stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Brett Buck on August 03, 2018, 07:57:38 PM
-
I think this year was a one-off event, but it occurred to me during my explanation of the NATs format to the FAI community (I know, pushy Yanks...) that if this year's turnout becomes common, we should consider putting an official Intermediate class in with Open and Advanced. This would be better utilize the resources, and also give the Intermediate guys more flying with the rest of the system.
If you really want to get radical, I like my previous suggestion more than I did before - run everyone together in Open, no classes, and split off an A Flight for 1-20 and B Flight for 21-40 on Friday. This resolves any question about how many to take from each group, or how to split the groups. Making B flight would be a great achievement for an Intermediate flier.
Of course, either way, you get to see how you stack up against the rest with the same judges, etc, as everybody else. That might be less advantageous for Intermediate, as the scores would drop from the current 500-ish scores to about 400, when relative to the Open and Advanced.
Brett
-
... That might be less advantageous for Intermediate, as the scores would drop from the current 500-ish scores to about 400, when relative to the Open and Advanced. ...
I'm known to be odd, but when I was flying Intermediate I preferred a strict score that was reflective of what I'd have gotten with the same flight in Expert over an artificially inflated score.
If I wanted high points of little value, I'd seek out a self-esteem camp.
-
Will that cause Howard's program to have a HAL-9000 style meltdown? Didn't the short-lived Expert at the Nats cause problems on the program side?
-
I can't remember, although I could look it up. but when we ran Expert in the mix at the Nats, did we still have a top twenty for Open?
-
I can't remember, although I could look it up. but when we ran Expert in the mix at the Nats, did we still have a top twenty for Open?
Yes, we have had a Top 20 (even when it maybe should have been 16 in '94 or '18) regardless.
Brett
-
Will that cause Howard's program to have a HAL-9000 style meltdown? Didn't the short-lived Expert at the Nats cause problems on the program side?
Programs are called "software" for a reason. I would note that if you did the "local dirt track" alternate version, the software is vastly simpler than it is now, since there are no classes to separate out.
Brett
-
Hi Brett,
Just my opinion, but I think it's pretty easy thing to do. Move up the top five or so in Advance to get the proper number of qualifiers for the top 20. Who knows maybe someone will make ever higher placing. If they are experts flying in the Advance class I'm sure they won't mind doing so.
Mikey
-
Will that cause Howard's program to have a HAL-9000 style meltdown? Didn't the short-lived Expert at the Nats cause problems on the program side?
Not really. I’m messing around with a copy of the latest Excel file now. I can throw in an option for including Intermediate to see how it works, and debug as needed.
-
I saw 500 scores for intermediate and thought "what the hell!"
-
Brian the top intermediate flyer at the Nats was pretty darn good! I know I was one of the Judges he would have done well in the advanced class
-
When we began Intermediate, we bought the winner an entry to Advanced the next day. Generally, they did/do pretty well.
It might be cool to stick the Advanced winner into the top 5 Open guys. I harassed Doug Moon about flying in Advanced and the next year he was in the Open fly off.
Have fun!
-
Will that cause Howard's program to have a HAL-9000 style meltdown? Didn't the short-lived Expert at the Nats cause problems on the program side?
First, my interpretation of some history. The Nats process we've had for the past couple of decades is really good, I think, but it's complicated. For years, Nats stunt was run by Warren Tiahrt and Shareen Fancher. It was not automated, and the paperwork kept Shareen working through the night. There was no automatic process for seeding fliers among qualifications circles. Flight orders were drawn after the circle distributions were made, which was after any meeting of all the fliers had dispersed. Judges for later rounds were selected by drawing lines through graphs of judges' scoring of previous rounds. I think this was all done fairly, and by the best methods available to the people doing it. However, some of the process was mysterious, and chronic losers seized upon the murkiness to claim that the system was rigged against them. People who knew Shareen, knew how fair she was, and knew how hard she worked, were incensed, and an era of ill feeling ensued.
Then Paul Walker took over as Nats stunt ED. He decided that there be no arbitrary processes: everything would be done by formulae published in advance of the Nats. Random draws for flight order would be done in public. I volunteered to write a program to do it. It looked easy, but it wasn't (for me), and it took me several years. The outcome was successful. Nobody can claim that the current system is unfair.
Until 2012, entries in Advanced and Open sufficed to put both events on four circles and take five from each event from each circle to the next round. In 2012, Advanced attendance dwindled to 25, 23 of whom flew, making Advanced qualifying rounds a waste of judges' time. Adding the third event caused additional difficulty. We had no idea how many would show up for any event. Having a reasonable qualification round and maintaining the principle of doing everything by public formula forced us to have a plan for what to do for any level of entry in each of the three events. We (mainly Steve Yampolsky) came up with a method, and we made an elaborate workaround that took a bunch of time in the pilots' meeting, but got the job done for 2013 and 2014. I could just finish incorporating that method into the program to include Intermediate, rather than Expert. It was pretty interesting. Not only did it pick the number of circles for each event and the number advancing to the next round as a function of entry level, but it folded the seeds into the three events on four circles and distributed the events among circles to minimize the difference in contestant numbers among the circles.
-
I think this year was a one-off event, but it occurred to me during my explanation of the NATs format to the FAI community (I know, pushy Yanks...) that if this year's turnout becomes common, we should consider putting an official Intermediate class in with Open and Advanced. This would be better utilize the resources, and also give the Intermediate guys more flying with the rest of the system.
We could do this, as I mentioned above. It would be the same as the addition of Expert, which we figured out how to do and I have partially programmed. Alternatively, you could encourage the guys who fly the unofficial Intermediate event to enter Advanced.
If you really want to get radical, I like my previous suggestion more than I did before - run everyone together in Open, no classes, and split off an A Flight for 1-20 and B Flight for 21-40 on Friday. This resolves any question about how many to take from each group, or how to split the groups.
This scheme also has pesky details. For one thing, the actual contenders would fly over a greater time span, thus more weather and judging variation. For another, had we done that this year, B flight would have taken 20 of 28 guys to the finals. For fewer contestants, how many to take from four circles gets problematic.
-
It might be cool to stick the Advanced winner into the top 5 Open guys.
Sign me up for Advanced.
-
Just my opinion, but I think it's pretty easy thing to do. Move up the top five or so in Advance to get the proper number of qualifiers for the top 20.
Just my opinion, but I think you need to show us the details.
