News:



  • March 29, 2024, 04:32:53 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Walker Cup.....  (Read 31262 times)

Offline Crist Rigotti

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3856
  • Electric - The future of Old Time Stunt
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #150 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.
Crist
AMA 482497
Waxahachie, TX
Electric - The Future of Old Time Stunt

Offline Crist Rigotti

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3856
  • Electric - The future of Old Time Stunt
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #151 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.

Crist
AMA 482497
Waxahachie, TX
Electric - The Future of Old Time Stunt

Online RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12395
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #152 on: July 27, 2012, 10:11:52 PM »
Expert is expert and advanced is advanced. No sandbagging
AMA 12366

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3674
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #153 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
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #154 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

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2058
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #155 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.
If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...
 I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #156 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

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #157 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

Offline Crist Rigotti

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3856
  • Electric - The future of Old Time Stunt
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #158 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.
Crist
AMA 482497
Waxahachie, TX
Electric - The Future of Old Time Stunt

Offline Gordan Delaney

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 401
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #159 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

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #160 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

   

 
     

   

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #161 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
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #162 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

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #163 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
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Gordan Delaney

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 401
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #164 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

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #165 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

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #166 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

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3674
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #167 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
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #168 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
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3674
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #169 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
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #170 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

   

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #171 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
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Larry Fernandez

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1272
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #172 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

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #173 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

Online RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12395
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #174 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!
AMA 12366

Online RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12395
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #175 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.
AMA 12366

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #176 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

   

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3674
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #177 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
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #178 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

Online RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12395
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #179 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.
AMA 12366

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3674
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #180 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
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Trostle

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3338
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #181 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

Offline John Lindberg

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 393
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #182 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^^

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #183 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

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #184 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




Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #185 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
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Trostle

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3338
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #186 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

Offline proparc

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2391
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #187 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!! :)
Milton "Proparc" Graham

Offline Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 13717
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #188 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

   


Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #189 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
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #190 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

Offline Douglas Ames

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #191 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?
AMA 656546

If you do a little bit every day it will get done, or you can do it tomorrow.

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #192 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
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Randy Cuberly

  • 21 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 3674
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #193 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
Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ

Offline Alex Becerril

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #194 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

Offline Alex Becerril

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #195 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)

Offline Alex Becerril

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #196 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.

Offline Alex Becerril

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Ensign
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #197 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!


Online Howard Rush

  • 22 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 7805
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #198 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.
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Offline RandySmith

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 13747
  • Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.
    • Aero Products
Re: Walker Cup.....
« Reply #199 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


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here