun while it lasted. "
"

Howard  you  keep saying that, the proposal did not have anything to do with how to seed the NATs contest, That was NOT part of it nor should it have been, The proposal was about seeing if we should try Running Expert at the NATs, not a proposal on every last detail on how to do it. That can be dealt with without much problem. there was detail about the process and format to be used, It was a suggested format, that will work, But there was NO LOCKED IN STONE proposal that could not be changed, that would have been the wrong thing to do, you are really searching on that one .
By the way does your boss run stunt contest? notice I used no red type here !  Does red type bother you? I will be glad to use blue, or green if it does....

Expert will be ran at the NATs next year, arguing by posting the same thing over and over again it not going to solve anything. If it doesn't work, then I am sure you will gloat and say I told you so, You and Brett are welcome to do that, but in the meantime you may want to think of something that would be constructive, that is unless you are only after  keeping this constant bickering going one , using the same thing over and over.
Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 28, 2012, 11:16:10 PM
You are correct, someone did need to think about how, and what we do, I did this, and talked it over with several others. The program we use now could be used as is if we had too, and if the bottom falls out and we get a pitiful attendance, it still can be used even if it was just used to generate forms,

I can't see how it could be used as-is, or even with simple changes.  The several people to whom you talked no doubt are more familiar with it than I, though. 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 28, 2012, 11:28:45 PM
I can't see how it could be used as-is, or even with simple changes.  The several people to whom you talked no doubt are more familiar with it than I, though. 


Howard

What you are seemingly failing to get, is that the proposal was about running Expert at the NATs, It was NOT a proposal to see if we could use your program or not, That was NOT what was presented, nor was it a prudent thing to include in the proposal,  The EXPERT proposal was not about mandating what format to use, how to seed the flyers, or who's or what program to use to score them, We had no reason to included that mandate in the proposal, AGAIN those can be worked out,First things first.
You seem to be hung up on trying to convince everyone that the format and what will be used to score the NATs is  some kind of huge deal that cannot be dealt with without major major troubles , or as it seems to me, just trying to cause as much grief and trouble as you can possibly can. You keep bring up the same thing over and over again. I do not see the point in doing so, It certainly is going no where, doing any good, or making anything better.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 29, 2012, 12:05:58 AM

I have missed this the last day or so.   I've been traveling to a stunt contest.  I went through the same argument with Randy and Keith.  Had I proposed something to my bosses like what was proposed to the EC, I'd have been cut off and sent back to do my homework.  The pig in the poke having been purchased, I am hopeful that some detail-minded peon comes up with a process.  Red type is not a process.  The Nats was fun while it lasted.

I can't see how it could be used as-is, or even with simple changes.  The several people to whom you talked no doubt are more familiar with it than I, though. 


Gee Howard, your computer programs are wonderful.  Have you not been given enough credit for your contributions?  I am just now realizing that the entire CLPA community has not really stood up and awarded whatever accolades are deserve.

You speak of some mystical proposal process that nails down every possible detail that is needed before even a simple change like has been proposed and approved could really be seriously made.  If such proposals were needed, then Netzeband would never have gotten his ideas off the ground when he told the AMA he could devise a multi-circle qualification program for our Nats in the early 60's.  We never would have been able to start the evolutionary process that was started when PAMPA took over the Nats (initially without coputer support) that has led to the really incredible Nats format that we now use.    Changes were made, adjustments were made, improvements were made without going through a board of directors as well as a technical review panel and an environmental impact study looking for every detail to be totally defined before the process was even started or any changes made.  And when Paul took over the Nats, did he propose to your mythical board of directors and review panels all of the details that he, with your help, worked out, many times, on the fly.  Gee, since we never had those formal proposals, should we just scrap this whole thing that has been developed over the past 40 to 60 years?  Are your programs so complex, that even you cannot get into them  to accommodate a separate class of fliers to the two classes we now have.  There will be no more circles involved.  There will be no more days involved  There will be no more judges involved.  There will be another scoreboard, but really, one more score board in addition to how many appear there now?  Please explain why that cannot be done other than you just do not want to.  (I guess I can understand that part, but equally disappointed that it might get to that.)  You made adjustments to your program throughout that first Nats that Paul ran with your help with the computers.  Why could not that service and innovation you provided to the stunt community be continued.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: john e. holliday on July 29, 2012, 07:33:08 AM
To me this has been all wasted space in the main computor.   Yes, the EC has voted to hold Expert at the NATS.  But, have they cleared it with the AMA NATS planning committeee?    From what I have seen in the past and read,  the AMA could say a big NO to this.    H^^
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 29, 2012, 08:20:08 AM
To me this has been all wasted space in the main computor.   Yes, the EC has voted to hold Expert at the NATS.  But, have they cleared it with the AMA NATS planning committeee?    From what I have seen in the past and read,  the AMA could say a big NO to this.    H^^