-
Programs are called "software" for a reason. I would note that if you did the "local dirt track" alternate version, the software is vastly simpler than it is now, since there are no classes to separate out.
But the existing software exists, and this "vastly simpler" version would have to be written.
-
Not really. I’m messing around with a copy of the latest Excel file now. I can throw in an option for including Intermediate to see how it works, and debug as needed.
Break a leg. Don't forget to fold in the seeding and do the circle distribution and number advancing to the next round. Even if you do this (and it's already been done), you'd create the problem of multiple people maintaining the program: a solvable, but so-far unnecessary problem.
-
I'm known to be odd, but when I was flying Intermediate I preferred a strict score that was reflective of what I'd have gotten with the same flight in Expert over an artificially inflated score.
I concur with your first clause.
You could have entered Expert. I don't know why more folks don't.
-
Break a leg. Don't forget to fold in the seeding and do the circle distribution and number advancing to the next round. Even if you do this (and it's already been done), you'd create the problem of multiple people maintaining the program: a solvable, but so-far unnecessary problem.
Well, you've documented what's been done so far (and how it's been done) exceedingly well. And I've been going through each of the macro steps to see how they actually work, and where they source data from. If documentation continues like this, in theory, multiple people maintaining the problem shouldn't be an issue, if they take the time to read through everything, and test it.
I know, I know.
<insert cynical laughter here>
-
But the existing software exists, and this "vastly simpler" version would have to be written.
I know that, I may have had some familiarity with software development. Also with trying to alter or limit the mission to match the existing software. In fact, it's why I didn't come to the last two NATs.
Brett
-
Well, you've documented what's been done so far (and how it's been done) exceedingly well.
You sure you're looking at the right program?
-
Also with trying to alter or limit the mission to match the existing software.
Sounds like the initial stage of the commercial transport airplane design cycle: "Make a new airplane. Don't change anything."
-
You sure you're looking at the right program?
Compared to what I'm usually asked to decipher, debug, and rewrite in Excel/VBA, yes. Having *any* documentation to look at is a strange experience.
-
You could have entered Expert. I don't know why more folks don't.
I wanted to get past the "tripping over fellow contestants lines" phase.
-
Just my opinion, but I think you need to show us the details.
Hi Howard,
Let's just say you only have 15 pilots for the top 20, ask for Advance volunteers that wants to move to Expert (and pay the entry fees) if needed. After the second round of of qualifying now you take the five highest placing Advance Guy's, and move to the top 20, now they are experts and scored with the rest.
I've flown in more than 25 Nat’s so I know just how hard people worked to do the best they could to be fair and unbiased, these people were just super and always were greatly respected. These days you have a program to do the work and that can't be changed? What's wrong with that picture?
Mikey
-
Just my opinion, but I think you need to show us the details.
I assume you mean for the "classless" system? Because adding Intermediate and retaining the classes would work just like when we added Expert, and I think the Yampolsky algorithm covers it.
I will disregard Junior and Senior, there is no change required.
Everyone enters Open, there are no classes. Unofficial "Intermediate" is removed, merged with Open.
No one declares a class or cares about what class you flew at home.
Seeding is as currently done, add lesser point values for seeding the former advanced fliers
Four circles with same judges as currently done. The judges don't see anything at all different from normal. Generate score sheets for the circle assingments as current- call them all Open and you can probably use the same software for this.
Fly Wednesday and Thursday as per normal. Open/"Advanced"/"Intermediate" are all mixed (just like it was until the mid-90s when "Advanced" was changed to an official event). No attempt to sort them by skill, random number generator, the dreaded ping-pong balls, the scramble, whatever, sets the order.
Take top 5 from each circle, they go on to Top20/"A Main" flight on Friday, run just like current Top 20 day
Take second 5 from each circle, they go to 20-man "B Main" flight on Friday, just like current Advanced, award places for "B Main" after flying on Friday
Rank remainder from 41 to n based on normalized score for their circle as previously done for Open 21 though n
Top 5 from "A Main" go to Open Fly-off as normal
Fly Junior and Senior on Saturday as normal
Junior/Senior/Open fly Walker Flyoff as normal
Retire Advanced Champion Trophy, replace with "B Main" trophy.
This makes the Intermediate pilots get 4 flights in the same groups with everyone else, on the L-Pad, and while removing the incentive for being the "unofficial intermediate national champion" or whatever nutty thing we currently do, get a chance to make the B Main if they have a good week, and a real placing with respect to everyone else.
This also removes the need for the Yampolsky algorithm, or cutting down on the "Top 20" for both current classes (to 16, which arguably should be done on low Open turnout). It raises the possibility that you will wind up with less than 20 in the "B Main", but, the qualifying flights would not be pointless because everyone is still trying to make the "A Main".
If we get down low enough that there are less than 20 entrants, we have other issues, and we could just run it like the Team Trials. And save everyone 6 days of their lives. That would be a last-ditch contingency plan, since you have a whole week to do three days of flying, you can just do it manually.
Just like the last time, you can't fly ARFs, so too bad on that one. You already can't do that, and (unlike almost all local contests) you also can't overcome the appearance points deficit to win in Advanced at the NATs.
BTW, this all occurred to me again when I realized that WC qualifying works just like our Team Trials - except that they are trying to do it with 85 people instead of 15-20! Which more-or-less explains the fatigue issue.
Brett
p.s. Oh, for Christ's sake, I am offering this as a thought experiment, more than an actual proposal to do in 2019! I have no more control over it than anyone else, it's an idea to deal with reduced turnout while improving the lot of the Intermediate fliers for almost free. If you have an objection, post it here, I can take it.
-
I saw 500 scores for intermediate and thought "what the hell!"
My reaction was the same. If you judge strictly by the judges guide you are going to get some pretty high scores at the lower skill levels. The 1-2-3 points they suggest are just not enough for anything less than expert. We used this method before it became official back in the 70's. It produces similar scores to what we are used to by using 1-3-5 but we scrapped it because was just too difficult in practice.
Ken
-
This sounds dangerously close to how it used to be before PAMPA skill classes-just age classes. This is just carving the groups after the flying is done more or less. Some old dogs liked that better....woof..woof.
Dave
-
My reaction was the same. If you judge strictly by the judges guide you are going to get some pretty high scores at the lower skill levels. The 1-2-3 points they suggest are just not enough for anything less than expert. We used this method before it became official back in the 70's. It produces similar scores to what we are used to by using 1-3-5 but we scrapped it because was just too difficult in practice.
