SEN 1462

Table of Contents - SEN 1462


  1. 2010 SE FAI Challenge Report and Results
  2. Finals - Shailor
  3. Finals - Biggles

2010 Southwest FAI Challenge



Every year when I sit down to write a recap of this meet, the weather is a major topic. We have been fortunate to have some of the most beautiful flying days ever on one of the most amazing flying sites anywhere. Usually we have two or three absolutely beautiful days. Unfortunately, last year we lost the Sunday events to relentless wind. This year, wind was predicted for Saturday, we just were not sure when it would arrive or if it did, if it would be manageable. We were happy to be greeted by calm conditions first thing Saturday and as we held our breath and crossed our fingers, we started the first round. Thirty minutes in, it was pretty clear we were going to have a problem. At the forty minute mark the wind hit 20 mph plus and we suspended the round. Two hours later, the “lulls” were at 18 mph, with gusts pushing 30 mph and we folded our tent, literally and figuratively, for the day. We would try to fly both big and small events in five 1-1/2 hour rounds on Sunday and see if we could pull it all off in one day. Even though we had a sanctioned reserve day for Monday, nobody really wanted to go to that option. It would need to be a perfect day. We got one! Beautiful sunshine and gentle breezes. By the time the end of round 5 came around, we had flyoffs pending in four events involving (14) competitors, with Charlie Jones and John Clapp claiming spots in both F1B and F1G.

At this point, I would normally start to describe the details of the flyoffs, how they developed and who won what, but this year the story is a little different. All the flyoffs were great. None were concluded in the first round. F1A went three rounds and all were pretty closely contested. What made this meet particularly memorable for me is that we not only finished the five rounds we scheduled, but we completed nine flyoff rounds in 2 hours and 15 minutes, got the awards handed out and most people off the field before dark! This only happened because of the unbelievable cooperation of the modelers and volunteer timers who responded to my requests for help (demands?) over and over again, without a single complaint…at least not that I heard. Before we recognize the winners, thanks again so very much to Merry Smith, Sharron Emery, Bob Tymchek, Jon Ziesloft, Larry Bagalini, Mike Pykelny, Larry Miller, Lindy Morrell, Tony Robertson, Janna Van Nest, Geralyn Jones & Bernie Crowe who never once said “no” when I pointed them to a flyer’s pole. If I forgot anyone by name, my apologies, because each and every one of you were the reason we were able to pull off what we did.


The largest margin of victory in any flyoff was 38 seconds by Bob Piserchio over Boulder City resident, Tom Ioerger in F1B. There was a 36 second difference with Rene Limberger topping Brian Van Nest in F1A. Lee Hines edged Dallas Parker by 11 seconds in F1H and Charlie Jones snuck by Jack Emery in F1G by 5 seconds. Henning Nyhegn, our Danish friend who always extends his fall visit to the States to include our meet, took top honors in F1C and Austin Gunder should have locked up the Americas Cup in F1J with his victory here. Tony Robertson once again took away the hardware for F1P and the local P-30 contingent was lead by Robert Hodes.


The Orbiteers have always been big promoters of the relatively new F1Q (electric) event. This year we had six entries, more than we have had in F1J for the last three years combined. As an example of the Orbiteers commitment to F1Q, we were honored to receive a very special contribution that will be added to the hardware for this meet. Former Senior National Champion and current Orbiteer Larry Miller presented us with a beautiful silver pitcher that he won for a High-Point Sweepstakes performance when he was part of the legendary United States Air Force Team back in the late sixties. This will be mounted on a base and become the perpetual award for our F1Q champion every year. This year’s winner, Bernie Crowe will have his name added to the plaque along with all previous winners. A very special Thank You goes out to Larry.


It was nice to see Austin Gunder and Charlie Jones make the trip to Boulder City for the first time. The Farmer family and Mike Roseberry from Arizona, plus Henning Nyhegn and Cenny Breeman from “across the pond”. It was great to see Blake Jensen (Oregon) back again, this time with Tiffaney and our other regulars, John & Sally Clapp from Pennsylvania. We missed Peter & Brigitte Brocks who were on the trip of a lifetime to India.