Doc,

Part of the arrangements between the AMA and the SIGs are that the AMA allows each SIG to run their event as they see fit.  The AMA has never intervened with the evolutionary changes that PAMPA has made to the Nationals format.  There would be no reason for the AMA to do so with this addition of an official rulebook event to the Nats schedule.  It will not take any additional space being provided by the AMA.  The entire CLPA event will still be on the same days. 

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 29, 2012, 09:59:19 AM
To me this has been all wasted space in the main computor.   Yes, the EC has voted to hold Expert at the NATS.  But, have they cleared it with the AMA NATS planning committeee?    From what I have seen in the past and read,  the AMA could say a big NO to this.    H^^

NO that will not happen , and I have never seen anything in our past NATs that would remotely suggest that.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 29, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
To me this has been all wasted space in the main computor.   Yes, the EC has voted to hold Expert at the NATS.  But, have they cleared it with the AMA NATS planning committeee?    From what I have seen in the past and read,  the AMA could say a big NO to this.    H^^

As Far as AMA goes I don't think they care if we hold 1 event or a 100 as long as we are done in the alloted time.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 29, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
Can't believe I didn't think of this before!!!

The clear issue (after reading this and other threads regarding the generic subject matter) is that the reason we need yet another class is because it is "hard" to be competitive  under the current Nats format and, reductio ad absurdum, fliers don't want to spend the bucks to participate if they don't stand a chance to win a trophy.  Once whittled down to its essence the solution is obvious.

How about this to resolve the discontent.  What if somebody (AMA, PAMPA, what the heck, ME) offers to buy a "National Stunt Champion Trophy" for everyone who enters stunt at the Nats!  It probably wouldn't be fancy but, as we all know, it is what the symbol represents that counts.  In fact, we could probably include the price of the trophy in the entry fees.  Maybe even offer "extra cost options" like "big" or "not plastic" etc.  It could even be a money maker for PAMPA if a percentage of the cost of the extras was added to cover "administrative costs."

Based on the apparent logic presently assessing the problem, the Nats would be bigger than ever and travel costs, etc.,  perfectly surmountable once the "goal" was a guaranteed outcome.

Written more or less tongue in cheek but, you gotta admit, I didn't make up anything.  Given: competitiveness and cost are the reasons for poor attendance.  Ergo: The proposal mitigates both and could make the organization a profit.  No slings and arrows, please.  Just think about it.  Why is this proposal wrong?

Ted
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 29, 2012, 11:58:41 AM
Ted, Charlie Bower already does that I have one from 2011 and 2012. Participation trophy's. You really don't want to hear my opinion of this.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Dick Pacini on July 29, 2012, 12:53:22 PM
The same principle has been applied in many children's activities.  There are no losers, so everyone gets a prize.  That way, nobody feels left out.  There are no failures.  A great way to prepare kids for adulthood, eh? HB~>
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 29, 2012, 12:54:28 PM
You seem to be hung up on trying to convince everyone that the format and what will be used to score the NATs is  some kind of huge deal that cannot be dealt with without major major troubles , or as it seems to me, just trying to cause as much grief and trouble as you can possibly can. You keep bring up the same thing over and over again. I do not see the point in doing so, It certainly is going no where, doing any good, or making anything better.

   Of course none of it is insurmountable. Worst comes to worse, you can do it all manually.  But you do need to determine how you are going to deal with the variable entry levels, then come up with some approach to handling it, and then software that supports it. That's was the point of my previous comments (before people started calling me names and not caring about the event).