That's why it takes a lot of experience to be a good judge. In the first Intermediate the same thing happened, but when the same person (Dorin the year I did it) flew advanced, he ended up in the low 400s. Leonard Neumann and I gave him something like a 410 in the qualifying round, he got 50something in the "flyoff" which he won, then got 40somethings in Advanced. That's no indictment of anything, really, just that lacking a reference, you can get the right relative rankings but the absolute value of the score really means nothing, in a vacuum. It's not a defect.
That's one of the keys to the regular NATS format, too, you never try to compare scores from one set of judges to the next, you are put in groups, you all fly for the same judges, and you are only competing with the other people in your group - not the people in other groups. It's not at all uncommon to have a 50-point difference in the top qualifying scores from one circle to the next, and it doesn't tell you anything about the relative skill levels. You find that out once you put everyone together.
Brett
-
This sounds dangerously close to how it used to be before PAMPA skill classes-just age classes. This is just carving the groups after the flying is done more or less. Some old dogs liked that better....woof..woof.
That's still more-or-less how it is, except with Advanced tacked on, replacing Dave Cook's *far better* idea, having people declare themselves in "Sportsman Class" as a sort of overlay on Open. This is even better, it doesn't require anyone to declare themselves as anything, so they have the same opportunity to make it all the way to the end as everyone else. If you enter Advanced, you aren't going to be in the Open Top20, Top 5, or anything else but the advanced finals, no matter how good you fly.
The other difference from the straight J-S-O format is that it adds the B Main as a goal and extra chance of flying. In the original J-S-O system, if you didn't make the Top 20, you were done. With this variation, you also have something for 21-40 to fly for. Same thing with the current Advanced/Open system, the guy who finished 21st was still done - while the 20 guys who qualified in advanced (in reality something like 30th through 50th place) keep going.
Since we added Advanced as an official class, we added the extra work on Friday for the Judges anyway, this just uses the same resources for a more inclusive/legitimate competition based entirely on merit and how you flew, not what class you signed up for.
Brett
-
p.s. Oh, for Christ's sake, I am offering this as a thought experiment, more than an actual proposal to do in 2019! I have no more control over it than anyone else, it's an idea to deal with reduced turnout while improving the lot of the Intermediate fliers for almost free. If you have an objection, post it here, I can take it.
I think you should make it an actual proposal. This makes a wholotta sense.
Ken
-
Let's just say you only have 15 pilots for the top 20, ask for Advance volunteers that wants to move to Expert (and pay the entry fees) if needed. After the second round of of qualifying now you take the five highest placing Advance Guy's, and move to the top 20, now they are experts and scored with the rest.
Gimme your email address and I'll send you the Nats program and explanatory materials. I think the situation you are describing is if there are too few Open contestants for it to make sense to take 20 to the semifinals. Given what's in the current program, that's fewer than 33. From 25 to 32 Open fliers, we'd take 16 to the next round. So you would supplement these with 4 Advanced guys, rather than 4 more Open guys? What if these Advanced guys had lower scores before the same judges than the nonqualifying Open guys? Perhaps a better way would be to announce at the pilots' meeting that, given the Open entry level, only 16 guys would go on to the semifinals, then ask for Advanced volunteers to switch to Open to preserve the sacred Top 20.
What's so special about having 20 guys in the semifinals that we'd want to do something goofy to achieve it? Taking the best five out of five contestants on a circle, as we did in Advanced in 2012, seems silly to me. I think where to draw the line is up for discussion, but I don't remember hearing any discussion on what's currently implemented.
These days you have a program to do the work and that can't be changed? What's wrong with that picture?
Literally, what you asked is whether having a program can't be changed. Yes, it can. You could return to the days of going to Shareen's hotel room the night before your flight and writing down your flight orders, the days of people fighting about the Nats being rigged, and the days of scoring errors from unchecked tabulation (once every Nats for me before we automated). Perhaps what you meant was whether the program can be changed. Yes, the program can be changed, but a) only when the details of the change are thought through, and b) not during the Nats. You hit a sore point with me. Although I repeatedly begged the guys running the Nats this year to look at the material I sent them about how the process works, none of them did, and Thursday evening they found out that 16 guys out of 28 in Open would go to the semifinals. I could have easily changed the formula before the Nats so that 20 out of 28 would advance, but not reliably on the fly, not to mention violating the principle of publishing the process ahead of time.
What's wrong with that picture? I don't think you can see the picture, and therefore are not qualified as an art critic.
-
I think you should make it an actual proposal. This makes a wholotta sense.
Ken
It makes some sense if you have a relatively low turnout. What would happen if you had 80 entrants instead of 45ish is that you would edge out all the guys who used to fly Advanced, and they wouldn't make the "B Main" because all the guys who failed to qualify for the "A Main" would push them out. And the former intermediates would generally get nothing except two days instead of one day. Maybe that's OK, but it reduces the appeal and defeats the purpose of having the unofficial events - it really *would* be a takeaway as people seem to want to yell at me about. That's more-or-less what happened before Advanced was added.
In the original version from about 5 years ago, this was resolved by adding a "C Main" for 41-60. The problem, which is non-trivial, is when to have it and where to you get the extra resources to judge and administer it. Without changing the schedule (which everyone seems to like), you end up doing the "B" or "C" Main on Saturday afternoon, presumably with judges drawn from the ranks of the A-Main #6-#20. That is ugly, after the flyoff, people just want to get out of there, and now you have to hang around for another long afternoon until sundown. You could also start on Tuesday, have the B and C Mains on Thursday, A Main on Friday, and flyoff on Saturday. Either way, you are adding some time to the main timeline, and having Intermediate on Saturday before, on the grass, as a separate contest, starts looking like a better way to go.
Brett
-
I've flown in more than 25 Nat’s so I know just how hard people worked to do the best they could to be fair and unbiased, these people were just super and always were greatly respected. These days you have a program to do the work and that can't be changed? What's wrong with that picture?
Howard's point is correct, you have to figure it out ahead of time, and just can't wing it during the week. Unless you want to get Shareen and Lila to spend endless hours hand-figuring it again (and we DON'T want that). The business with the 16-man Top 20 was a long-decided issue and baked into the program, when it popped up that way, apparently everyone was surprised and they had to scramble, even though it was clear if you read the instructions. It worked out.
It's a sore point because Howard and Paul did a heck of a lot of work on it, and because no one appears to want to figure out how it works ahead of time, there have been endless complaints about "the program screwed up again", which is largely unfair. Software is dumb, it only does what you told it, not what you actually wanted.
