* 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.
Topic: NATS Format suggestion (Read 5265 times)