   I can easily imagine that Howard's current software is not easily modifiable for this purpose.

    The first step in doing that is figuring out how you are going to format the contest and deal with variable entries. Some of it can be done exactly as before, but some of it can't. Once you figure out how to deal with the varying entries and distribution between circles, then you can scope out what the software needs to do, and get working on that. It occurs to me that the problem is separable into individual tasks that are much more finite than trying to do the entire thing  in one program. But you need to determine the requirements before knowing how to write it.

    It may be a lot simpler, if more labor-intensive, to do some of the tasks manually. If, for example, you printed the scoresheets with only the pilot's name and class and let the judges sign the sheet and put in the circle and flight number, you relieve greatly some of the other demands for deciding everything before you start. It also means that you have to do the stacking manually, or at least entering the data manually into the (now separate) stacking program. I am not necessarily advocating that but stuff like that should be considered to relieve the burden on the programming.

   Additionally, previous attempts have tended to use relational databases. For our purposes, I would think that a flat file is adequate, and most importantly, is dead easy to manually edit if something goes wrong. Also much less prone to version and installation differences on different machines.

    Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Brett Buck on July 29, 2012, 12:55:58 PM
Ted, Charlie Bower already does that I have one from 2011 and 2012. Participation trophy's. You really don't want to hear my opinion of this.

  Yes,  I have mine from 2011. I know that it was well-intended.

     Brett
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 29, 2012, 01:08:12 PM
Can't believe I didn't think of this before!!!

The clear issue (after reading this and other threads regarding the generic subject matter) is that the reason we need yet another class is because it is "hard" to be competitive  under the current Nats format and, reductio ad absurdum, fliers don't want to spend the bucks to participate if they don't stand a chance to win a trophy.  Once whittled down to its essence the solution is obvious.

How about this to resolve the discontent.  What if somebody (AMA, PAMPA, what the heck, ME) offers to buy a "National Stunt Champion Trophy" for everyone who enters stunt at the Nats!  It probably wouldn't be fancy but, as we all know, it is what the symbol represents that counts.  In fact, we could probably include the price of the trophy in the entry fees.  Maybe even offer "extra cost options" like "big" or "not plastic" etc.  It could even be a money maker for PAMPA if a percentage of the cost of the extras was added to cover "administrative costs."

Based on the apparent logic presently assessing the problem, the Nats would be bigger than ever and travel costs, etc.,  perfectly surmountable once the "goal" was a guaranteed outcome.

Written more or less tongue in cheek but, you gotta admit, I didn't make up anything.  Given: competitiveness and cost are the reasons for poor attendance.  Ergo: The proposal mitigates both and could make the organization a profit.  No slings and arrows, please.  Just think about it.  Why is this proposal wrong?

Ted

Making lite and fun of this helps a lot.....

We could always  just then get rid of:
Advanced class we fly at the NATs  now
also get rid of Intermediate
Get rid of Beginner
Get rid of Classic
and Old Time needs to go to..

After all  we don't need any of those lower class events for the lower class flyers  because...after all  they have Nothing  to do with the National Championship, and crowning the Walker Cup trophy Winner.......


Then we could just cater to the 15 or 20 total entries we would have and save a bunch of time and trouble.....
Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Larry Fernandez on July 29, 2012, 02:31:40 PM
This is my take.
As a lowly bottom feeder, local expert flyer, I am still a very competitive individual. I left the advanced ranks and started flying expert before I ever flew a 500 flight. I took some heat for this, but the last year I flew advanced, the local competition was not like it is today, and I won almost every contest.
Trophys in the lower ranks did not mean much to me and I was almost guanenteed to win advanced every time.
So I decided to fly against the big boys. I dont see any victorys in the expert ranks comming my way but it sure is fun flying against the big boys.

If I get back to the NATs soon, I will want to fly in Open, just to test my skills against the big shots.
I would get much more satisfaction in qualifying in open, than I would get winning in Expert.

Its not the competition that keeps me away from Muncie, its the time and expense.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 29, 2012, 03:26:59 PM
Can't believe I didn't think of this before!!!