As noted, I and everyone else knows it can be changed, and I anticipate that Howard is not going to be in a rush to volunteer, because all he ever hears are complaints about it. So, I am talking about changing something and he figures he will either have to fix it or get blamed for not fixing it.
Any such change would require committing to it well ahead of time, doing the programming and testing long before the event, either to generate a separate program to be used with low turnout (and use the existing program for the current format), to accomodate both (not recommended, at least by me), or commit to doing it regardless well ahead of time.
Howard's point is that knowing it can be changed doesn't accomplish anything, someone actually has to do the change, and it's really easy for internet experts such as myself to come up with grand plans but there has to be follow-through.
Brett
-
You responded to my snotty comment to Mikey, rather than my slightly less snotty comment to you about your classless proposal.
This also removes the need for the Yampolsky algorithm, or cutting down on the "Top 20" for both current classes (to 16, which arguably should be done on low Open turnout). It raises the possibility that you will wind up with less than 20 in the "B Main", but, the qualifying flights would not be pointless because everyone is still trying to make the "A Main".
I think you'd still want to have the number advancing to the B finals be a function of number of contestants, but you're right about the nonpointlessness.
I think you've convinced me that both your notions are good ideas. This brings up a whole 'nother point of how to effect changes to the Nats process. I've done changes by discussion with the Nats stunt event director, then by hosing those changes around on these fora. That worked OK, but you'd probably want a wider discussion for either the inclusion of Intermediate as an official event or the "classless" proposal. In our Thursday evening discussion at this year's Nats, Frank Williams challenged my authority to send fewer than 20 Open fliers to the semifinals, and Mark Overmier pointed out that publishing something on a forum does not constitute official notice. I think that the Nats being an AMA function, the Nats stunt ED or the AMA stunt contest board should decide on Nats stunt process changes. The PAMPA annual meeting, having approved so many unexamined or nutso proposals, should not be a place to mess with the Nats. I think the AMA Web site, Nats paperwork, or Nats pilots' meeting should be the medium for officially publicizing changes. We should also put them in Stunt News and Stunt Hangar, of course.
-
It makes some sense if you have a relatively low turnout. What would happen if you had 80 entrants instead of 45ish is that you would edge out all the guys who used to fly Advanced, and they wouldn't make the "B Main" because all the guys who failed to qualify for the "A Main" would push them out. And the former intermediates would generally get nothing except two days instead of one day. Maybe that's OK, but it reduces the appeal and defeats the purpose of having the unofficial events - it really *would* be a takeaway as people seem to want to yell at me about. That's more-or-less what happened before Advanced was added.
Good point. These contingencies could all be decided upon and programmed, so we could be ready to print out all the forms for any level of entry.
-
It makes some sense if you have a relatively low turnout. What would happen if you had 80 entrants instead of 45ish is that you would edge out all the guys who used to fly Advanced, and they wouldn't make the "B Main" because all the guys who failed to qualify for the "A Main" would push them out. And the former intermediates would generally get nothing except two days instead of one day. Maybe that's OK, but it reduces the appeal and defeats the purpose of having the unofficial events - it really *would* be a takeaway as people seem to want to yell at me about. That's more-or-less what happened before Advanced was added.
In the original version from about 5 years ago, this was resolved by adding a "C Main" for 41-60. The problem, which is non-trivial, is when to have it and where to you get the extra resources to judge and administer it. Without changing the schedule (which everyone seems to like), you end up doing the "B" or "C" Main on Saturday afternoon, presumably with judges drawn from the ranks of the A-Main #6-#20. That is ugly, after the flyoff, people just want to get out of there, and now you have to hang around for another long afternoon until sundown. You could also start on Tuesday, have the B and C Mains on Thursday, A Main on Friday, and flyoff on Saturday. Either way, you are adding some time to the main timeline, and having Intermediate on Saturday before, on the grass, as a separate contest, starts looking like a better way to go.
Brett
I still like the concept of everybody having a shot at the title. You are right that a large draw would push some experts into the "B" just like a small draw would pull some Advanced into the "A". The Advanced "Trophy Hunters" are not going to be happy either way but they will figure out how to scam the system. My perspective may be just that, my perspective, but I always want to be judged against the best. My wife told me when I started flying again that if I brought home one more trophy I would be in big trouble. I know I am never going to regain the vision and reflexes I had when I was 35 and that is what it takes to be top 10 but somehow, flying in a lower class just to "win" is not me. But, I am not everyone else either. I don't think there is a system that will please everybody but I do think what you are suggesting is a giant step in the right direction.
Ken
-
I know I am never going to regain the vision and reflexes I had when I was 35 and that is what it takes to be top 10...
Fortunately it doesn’t.
-
Making B flight would be a great achievement for an Intermediate flier.
Of course, either way, you get to see how you stack up against the rest with the same judges, etc, as everybody else. That might be less advantageous for Intermediate, as the scores would drop from the current 500-ish scores to about 400, when relative to the Open and Advanced.
Brett
Works for me! I have been in the top 50 of every Intermediate contest I have entered on the West Coast.
Bring it on.
Does this idea include the appearance thingy as well?
-
Fortunately it doesn’t.
I am fully aware that many of our top 10 fliers are up in years. They are there mostly because they have retained the vision and reflexes necessary to win and I am fairly sure that most of them did not take 35 years off recently. Only experience and practice makes them as able to perform today as well, or in some cases better, today as they did in their 30's or even their 40's. I didn't say you needed to be 35 - only have the reflexes and vision. Some do, I don't.
Ken
-
Brett's suggestion is interesting. I'm not sure yet whether I am "fer it or agin it". I need to think about it for a while. There are a couple of items related to this suggestion that need to be considered. In my opinion, these two items represent the heart of the matter.
I believe that the creation of the Advanced official event for the Nats was done as a means for attracting additional participation in CL stunt at the Nats. Has the adoption of the Advanced official event been successful? I believe that it has, but I don't have any data on attendance on which to base my belief. On the surface it seems that Brett's suggestion might be a step back from the intent of offering the Advanced event.
The second item has to do with the "pool" of flyers for the 21-40 "B-main". The B-main pool would, in essence, replace the Top 20 for the current Advanced event. The suggested new format would, as a consequence, combine the non Top 20 Open flyers with the Advanced flyers. If we presume that Open flyers are generally more highly skilled than Advanced flyers, it will be somewhat more difficult for Advanced flyers to qualify for the finals. Brett recognized this result in one of his posts. The question becomes, would the number of entries of Advanced skill flyers deminish as a result?