The Southwest FAI Challenge weekend may be returning to its roots next year. Ten years ago when I started coming to this meet, there was a parallel AMA event with a decent slate of events held along side the FAI meet. A rejuvenated group of “Las Vegas Dust Devils” led by Mike and Rick Keller are tentatively planning to bring back the AMA side of the gathering with a handful of AMA and Nostalgia events. Keep your eyes open for announcements next summer.

As always, there is no way this meet could be organized and run the way it is without Bob Beecroft‘s help and patience at the head table every year.



Thanks again to everyone who came and we hope to see you all back next year.



Bill Booth Jr.  
#cg_msg_content div, #cg_msg_content table, #cg_msg_content thead, #cg_msg_content tbody, #cg_msg_content tfoot, #cg_msg_content tr, #cg_msg_content th, #cg_msg_content td, #cg_msg_content p { font-size: x-small; }

F1A          
           
Rene Limberger180180180180180300420228 1848
Brian Van Nest180180180180180300420192 1812
Jim Parker180180180180180300342  1542
Mike McKeever180180180180180300310  1510
Cenny Breeman180173180180180    893
Norm Smith180169180180180    889
Dallas Parker180180165180180    885
Lee Hines180180133131180    804
Jim Farmer18018018000    540
Joey Farmer (Jr)14918018000    509
Jimmy Farmer (Jr)012418000    304
           
F1B          
           
Bob Piserchio180180180180180300367  1567
Tom Ioerger180180180180180300329  1529
Charlie Jones180180180180180271   1171
John Clapp180180180180180184   1084
Roger Morrell18018018018018084   984
Rich Rohrke180180180178180    898
Blake Jensen180180180173180    893
Dick Wood55180180180179    774
Al Ulm128137144180180    769
Bob Tymchek18018018014922    711
Jack Emery1801321801130    605
Alex Andriukov1290000    129
           
F1C          
           
Henning Nyhegn180180150180180    870
Austin Gunder180132180180180    852
           
           
F1G          
           
Charlie Jones120120120120120180217  997
Jack Emery120120120120120180212  992
Tiffany OメDell120120120120120180178  958
Blake Jensen120120120120120160   760
John Clapp1201201201201200   600
Larry Bagalini12012010212078    540
Mike Pykelny120120114350    389
Dick Wood460000    46
           
F1H          
           
Lee Hines120120120120120180249  1029
Dallas Parker120120120120120180238  1018
Brian Van Nest120120102120120    582
Mike McKeever110104120120120    574
Norm Smith120120067120    427
Jim Parker3120000    123
           
F1Q          
           
Bernie Crowe180180180176180    896
Mike Pykelny180180180151180    871
Larry Miller180149180180180    869
John Oldenkamp180180180173151    864
Larry Bagalini18018018099180    819
Mike Roseberry18018018000    540
           
F1J          
           
Austin Gunder120120120120120    600
Tony Robertson120120000    240
           

 

Finals Format Revisited, Ad Infinitum

Another post-Finals November is here and we find yet another series of complaints about the format with nobody stepping forward to clarify what the perceived problem is that needs to be fixed. As I've asked in the past, what was it, precisely, about this past Finals that produced an unfair result? In other words, who isn't on the team who should be and, by implication, who is on the team who shouldn't be?
We all have our sob stories program after program. This year, a bad prop fold on the first round stalled my model to the ground in spite of my model being higher than others at launch. This was not the fault of the organizers or the program format. It just wasn't my day.
I saw other flyers drop rounds they should have made as well. It wasn't their day, either. So it goes. 


But to complain there is something inherently defective  in our current team selection format without first identifying what that defect is seems disingenuous to me. If the purpose for selecting a team, regardless of format, is to produce the best team, how can the results, i. e. the team's composition, be criticized when they haven't even competed yet? 


This goes back to my earlier observation that there are some who must think that any team that doesn't include certain flyers must be based on a defective selection process. In other words, there are some who, but for events that need to be "engineered" to get them on the team, deserve a spot regardless of how the program is run. 


So rather than pinpoint exactly how this past process failed, which involves identifying who should and shouldn't be on the team, we get Rube Goldbergesque proposals with no underlying data to support the belief they will produce better teams by a fairer process.
All I can say is Welcome to Free Flight, where nothing is fair. 


Bill Shailor


Evolution or Revolution:

Should we fine tune or radically change the US Team Selection Finals Program ?

