Pattern Fun / scribe / Judging

[Dave Smith]

Apparently from the below message,the  horizontal snap,followed by 4 of an 8
point roll,now requires they be in opposite directions?   My description of
this maneouvre does not say they must be opposite. I know there was some
discussion on this a few weeks past.  Which is correct???
Regards,,,,Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomanek, Wojtek" <tomanekw at saic-abingdon.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: Pattern Fun / scribe / Judging


> Ok, we spend hours and hours building the planes (or work a lot at regular
> jobs and pay for someone to build the plane), setting the planes,
trimming,
> and then practicing, and learning our sequences.  We also need to find
time
> to learn the other sequences.  If there are no opportunities at local
field,
> pay attention to the sequences in the early rounds of a contest and maybe
> that will be enough to be able to judge the last round, or at the next
> contest. Use the contests to learn and not just hang out with friend.
> Scribing is a good way to learn too.
>
> As a judge one has the responsibility to the pilot being judged and others
> in the contest to not only be familiar but know the sequence very well and
> easily identify small but crucial errors (say in the FAI  snap followed by
> point rolls in the OPPOSITE direction - wrong direction will earn you
zero).
> Reading the sequence is not enough, seeing it flown numerous times
correctly
> is a must in my book.  Eric is correct that some of the maneuver
> descriptions are too long to be announced just before the maneuver without
> interfering with the judging and the pilot's concentration.  My call sheet
> has certain words bolded in the description and I always ask the caller to
> only read the bolded stuff, so I only have to be reminded of what is
coming
> up but not the entire maneuver description, for instance:
>       "triangle" means "triangle with two out of four point rolls"
>       "square" means "square form the top with half rolls in first and
third
> leg"
> But that is certainly not enough for the unfamiliar judge.
>
> The bottom line is that it is the judges responsibility to KNOW the
sequence
> he/she is judging.  If you are asked to judge and you are not familiar
with
> the sequence - tell the CD that you are not comfortable judging this
class,
> he will find someone else.  In the past I have declined to judge FAI when
I
> was not familiar with the sequence.  If I cannot judge to the best of my
> abilities because I do not know the sequence I do not want to judge and
> should not be allowed either - there are no excuses on this issue.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderson,Eric [SMTP:eric.henderson at gartner.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:12 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: RE: Pattern Fun / scribe / Judging
>
> I had this "Call the maneuver " request forced on me at the Nat's
> when I was flying Advanced. The problem was it happened at the flight line
> and flight time. The bigger problem was that Michelle was trained to call
> two maneuvers at a time. Turnaround and then center, so I knew what to set
> up for. Result total confusion. (Great excuse for a bad flight too)
> As a direct result from protests, by other pilots, the judge was
> removed.  The round was not re-flown however, due to time restraints. The
> judge has no right to require the caller or the pilot to shout out the
> maneuver.
> Scribes have a duty to tell the judge what the next maneuver is.
> Unfortunately some of the descriptions are so long that the maneuver is
over
> before the scribe finishes the read out. A system where the judge can read
> the maneuver does work, but does require end or center judging.
> It makes no difference whether one judge or two judges judge all the
> maneuvers when you only have two judges on the flight line.
> Regards,
> Eric
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Wendt [mailto:wendt at kingcrab.nrl.navy.mil]
> <mailto:[mailto:wendt at kingcrab.nrl.navy.mil]>
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 6:31 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: Pattern Fun / scribe / Judging
>
>
> Larry,
> I'm with you 100%.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Like you I
> wasn't there, and I'm sure there were circumstances involved we know
nothing
> about.  And not knowing what class the pilot was flying, he may have been
up
> to his neck in alligators if he was in one of the lower classes, and the
> additional pressure and strain introduced by the judge was unnecessary.
The
> pilot was no longer concentrating solely on the flight, which can cause
> safety of flight issues.  At a busy contest, with two lines, this can
cause
> real problems.
> I think the issues leading up to the confrontation should be handled
> at the pilots meeting, before any fuel is pumped, and laid to rest there.
> The issue of the pilot/caller needing or not needing to call the maneuver
to
> the judge should be gone over before the contest gets under way, so that
> everyone is singing from the same sheet of music.
> And hard feelings generated by an incident such as this can have
> some big repercussions.  The other pilots, seeing this display may think,
> well if this contest has judges like this, I'm not going to come back.
Or,
> on the other hand, if the judges see shouting back and forth between pilot
> and judge, and the CD lets them get away with it, they may not come back
and
> judge.  It's a two-edged sword.  Hopefully, the CD handled this situation
in
> a dignified and diplomatic way, the contest got back under way, and there
> were no hard feelings after the fact.
> Mark
>
> At 11:26 AM 9/22/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Mark,
> >
> >I agree with you that it's was unprofessional for the judge
> to act in the
> >manner described. However, two wrongs don't make it right.
> More often than
> >not, the second foul draws the flag or penalty.
> >
> >There are probably a number of different ways for the CD to
> handle this and
> >perhaps the CD did handle it well. None the less, a yelling
> match should
> >never happen during a contest. The pilot should not have
> engaged the judge
> >even if the judge was unfair. The pilot should have plead
> the case to the
> CD
> >after the flight. A number of possible remedies could have
> been made by the
> >CD which could have been  to allow the pilot to scrub that
> flight and make
> >it up at the end of the round; or, scrub the round, replace
> the judge and
> >redo the round.
> >
> >I would hope, and state during a pilot meeting if I was a
> CD, that a judge
> >and/or pilot give me the opportunity to resolve a problem
> instead of taking
> >it into there own hands. In the situation described I'm
> certain that it
> >removed an element of fun and camaraderie for a period of
> time or for the
> >whole event for that matter. The situation wasn't fair to
> the majority of
> >participants and the CD, setting aside the judge and the
> pilot involved.
> >
> >I wasn't there and I'm sure there are two sides to the
> story, so I can't
> say
> >how I would have handled it. However, based on what I
> understand for the
> big
> >picture the pilot should have been held accountable to the
> rule book. The
> >level of accountability is very subjective and depends on
> the severity of
> >the conflict. To your point, perhaps the judge should have
> been held
> >accountable as well. Perhaps they both were...
> >
> >Larry
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to #
> discussion-request at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org>  # and
> put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to #
> discussion-request at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org>  # and
> put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#