As far as the operation of the stunt events under each of the formats (Advanced, Open vs A main, B main), I don't believe there will be any appreciable difference in either the judging workload or the paperwork involved.
Joe
-
You responded to my snotty comment to Mikey, rather than my slightly less snotty comment to you about your classless proposal.
Hi Howard,
I'm not so thinned skin and I didn't take it as a snotty comment. I know you and others have have worked very hard on this program, and it is appreciated, thanks so much. It always seems like when they want to improve the program they want to drop the Advance class (which sucks). Rollie & Jack had a great idea when they suggested adding Advanced and that was improved on by adding skill classes. That makes the Nat’s fun for everyone and a real place to learn how to fly stunt properly. Yes, they should have been up on the program and how it works.
Hi Brett,
I’m sure you guys will figure something out that works for everyone.
Later,
Mikey
-
Just my opinion, but I think you need to show us the details.
Hi Howard,
Let's just say you only have 15 pilots for the top 20, ask for Advance volunteers that wants to move to Expert (and pay the entry fees) if needed. After the second round of of qualifying now you take the five highest placing Advance Guy's, and move to the top 20, now they are experts and scored with the rest.
I've flown in more than 25 NatÂ’s so I know just how hard people worked to do the best they could to be fair and unbiased, these people were just super and always were greatly respected. These days you have a program to do the work and that can't be changed? What's wrong with that picture?
Mikey
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Including Intermediate in the main show could increase NATs attendance and participation. Now Intermediate fliers finish at beginning of week. After that they watch. Or. More likely. Go home.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I believe that the creation of the Advanced official event for the Nats was done as a means for attracting additional participation in CL stunt at the Nats. Has the adoption of the Advanced official event been successful? I believe that it has, but I don't have any data on attendance on which to base my belief. On the surface it seems that Brett's suggestion might be a step back from the intent of offering the Advanced event.
The second item has to do with the "pool" of flyers for the 21-40 "B-main". The B-main pool would, in essence, replace the Top 20 for the current Advanced event. The suggested new format would, as a consequence, combine the non Top 20 Open flyers with the Advanced flyers. If we presume that Open flyers are generally more highly skilled than Advanced flyers, it will be somewhat more difficult for Advanced flyers to qualify for the finals. Brett recognized this result in one of his posts. The question becomes, would the number of entries of Advanced skill flyers deminish as a result?
That's a real issue, and why it is a better idea with low turnout. If you were going to have 35 Open and 25 Advanced (which is what I think the "natural" turnout would be - '18 being an aberration, hopefully) you wind up with the former Advanced winner ending up 16th in the B Main. Intermediate, even more so, used to you get a trophy for Intermediate, now, making the B Main at all is the goal.
On the other hand, the current system is hardly equitable, either. The guy who finished 21st in Open flies his two flights, fails to qualify, done, end of contest. Usually this guy is a *really good pilot* and wins every event he enters, other than the NATs. Then, while he is sitting around pondering it, he sees 20 other guys in Advanced having a finals and getting trophies and attention, for (and I will just say it) finishing 36th.
This is why NAT's qualifying is such a big deal, and why this is the general indication of someone having "made it" in stunt. Qualifying under the current system is seen as your badge of honor, for most people, because you are probably never going to actually make the fly-off or win due to the nutcases who make stunt their life's work.
For Advanced and Intermediate, this would be replaced by the prospect of possibly winning the "B Main" for an Advanced flier, or qualifying for the B Main for the Intermediate flier. I think people would realize this as a really good thing to achieve. The other draw is that this takes the Intermediate event from unofficial event on one day on the grass, to at least 4 flights like the rest of the entrants, with the same judges and the same facilities. If you have a really good week, you get two more flights with the big boys on Friday. If I had that possibility when I was in Intermediate (one contest a *long* time ago), that would have seemed like a pretty good prospect and quite a draw.
If you have too many entrants, though, then this becomes hopeless, maybe you add a C Main to make up for it, but it is much less appealing.
Brett
p.s. As an aside, I am looking at these various options to address what seem to me to be weaknesses in the current skill-class system. To me, at least around here, skill classes are at least partially broken (due to the compression from 4 to 3 classes and the "win and move up" "rule" that some people - incorrectly - use to bump people up). Not many people seem to see it the same way, but this issue also affects the NATs, and when you have low turnouts, you get anomalies like the 16-man Top 20 day because you are subdividing the field. That's swell and works out OK, when you have 40 in Open and 40 in Advanced, you don't see it.
-
Ah is confusiscated. Probably because I've never made it to the Nats.
Are we requiring that Advanced and Intermediate pilots be the builders of their own models for the Nats? If not, how do you handle someone who shows up with (to chose things entirely not at random) a pre-fab model or a hand-me-down from a top builder?
-
Ah is confusiscated. Probably because I've never made it to the Nats.
Are we requiring that Advanced and Intermediate pilots be the builders of their own models for the Nats? If not, how do you handle someone who shows up with (to chose things entirely not at random) a pre-fab model or a hand-me-down from a top builder?
This change eliminates that.
Brett
-
Quote from Brett 8/5/2018 12:16
" On the other hand, the current system is hardly equitable, either. The guy who finished 21st in Open flies his two flights, fails to qualify, done, end of contest. Usually this guy is a *really good pilot* and wins every event he enters, other than the NATs. Then, while he is sitting around pondering it, he sees 20 other guys in Advanced having a finals and getting trophies and attention, for (and I will just say it) finishing 36th."
Brett,
I don't believe this is a viable problem. The reason is that Advanced is a completely separate event from the open event that open finisher number 21 is participating in. In addition, open finisher number 21 might not realistically be eligible to fly in Advanced (due to higher than allowed skill level). Do I understand correctly that the Advanced event is for flyers of the Advanced PAMPA skill level and probably for "back in the pack" Expert flyers at local contests?
Joe
-
This change eliminates that.
I'm sorry. I have a sinking feeling that I'm extra-dense today. I'm still not sure what you meant.
Is Intermediate/Advanced at the Nats currently run as a "normal" skill-class event with bought/borrowed/etc. planes allowed? And would your change mean that the BOM rule would apply in full?
Are there many Intermediate/Advanced pilots who show up with non-pilot-built planes, who would thus not be eligible to fly?
-
Is Intermediate/Advanced at the Nats currently run as a "normal" skill-class event with bought/borrowed/etc. planes allowed? And would your change mean that the BOM rule would apply in full?
