NATS Format suggestion

[Brett Buck]

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

[Tim Wescott]

... 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.

[Steve Fitton]

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?

[frank williams]

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?

[Brett Buck]

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

[Brett Buck]

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

[MikeyPratt]

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

[Mike Ferguson]

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.

[Brian Massey]

I saw 500 scores for intermediate and thought "what the hell!"

[Walter Hicks]

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

[peabody]

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!

[Howard Rush]

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.   

[Howard Rush]

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. 

[Howard Rush]

It might be cool to stick the Advanced winner into the top 5 Open guys.

Sign me up for Advanced.

[Howard Rush]

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. 

[Howard Rush]

   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.

[Howard Rush]

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. 

[Howard Rush]

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. 

[Mike Ferguson]

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>

[Brett Buck]

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

[Howard Rush]

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?

[Howard Rush]

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."

[Mike Ferguson]

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.

[Tim Wescott]

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.

[MikeyPratt]

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

[Brett Buck]

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.
   

[Ken Culbertson]

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

[Dave_Trible]

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

[Brett Buck]

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

[Brett Buck]

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

[Ken Culbertson]

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

[Howard Rush]

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.

[Brett Buck]

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

[Brett Buck]

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

[Howard Rush]

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. 

[Howard Rush]

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. 

[Ken Culbertson]

   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

[Howard Rush]

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.

[BYU]

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?

[Ken Culbertson]

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

[JHildreth]

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

[MikeyPratt]

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

[Dennis Moritz]

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

[Dennis Moritz]

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

[Brett Buck]

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.

[Tim Wescott]

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?

[Brett Buck]

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

[JHildreth]

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

[Tim Wescott]

   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?

[Brett Buck]

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