I have followed with interest the recent lively dialog in SEN on possible options…

So, just out of curiosity, in a totally unscientific comparison, I thought it would be interesting to see what the outcome might have been if Roger’s proposed Final’s rules had been in place for this past Selection cycle, using the results from 2009 and 2010. (Although of course the outcome is purely academic, because potential entrants didn’t know at the time that these six contests could be used as potential Team Selection criteria).

The following statistics were used to calculate Bonus Points :

Max Men 2009:  F1A (25 entries) F1B (30 entries) F1C (21 entries)
F/F NATS 2009:  F1A (18 entries) F1B (30 entries) F1C (8 entries)
Sierra Cup 2009:  F1A (13 entries) F1B (25 entries) F1C (13 entries)
Max Men 2010:  F1A (20 entries) F1B (32 entries) F1C (17 entries)
F/F NATS 2010:  F1A (14 entries) F1B (18 entries) F1C (7 entries)
Sierra Cup 2010:  F1A (13 entries) F1B (19 entries) F1C (8 entries)

F1A Team:

108 points Jim Parker:  1st MM10 50 + 5 & 1st SC10 50 + 3
100 points Rene Limberger:  1st SC09 50 + 3 & 2nd MM09 40 + 7
100 points Don Zink:  1st MM09 50 + 7 & 2nd FFN10 40 + 3
98 points Alternate Andrew Barron:  1st FFN09 50 + 5 & 2nd SC10 40 + 3

F1B Team:

118 points Alex Andriukov:  1st MM09 50 + 9 & 1st MM10 50 + 9
104 points Walt Ghio:  1st SC10 50 + 5 & 2nd MM09 40 + 9
98 points Aram Schlosberg:  1st FFN09 50 + 9 & 3rd MM09 30 + 9
86 points Alternate George Batiuk:  2nd FFN09 40 + 9 & 3rd SC09 30 + 7

F1C Team:

105 points Don Chesson:  1st FFN10 50 + 1 & 1st MM10 50 + 4
97 points Ron McBurnett:  1st SC09 50 + 3 & 2nd MM10 40 + 4
92 points Austin Gunder:  1st SC10 50 + 1 & 3rd FFN09 40 + 1
67 points Alternate Ed Carrol:  3rd SC09 30 + 3 & 3rd MM10 30 + 4

Interestingly for this example, it shows that such a system would have required a higher standard of performance to make the Team than the present Finals.  The existing format rewards a 3rd place at single Finals event with a Team Place.  But if counting 6 events the standard required appears to be much higher.  Two 1st places will guarantee a Team place, but a 1st and a 2nd may not.  A 3rd place will likely not result in any Team place, and any placing 4th or below appears of no consequence.


Bonus Points are critical to placing at the top, and may relegate a competitor with seemingly similar results to Alternate status or less.  But consider that a winner may have beaten a field of 29 other sportsmen, but the second placer only beat 28, and the third placer only beat 27.  So should all competitors get the same Bonus points from the same event ?  What if the 1st place scored 100 points, plus the number of flyers beaten, and the 2nd place scored 90 points plus the number of flyers beaten, etc., would that be more fair ?


However, there is a fundamental difference with the proposed six events system, versus the standard Finals format, in that the competition will mix genuine FAI Program entrant’s scores, with other non-FAI Program entrants.  What happens at the end of the 2 year cycle if one of the non-FAI Program flyers happens to end up with the highest score ?  Surely, having clearly demonstrated a better performance than those selected by this process, perhaps instead they should be on the Team ?   And if non-FAI Program entrants are permitted to fly in the same contest (as indeed their numbers are crucial in contributing to the Bonus pool) then indeed what constitutes eligibility to fly in, and be counted in, the Bonus pool ?  Will Senior entrants scores be counted ?  Will Junior entrants scores be counted.  NOTE:  recently, both Juniors and Seniors have won these same major FAI events, beating their US Open counterparts (and any attending Foreign entrants).


So, if you really want the broadest motivation to increase the popularity of FAI participation — then why not open up the US Team Selection Program to all comers, at no cost.  Simply put, if you fly in any of the six contests, then you’re in the Program.  And if you do well, you could be on the Team.  Now there’s real motivation.  I can already hear the cries of anguish for who will pay for Team Travel, but let’s worry about that after we have picked the best possible US Team — or is that too radical ?


—  Biggles



...........

Roger Morrell