Yes and Yes.
Are there many Intermediate/Advanced pilots who show up with non-pilot-built planes, who would thus not be eligible to fly?
No, there are not many of those. I also note that in no case has allowing ARFs or OPPs at any contest has ever improved attendance. Far from it, the places that panicked and got rid of appearance points are losing attendance and contests right and left.
If we actually did this, the impassioned wails of torment and rending of garments from the anti-modeling side of this argument (the same 15-20 guys who always complain) would reach a fevered pitch. But they are wrong, and missing the point, and just want to double down on their failing ideas.
Brett
-
This change eliminates that.
Brett
Hello,
How does the change eliminate it? Guys who normally fly adv and int use borrowed or bought planes. Sometimes they come to the Nats with those planes. With the change and everyone flying together again we are all in 322 flying for the Walker Trophy correct? So BOM applies to everyone.
Am I correct?
-
NATs format has evolved and improved to what it is today because we have been willing to "tweak" it - this is a timely conversation:
* 4 circles of qualifiers for Open came about as a means of handling the number of contestants. If that number goes down then there is nothing wrong with changing it to 3 circles.
* Similarly, the Top 20 semifinalists was viewed as a manageable and fair number. However, selecting 20 out of say 50 entries makes more sense then selecting 20 out of 28 contestants. Advanced finalists are a sliding scale based on the number of entries - its possible to do that for Open also.
* If we were doing three circles it would be tempting to do 3 days of qualifying and toss out the semifinals completely. Give everyone one more day of qualifying, blow off the Semis, pick a top 6 from Open and Advanced and go to Saturday Finals.
* One of the hardest things for the NATs ED to do is recruit Judges. We also try to separate the Open and Advanced flyers into groups within the flight order. If we bring in Intermediate then I think we should also look at flying the 3 groups completely separately, AND drawing judges from one group to judge another group.
* The L-Pad is a wonderful place to fly. Our current format is designed to reduce judges fatigue, and we are successful to the point that most of the day the L-Pad is empty of official flying. Flying separate groups at separate times of the day might be a good way to keep the flying space active while still preventing judges fatigue?
* Intermediate is an "unofficial" event that draws 10-15 entries. One upside is that Intermediate flyers do not have to pay full NATs entry. However, at the end of the event AMA counts the official entry, and AMA forwards some of the entry fee to us to help pay our expenses (like reimbursement for the judges) They collect nothing and forward nothing from the unofficial events. Unlike the Classic & OTS events, Intermediate is a rule book event and thus could be made "Official".
* Because Intermediate is a one day event, someone can fly this event, then fly other events the rest of the week without scheduling conflicts. This year our Intermediate champion flew Combat the rest of the week. If Intermediate had been a week long event it is probable he would not have flown it. I do not know if other Intermediate flyers were in a similar situation.
* Because Intermediate is a one day event, it is easier to attend, but because it is a one day event I think we essentially attract a mostly "local" entry. Question is, would we draw more if it was a multi-day event?
* My preference would be to continue to allow ARFs & 2nd-hand airplanes in Intermediate - because I have not seen a compelling reason to exclude them.
* Personally I think we missing an opportunity by not offering the Profile event as another unofficial event - but WHERE to put it in the schedule?
-
Hello,
How does the change eliminate it? Guys who normally fly adv and int use borrowed or bought planes. Sometimes they come to the Nats with those planes. With the change and everyone flying together again we are all in 322 flying for the Walker Trophy correct? So BOM applies to everyone.
Am I correct?
Yes. BOM applies, ARFs and OPPS would not be allowed.
Not that many people fly OPPs in NATS intermediate already, and removing the BOM has long proven not to solve the "participation" issue in general, so not permitting ARFs doesn't seem to hurt anything in the long run.
I know how this is shaping up - but to date, there is virtually no evidence that not having the BOM or appearance points "increases participation" (if anything, the opposite) so there's no reason to continue to flog that horse at the NATs. What seems to enhance participation is a legitimate challenge in all areas, and a better contest for everyone, which this provides for guys at the back of the pack. It doesn't change anything much for the likely winners.
Brett
-
NATs format has evolved and improved to what it is today because we have been willing to "tweak" it - this is a timely conversation:
* My preference would be to continue to allow ARFs & 2nd-hand airplanes in Intermediate - because I have not seen a compelling reason to exclude them.
* Personally I think we missing an opportunity by not offering the Profile event as another unofficial event - but WHERE to put it in the schedule?
These two points are important to this discussion. Perhaps we should leave intermediate alone. I think the whole point of any change should be to make the NATS function at both levels for everybody. You have the dedicated core who are after that coveted Walker Trophy and you have the rest that want to attend and particate in what should be the "Greatest Show on Earth" to a model builder/flier.
I have no problem erasing the Advanced/Expert distinction and letting the results make that cut. In fact I think it is a good idea. Adding Profile is also a great idea. Especially if it is flown on a day other than Classic, and, if you can find a really good Classic Profile, you have a one plane in the back of the car for three events which makes the trip make more sense.
From what I have read (since I was in the wilderness while all of the current formats evolved) Classic in it's various forms and profile were intended to some degree to be warmup events for the Big Show yet I don't see that happening. I attribute that to the differences in how the smaller planes fly compared to the current state of the art PA machine. For a lot of serious fliers, it is not a good idea to be jumping back and forth at the NATS. This is not that much of a problem in Intermediate and it might entice a lot of us "old farts" that still remember how to fly those tiny light weight 35 powered Nobler clones to attend. Hell, we might even have a "Senior" event someday. Lots of sports have that and with the boomers retiring there are going to be a lot of older, once very good fliers who will be taking it up again. They have Grandchildren and Grandpa has time...but that is another thread.
Ken
-
Myself I think there are too many classes of stunt. I know beginner was added to encourage guys/gals to come to the NATS and fly. I think the same was for intermediate also. I have flown intermediate several times just to do something before the big show. Then there was added Old time before all this Beg, Int. and Classic. I know the format for Open was set to give guys/gals a better chance at making the top 20. What few Juniors and Seniors there are get to fly the other events until Saturday when they fly against each other and top 5 is flown. I know it makes for a long week. I myself would not support a Profile class. Of course I have not been to a NATS for several years now. D>K
-
Yes. BOM applies, ARFs and OPPS would not be allowed.