The clear issue (after reading this and other threads regarding the generic subject matter) is that the reason we need yet another class is because it is "hard" to be competitive  under the current Nats format and, reductio ad absurdum, fliers don't want to spend the bucks to participate if they don't stand a chance to win a trophy.  Once whittled down to its essence the solution is obvious.

How about this to resolve the discontent.  What if somebody (AMA, PAMPA, what the heck, ME) offers to buy a "National Stunt Champion Trophy" for everyone who enters stunt at the Nats!  It probably wouldn't be fancy but, as we all know, it is what the symbol represents that counts.  In fact, we could probably include the price of the trophy in the entry fees.  Maybe even offer "extra cost options" like "big" or "not plastic" etc.  It could even be a money maker for PAMPA if a percentage of the cost of the extras was added to cover "administrative costs."

Based on the apparent logic presently assessing the problem, the Nats would be bigger than ever and travel costs, etc.,  perfectly surmountable once the "goal" was a guaranteed outcome.

Written more or less tongue in cheek but, you gotta admit, I didn't make up anything.  Given: competitiveness and cost are the reasons for poor attendance.  Ergo: The proposal mitigates both and could make the organization a profit.  No slings and arrows, please.  Just think about it.  Why is this proposal wrong?

Ted

Ted if this was just all about winning a trophy, which I have a room full of, I would have quit flying stunt a long time ago.
Your conclusion is completely wrong...at least it is for most of the folks I know who want to fly in an "Expert Class" at the Nationals.
I think it's totally ridiculous and pretentious for a guy like me that consistently flys 540'ish scores to go compete against the likes of the top Walker Cup competitors.  I've flown against most of those folks at VSC and it's simply embarassing.  Yes I want to improve but at 71 years of age while possible it's unlikely that I'm going to add 50 points to my stunt score.
I can't believe any of the guys at that level wish to fly against the likes of me.  Yes they are all nice folks and typically treat us low level guys like equals but everyone knows when it comes to stunt, we are not.
Talent is talent and some have lots of it and some have not enough of it.  If that wasn't true we could all be rich Pro basketball or Football players.
Plow horses don't run in the Kentucky Derby but they are useful.
I simply prefer to compete against folks more within my own spectrum of talent and skill.  Certainly winning there means nothing because it is not really winning anything.  It is less embarassing however to lose by 10 points than 50.
I know you're a nice guy and really didn't intend to denigrate anyone but I have to admit that your earlier remarks smacked of "elitism and ridicule".
No I don't believe you or any of the top fliers are elitists...just better at what you do and confident of it.
I do however hope you will re-think your remarks above.

A friend
Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Paul Walker on July 30, 2012, 08:03:52 PM
Seeing that I have had a hard time winning open these days, maybe I should enter Expert next year. There is nothing to keep me from doing this. In Expert I will have a 17 point head start on Orestes!
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Randy Cuberly on July 30, 2012, 08:35:10 PM
Seeing that I have had a hard time winning open these days, maybe I should enter Expert next year. There is nothing to keep me from doing this. In Expert I will have a 17 point head start on Orestes!

Well Paul...
If you're no longer interested in being the National Champion you probably should come have fun with us non-serious guys.
I'm quite sure Bob Hunt, Bill Rich, Kaz, and Doug will be very happy about that.  I for one would be very happy to have you fly with us'ns.  Besides you've won too many times and are obviously getting old...
Bob Whitely is thinking about getting serious again next year...He'l be thrilled to hear that.   #^ #^

Sure you'd be satisfied with that...in a pigs eye!   LL~ LL~ D>K

Randy Cuberly
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Derek Barry on July 31, 2012, 04:37:02 AM
Seeing that I have had a hard time winning open these days, maybe I should enter Expert next year. There is nothing to keep me from doing this. In Expert I will have a 17 point head start on Orestes!

I talked to Orestes shortly after the Nats and he said that he would be there next year. I doubt he will enter Expert...

Derek
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Joseph Patterson on July 31, 2012, 08:33:32 AM
    I think Ted's suggestion was said with "tongue in cheek". I think if I was an Expert flyer which I am not, but aspire to be, I would only be interested in entering the open event because it is the most prestigious event and would be flying against the very best, which is to me kind of an honor in itself. It is an opportunity raise ones skill level (building/flying) by going against the best- "Iron sharpens iron". A top 20/25 placing in Open would mean much more to me than the same placing in the new Expert event.
     Doug 
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 31, 2012, 09:41:32 AM
I am still sticking to my plan to sneek into Beginner next year.  My conversation with the 2013 stunt Nats CD.

Wait a minute, you don’t look like no stinking Beginner to Me”. Reply-I have a premature aging disease.

Just what are you trying to pull-look at the size of that ship-that’s no Beginners plane. My uncle flies F3A and he built it for me.

Just what do you think your doing, Beginners don’t fly 4 strokes motors that big. My other uncle is an auto mechanic, and he set the valves for me.

O yeah, then where did you learn to balance a prop that big. My sister works for Cessna, and she took it to them. And, my auto mechanic uncle that I told you about, he installed it.

Where did you learn to plumb a tank for a motor that size. My next-door neighbor is a full time plumber, and he knows codes.

I suppose your going to tell me that you didn’t design that airfoil?  What’s an airfoil?   

Alright, I’ll let you in this time, but if I so much as see a hint of a reverse wingover, your butts’ outta here.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Bill Little on July 31, 2012, 10:00:41 AM
I have total belief in the integrity of the top level pilots in PAMPA who are engaged in actually running the NATS.  Howard and Brett:  I know you both are far and away above many of us when it comes to providing a program to utilize for expediting the event. Howard, I do not believe that you developed the program to bring honor to you.  I only know that you deserve all the accolades of everyone who has participated since he use of your program began.  There is no doubt that it works, and works better than any where else on the planet.

I see the main logistical problems lying with the number of entrants in each class (basically unknown until the event begins), and determining how many from each class that will move on from qualifying (again unknown until the number of entrants is determined).

I cannot see how these "problems" could possibly be insurmountable given the quality of people who are in charge.

Bill
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Alex Becerril on July 31, 2012, 10:42:00 AM
Seeing that I have had a hard time winning open these days, maybe I should enter Expert next year. There is nothing to keep me from doing this. In Expert I will have a 17 point head start on Orestes!

Orestes model is 100% Boom legal
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 31, 2012, 11:04:22 AM
What you are seemingly failing to get, is that the proposal was about running Expert at the NATs, It was NOT a proposal to see if we could use your program or not...

You always return to the point that you won: there will be Expert at the Nats.  In the above statement, you said that the program can handle the change.  I just challenged your statement.  How about switching from sales mode to trying to make the extra class work or even seeing if it will work?  So far, Brett is the only person I see doing that.  I looked at it a little, but I'm still on the road and don't have access to everything I need.  As class size diminishes, seeding and distribution of contestants among groups gets a little more important.  I think you would want to have an automatic system, published in advance, that picks how many advance to the finals and how many circles each event uses for qualifications.  You don't want the good guys flying on a circle with fewer contestants than other circles, for example.  Yes, this can be done by hand on the fly, but you will hear squealing by people who got on a "hard" circle and claims that the process is rigged.  If the process is arbitrary, it will be hard to defend.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Joseph Lijoi on July 31, 2012, 11:12:35 AM
Can't believe I didn't think of this before!!!

The clear issue (after reading this and other threads regarding the generic subject matter) is that the reason we need yet another class is because it is "hard" to be competitive  under the current Nats format and, reductio ad absurdum, fliers don't want to spend the bucks to participate if they don't stand a chance to win a trophy.  Once whittled down to its essence the solution is obvious.

How about this to resolve the discontent.  What if somebody (AMA, PAMPA, what the heck, ME) offers to buy a "National Stunt Champion Trophy" for everyone who enters stunt at the Nats!  It probably wouldn't be fancy but, as we all know, it is what the symbol represents that counts.  In fact, we could probably include the price of the trophy in the entry fees.  Maybe even offer "extra cost options" like "big" or "not plastic" etc.  It could even be a money maker for PAMPA if a percentage of the cost of the extras was added to cover "administrative costs."