Not that many people fly OPPs in NATS intermediate already, and removing the BOM has long proven not to solve the "participation" issue in general, so not permitting ARFs doesn't seem to hurt anything in the long run.
I know how this is shaping up - but to date, there is virtually no evidence that not having the BOM or appearance points "increases participation" (if anything, the opposite) so there's no reason to continue to flog that horse at the NATs. What seems to enhance participation is a legitimate challenge in all areas, and a better contest for everyone, which this provides for guys at the back of the pack. It doesn't change anything much for the likely winners.
Brett
Not flogging a dead horse by any means. This is not about BOM/Non BOM increasing participation and all of that blah blah blah noise I am so over that nonsense and don't really give a you know what about it anymore. This is about coming up with a viable solution to the nats format should the participation consistently dwindle. You have come up with a workable solution. If I read what you wrote correctly then you are talking about actually removing an official event and unofficial event from the entry form. While I think that is fine at the same time others might not feel the same. I have heard over the years that competitors like to come and compete in their class and have a chance to win. Throw everyone in the pile like years ago and you will most likely see those who want to compete at the top of their level vs others at the top that same level stay away. Then you end up with even less competitors in the end.
I like Dennis's idea of three days qualifiers and take the top 6 from 3 circles. Everyone is flying 3 days, not just 2 for some, and everyone is competing for the Top6 from day one. Not just competing for the Top20.
The other viable option is to slide the Friday qualifiers number based on entry. It's seems to me to be the easiest thing to do. If participation is low enough to have a top 16 vs a top 20 making either will take about the same amount of skill and flying ability since the field is smaller.
Either way it goes I feel very confident that those who make the decisions will be able to do this in a very complimentary way to our nats entrants.
-
* 4 circles of qualifiers for Open came about as a means of handling the number of contestants. If that number goes down then there is nothing wrong with changing it to 3 circles.
And it's in the tabulation program now.
* Similarly, the Top 20 semifinalists was viewed as a manageable and fair number. However, selecting 20 out of say 50 entries makes more sense then selecting 20 out of 28 contestants. Advanced finalists are a sliding scale based on the number of entries - its possible to do that for Open also.
And it's in the tabulation program now, as people discovered Thursday afternoon at this year's Nats.
* If we were doing three circles it would be tempting to do 3 days of qualifying and toss out the semifinals completely. Give everyone one more day of qualifying, blow off the Semis, pick a top 6 from Open and Advanced and go to Saturday Finals.
For Advanced, that would add one more day of qualifications. How would that work for judge assignment? Why 6? For 17 or 18 contestants, the current scheme takes 9 to the finals, for 19 through 24, it takes 12. Didn't you review and approve that as stunt event director?
* One of the hardest things for the NATs ED to do is recruit Judges. We also try to separate the Open and Advanced flyers into groups within the flight order. If we bring in Intermediate then I think we should also look at flying the 3 groups completely separately, AND drawing judges from one group to judge another group.
We do separate the Open and Advanced flyers into groups within the flight order. That gives the least variation of weather and judging attention over each group. We'd do the same for Intermediate.
* The L-Pad is a wonderful place to fly. Our current format is designed to reduce judges fatigue, and we are successful to the point that most of the day the L-Pad is empty of official flying. Flying separate groups at separate times of the day might be a good way to keep the flying space active while still preventing judges fatigue?
Is judge fatigue a problem now? One problem is that thermals get more intense in mid-day, throwing some chance into the outcome. Another is that it gets hotter as the day goes on, which fatigues everybody. You could have evening rounds-- fine with me, but others prefer to go to the Roadhouse.
I don't think keeping the flying space active is a problem. Whenever the weather is flyable, guys are practicing. In most years, flying on the L-pad is sufficiently busy that overflow goes to the grass circles.
* Because Intermediate is a one day event, someone can fly this event, then fly other events the rest of the week without scheduling conflicts. This year our Intermediate champion flew Combat the rest of the week. If Intermediate had been a week long event it is probable he would not have flown it. I do not know if other Intermediate flyers were in a similar situation.
Could be. Of course, if an Intermediate flier wants a week-long event, he can enter Advanced.
* Because Intermediate is a one day event, it is easier to attend, but because it is a one day event I think we essentially attract a mostly "local" entry. Question is, would we draw more if it was a multi-day event?
We'd lose those guys who can only stay one day.
* My preference would be to continue to allow ARFs & 2nd-hand airplanes in Intermediate - because I have not seen a compelling reason to exclude them.
Making Intermediate an official event wouldn't change that. Brett's more radical "classless" proposal would.
-
Attendance at NATs is down. When I first attended ten plus years ago there were I believe 40 in Advanced. Not now. The AMA charge for flying a main event is way less than the accumulated costs of going to Muncie, room and board. ARFs and OPP comply with PAMPA Advanced and Intermediate. No appearance points. No Appearance points on the East Coast. Except for Brodak. Huntersvile does well. Philly Fliers contest is growing. People fly ARFs, OPP and genuine 10 point appearance point (if you are lucky) entries at the NATS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I like Dennis's idea of three days qualifiers and take the top 6 from 3 circles. Everyone is flying 3 days, not just 2 for some, and everyone is competing for the Top6 from day one. Not just competing for the Top20.
If Advanced is on three circles, the current program takes either 9 or 12 to the finals, not 20. Seeding isn't as reliable in Advanced as in Expert, and circles might be less balanced in flying quality. Wouldn't that make taking 2 from each circle a problem?
The other viable option is to slide the Friday qualifiers number based on entry. It's seems to me to be the easiest thing to do. If participation is low enough to have a top 16 vs a top 20 making either will take about the same amount of skill and flying ability since the field is smaller.
It's the easiest thing to do because it's already done. Yup, I agree about skill and flying ability. For up to 40 or so contestants, we'd send about 54% to the Friday round. I'll send you (and anybody who wants them) the details, and you can critique them.
-
Attendance at NATs is down. When I first attended ten plus years ago there were I believe 40 in Advanced. Not now.
Here are data from the last time I collected it. The high numbers were from when hordes of Brazilians were coming.
-
If we were to adopt Brett's "classless" format, an Intermediate event could continue to go on as usual. Since advanced would no longer be an official Nat's event, it could be added to the grass circles as well. Someone could compete in a one day event for their skill class, and in the Nat's too, if they were so inclined.
I am not advocating for any of this, just putting it out there.
I do have one problem with the format. As I read it, we no longer have top 20 day. I find this unacceptable, because it truly is the most difficult day in stunt, and I love it!