Based on the apparent logic presently assessing the problem, the Nats would be bigger than ever and travel costs, etc.,  perfectly surmountable once the "goal" was a guaranteed outcome.

Written more or less tongue in cheek but, you gotta admit, I didn't make up anything.  Given: competitiveness and cost are the reasons for poor attendance.  Ergo: The proposal mitigates both and could make the organization a profit.  No slings and arrows, please.  Just think about it.  Why is this proposal wrong?

Ted

Amazing.  Cabernet?
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on July 31, 2012, 11:21:11 AM
Why could not that service and innovation you provided to the stunt community be continued.

I presume that's a question.  I have done the work to accommodate frivolous changes such as taking away and restoring appearance points, changing the scoring-error checks both times.  This one might be easy for a pro, but would take me several weeks.  Can you imagine why I'm not interested?  Heck, I'm not even interested in going to the next Nats after this abuse.  
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Derek Barry on July 31, 2012, 11:37:18 AM
I presume that's a question.  I have done the work to accommodate frivolous changes such as taking away and restoring appearance points, changing the scoring-error checks both times.  This one might be easy for a pro, but would take me several weeks.  Can you imagine why I'm not interested?  Heck, I'm not even interested in going to the next Nats after this abuse.  

Come on Howard, I took just as much abuse as you did and I will be back. Remember what you told me? Our new plan...more flying, less silly poems.

Derek
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 31, 2012, 12:29:28 PM
You always return to the point that you won: there will be Expert at the Nats.  In the above statement, you said that the program can handle the change.  I just challenged your statement.  How about switching from sales mode to trying to make the extra class work or even seeing if it will work?  So far, Brett is the only person I see doing that.  I looked at it a little, but I'm still on the road and don't have access to everything I need.  As class size diminishes, seeding and distribution of contestants among groups gets a little more important.  I think you would want to have an automatic system, published in advance, that picks how many advance to the finals and how many circles each event uses for qualifications.  You don't want the good guys flying on a circle with fewer contestants than other circles, for example.  Yes, this can be done by hand on the fly, but you will hear squealing by people who got on a "hard" circle and claims that the process is rigged.  If the process is arbitrary, it will be hard to defend.  

Howard

Everyone appreciates your hard work and the program you delveloped, You made this a better administered event with your work on the computer program and all the time and effort that you put in.
As far as the program goes , I am running things and I am in process of doing just that now, It will NOT however be up to me to decide this, what I was saying above is NOT that I won, I did not decide this, It was ran thru many people as I wanted as much input as possible before It was proposed to the PAMPA Competition committee, It passed the Comp committee.
It was not appropriate for me to mandate how the seeding, scoring, or running of the NATs went, That is up to DON and David
Then it was presented to the EC by Pres Don McClave, they discussed it amoung themselves and also took a poll of PAMPA members in their respective distritcs, Then there was a Q&A session at the meeting before the vote was taken, If anyone "won" I hope it is the pilots and PAMPA members.
It looks like we have to also decide **if**  we will go go back to a 1 day format instead of the 2 day 4 flight that PAMPA put in place years ago if our number keep falling.  I for one, do NOT want to do this, I still think It is important to have the 2 days of flying that we have used for decades now.  (note I think Ted was instrumental in this change to our format, and it was a very good one for pilots)
We suggested , in the proposal  the the PAMPA skill classes would have 10 finalist each in Expert and Advanced. Then OPEN will still have the Top 20, I think this is very important because of the tradition of "Rookie of the Year" in the top 20, and the placings that have gone along with that for decades. I do really hope ,we never fall below enough numbers to Not have the Top 20 in OPEN.

Another item, are you telling me that if we have less than 15 or so enter an event that the program will not work?
If it comes to it that it will fail, and there is a small number in Expert the first year , it would be easy to add another laptop and use it for Expert only, That way it would still have the score sheets printed for the ED and would be able to handle the duties  of the program, and it can generate scoreboard sheets too.
If, we get pityful number, That will be very bad for us all, but one good point is that the problem of judges sitting in the hot sun all day will be GONE.
I will be honest and tell you with only 21 Advanced flyers this year putting up flights, I am worried about numbers there.

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 31, 2012, 01:22:16 PM

(Clip)

  I have done the work to accommodate frivolous changes such as taking away and restoring appearance points, changing the scoring-error checks both times.  

(Clip)

  Heck, I'm not even interested in going to the next Nats after this abuse.  

"Frivolous Changes".  What "frivolous changes"?  And when were appearance points taken away and then restored?  Were those changes that had to be made sometime with the Nats format in the last several years since you started generating programs to assist the ED?  I did not know that appearance points were never part of the Nats or our CLPA event. There was a change several years ago that removed Pattern Points from the rulebook.  That was a real change to the CLPA rules, as approved by the CL Aerobatics Contest Board.  That change lasted for the one change cycle and Pattern Points were then put back in the official rulebook.  Maybe that is not what you had in mind, but I do not consider any such change to the official rulebook as "frivolous".  (And I will not even get into how some people twisted that change, based on the F2B rules, into scenarios that could not be properly interpreted and ruled on when the rule was clear.)

You are correct on one matter.  This bickering apparently is about what appears to me, as a non-computer guru, the difficulty in establishing a program similar to that or those programs which already accommodate a similar event.  Also, there seems to be an issue about declining number of entries, which is a problem that PAMPA could be addressing totally absent of any Expert scheduling subject.  The less than positive approach by a few at the apex of our competition and leadership hierarchy who are against the idea of at least trying a different approach which might, just might, help increase participation at the Nats does tend to blunt enthusiasm for the Nats event.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Doug Moon on July 31, 2012, 01:34:37 PM
....And when were appearance points taken away and then restored?  Were those changes that had to be made sometime with the Nats format in the last several years since you started generating programs to assist the ED?  I did not know that appearance points were never part of the Nats or our CLPA event....

I think he was talking about having to take the appearance points out of the program and then put it back into the program again.

The appearance points have never been removed from the nats.

Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Ted Fancher on July 31, 2012, 02:53:18 PM
Orestes model is 100% Boom legal

"Boom"!  How perfect!  As in blowing something up, right!
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 31, 2012, 03:13:32 PM
"Boom"!  How perfect!  As in blowing something up, right!

No, as in lowering the Boom on the competition. LL~
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 31, 2012, 07:19:03 PM
No, as in lowering the Boom on the competition. LL~

SHARKS
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 31, 2012, 07:36:20 PM
SHARKS

I thought Warren Tiahart passed his plane as 100% legal. If so, whats gives?
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RandySmith on July 31, 2012, 08:26:15 PM
NO Not Legal and the BOM rule that it flew under was dumped last year by the AMA and the pre 2004 rule was  the one they fell back to

Randy
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 31, 2012, 08:39:15 PM
NO Not Legal and the BOM rule that it flew under was dumped last year by the AMA and the pre 2004 rule was  the one they fell back to

Randy

delete
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Trostle on July 31, 2012, 10:23:25 PM
I thought Warren Tiahart passed his plane as 100% legal. If so, whats gives?

That was several years ago.  The airplane was assembled from a special kit comprised of parts and pieces provided by the designers.  The process was documented for and then and verified by Tiahart prior to the contest to be compliant with the BOM rule.  Unfortunately, some have pushed the process such that anything that might look like that BOM compliant model could also be BOM compliant.

Keith
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: RC Storick on July 31, 2012, 10:25:13 PM
That one plane has long sense meet its demise (crash) so just because one was deemed legal does not make any others legal. I also would bet with all the brewhaha that's involved with these planes another one does not get certified legal. Unless its Uri's
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: proparc on July 31, 2012, 11:28:31 PM
That was several years ago.  The airplane was assembled from a special kit comprised of parts and pieces provided by the designers.  The process was documented for and then and verified by Tiahart prior to the contest to be compliant with the BOM rule.  Unfortunately, some have pushed the process such that anything that might look like that BOM compliant model could also be BOM compliant.

Keith

Kind of wish you posted this sooner. Now I have to remove my post about being the first Cuban etc.
Title: Re: Walker Cup.....
Post by: Howard Rush on August 01, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
And when were appearance points taken away and then restored?

Sorry.  Pattern points.