Derek
-
Howard’s diagram does not appear to track Advanced entries.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Attendance at NATs is down. When I first attended ten plus years ago there were I believe 40 in Advanced.
Has there been any serious attempt to find out why serious fliers do not attend the NATS? It appears to me that a lot of the things that I see on this and other threads are coming from those that DO attend (or don't for reasons outside their control) speculating as to why attendance is down. Why don't we ask those that don't attend why and what changes would get them to attend? It might be that nothing we do will increase attendance. If that is the case then focus on how to keep what we have happy.
-
Has there been any serious attempt to find out why serious fliers do not attend the NATS? It appears to me that a lot of the things that I see on this and other threads are coming from those that DO attend (or don't for reasons outside their control) speculating as to why attendance is down. Why don't we ask those that don't attend why and what changes would get them to attend? It might be that nothing we do will increase attendance. If that is the case then focus on how to keep what we have happy.
Exactly. Our main attendance problem is age and ‘retirement ‘. For most who wish to come it is likely easier now than ever to do so in terms of time, family and finances. It’s just our numbers aren’t growing as fast as our retirements. Manipulating the format isn’t really going to change that. We might need to make some adjustments to compensate for the shrinkage but it’s unrealistic to think we can create a new wave of participation. The bodies just aren’t out there-or they would come.
Dave
-
Has there been any serious attempt to find out why serious fliers do not attend the NATS? It appears to me that a lot of the things that I see on this and other threads are coming from those that DO attend (or don't for reasons outside their control) speculating as to why attendance is down. Why don't we ask those that don't attend why and what changes would get them to attend? It might be that nothing we do will increase attendance. If that is the case then focus on how to keep what we have happy.
See the other thread, but we used to have people from all across the country come to it, now, it's mostly just the people within a day's drive. We have gone to Muncie every year since 1996, at some point, it has to stop being "special". The West has the biggest number of likely candidates but attendance from CA/AZ/OR/WA has dropped off to nearly nothing.
We have had higher turnout at local contests than was had at the NATs this year. We have plenty of people who might want to go, if it wasn't such an ordeal. Only the real die-hards go anymore.
Brett
-
One has to ask. Is Nat’s participation down because of location or because there are fewer “serious” stunt fliers. A large majority of the east coast fliers have retired from competition or all together. Hunt, Windy, Giacabone, Drindak, Adamusko, Lampione, Rogers, Weider... I could list half a dozen more and this is only those who used to attend the Nat’s and retired in recent years. Based on this Nat’s participation has remained strong.
Mike
-
See the other thread, but we used to have people from all across the country come to it, now, it's mostly just the people within a day's drive. We have gone to Muncie every year since 1996, at some point, it has to stop being "special". The West has the biggest number of likely candidates but attendance from CA/AZ/OR/WA has dropped off to nearly nothing.
We have had higher turnout at local contests than was had at the NATs this year. We have plenty of people who might want to go, if it wasn't such an ordeal. Only the real die-hards go anymore.
Brett
Personally I'm one of those fairly serious local expert fliers that stopped attending the NATS after they moved Muncie. While I was still working it was just about impossible for me to take the time to travel that far and be gone for a whole week or more! Vacation...what vacation?
After I retired it simply became too much of a financial burden to travel that far and hire people to look after our animals etc.
Now that we're older it is too much of a burden both financially and physically, especially for my wife, to consider driving 3000 miles.
Regardless of the "wonderfulness" of the Muncie location it makes it nearly impossible for older guys like me and a bunch of my serious flier friends to make that trip!
Although I know it will never happen, in my opinion the best thing for the NATS attendance, at least as far as CL is concerned would be to rotate it at least from East to West!
Randy (It's a long way from Tucson to Muncie) Cuberly
Brett:
I sent you a PM!
-
In a similar conversation I had I suggested there is nothing preventing someone from holding a US Championships or Open or whatever anyplace they wish. True the Nats are an AMA function (for which Muncie was purchased) and not a PAMPA function so they aren’t going anywhere. One of the drawbacks though is that it may peel off from otherwise-Nats entries, judges etc. and ruin the actual Nats. People can only do so much and to complicate it, next year and every other year is Nats AND the Team Trials. That’s two big trips for everyone. I doubt three would be tenable. I sure understand the desire for those on the coasts to want one closer. The Navy moved it around mostly to ‘market’ different areas for recruitment but those became a little more regional contests because of the distances. For that reason the old rule for the Nats before the Navy was that the Nats were to be held within 600 miles of KC. I presume that was considered when the AMA moved from the east to Indiana. Even with the Navy they held two in Olathe,Kansas and two at Glenview, Ill., etc. Lincoln and Vincennes right after the Navy left us. Can’t help but think we started to dwindle when the Nats got split up so you couldn’t enter multiple events and go spectate other things you hadn’t seen before.....and the work hanger......:-))
Dave
-
Well I'm going to tell one of several reasons I don't attend the NATS any more. When I retired I was how do you say fixed income. In over a decade I have seen only a couple of small increases in social security. In the mean time Utilities have increased, gas for vehicles has increased, groceries, taxes and a few other things have gone up also. Then with age the physical portion of me started going starting with a bad hip infection that led to the knees going bad even after going through the injections that helped a little. Insurance did not cover all of it. The wife is still working which is keeping us a float at times. I can't thank Melvin and Brenda for the years they transported me to the NATS and the motel room. It hurt to tell Melvin I could not go help him any more as I have newer problems of old age that the doctor is looking at. You ever have muscles start hurting while just sitting and watching TV or playing on the computer. I guess what I'm saying is that if every thing had stayed like it was when I retired I would be living great and would have never missed a NATS let alone local contests. Yes, I have missed a few of those too.
Maybe PAMPA could come up with a National Precision Aerobatics meet that could move around the country. It would take a lot of planning in getting a reasonable site and officials for each location. But that would not fix the AMA NATS as such or would it. ???
-
If Advanced is on three circles, the current program takes either 9 or 12 to the finals, not 20. Seeding isn't as reliable in Advanced as in Expert, and circles might be less balanced in flying quality. Wouldn't that make taking 2 from each circle a problem?
It's the easiest thing to do because it's already done. Yup, I agree about skill and flying ability. For up to 40 or so contestants, we'd send about 54% to the Friday round. I'll send you (and anybody who wants them) the details, and you can critique them.
Howard,
I got your email but I havent had a chance to go through it yet.
I will asap.
Thank you for taking the time to send it.
Doug