Judging behaviour

[Koenig, Tom]

Hi all..I'm still here!

I was there with Pete and know exactly who and what he was talking about.

Peter is being a little modest, this was the NATS..I was his caller and he
did place third in FAI, so I fully support him. The judge was out of line
and I was as  angry about it as him.

As a rule, I will offer my criticism of a flight to a competitor AFTER I am
off the judging line, and then, it will only be the lower classes. I have
never had an FAI pilot ask me at a comp directly after the flight...they
know what they did wrong already..they dont need me confirming that.

Tom



> ----------
> From: 	Peter Pennisi[SMTP:pentagon.systems at bigpond.com]
> Reply To: 	discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: 	Friday, 24 January 2003 9:27
> To: 	discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: 	RE: Judging behaviour
> 
> I regard myself as an experienced flyer competing in F3A (note: I have
> not said that I am a competitive one at that). The judge from the
> experience I encountered remarked that my flight was too far out.
> 
> I flew at a distance I felt was appropriate for the conditions at the
> time (that was my perception).
> 
> Flying too deep in the box is a touchy subject at the best of time. Some
> pilots naturally fly deep and fast while others may fly close and slow.
> This has now becomes a subject of "style". 
> 
> I know the rule book says 150m, but I also think there is something
> about the model must be flown at a distance were it is clearly visible.
> 
> I was fortunate enough to go to the World Champs in Ireland in 2001 and
> some of the worlds best were flying at a distance well beyond the 150m
> mark, but I had no problems seeing their models and I guess the judges
> did not have a problem with it either as they scored very well.
> 
> My point is some elements of our flying are subjective, unless a
> particular flyer is flying at 250m, then everyone is aware and he/she
> should be penalised for that.
> 
> Forcing your opinion upon other judges because you felt a particular
> person was flying say at 175-180m I don't think is correct. If you have
> problems with it make a comment at the bottom of the score sheet if you
> feel you have to. Just don't try to persuade your fellow judges to think
> the same way as they may be seeing something different. 
> 
> P.S Gray, My spell checker tells me that I have spelt behaviour
> correctly, but then it is Australian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Pennisi
> Pentagon Systems
> P.O Box 4280
> Eight Mile Plains
> QLD 4113
> Australia
> Phone:    61+0738414234
> Fax:        61+0733419203
> Mobile:   0408007206
> Email: pentagon.systems at bigpond.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Ed Miller
> Sent: Friday, 24 January 2003 07:45 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Judging behaviour
> 
> I think I understand where Peter is coming from on this. In my District
> we
> have gone to contestant judging in every contest except 2 that I am
> aware
> of. What I have witnessed happening is "lobbying in the pits" by
> contestants
> to other contestants that will be judging competitors in their class.
> "So
> and so's plane doesn't spin right" or "looks funny rolling", "he always
> cheats the spin entry and gets away with it" are comments I've
> personally
> heard. Personally, although offended by these remarks, I've always
> judged
> everyone to the best of my ability and within the rules as I know them.
> I
> personally have no problem being critiqued by a group of judges after a
> flight, in fact I welcome it. However this "lobbying in the pits" taints
> the
> contest experience. The "winning is the only thing" mentality should be
> left
> at  the battlefield.
> Ed M.
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Pennisi" <pentagon.systems at bigpond.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:42 AM
> Subject: RE: Judging behaviour
> 
> 
> >
> > I have no problems with post flight comments if the pilot asks,
> > especially if he is new to pattern and wants to improve his/her
> flying.
> >
> > Someone who may be struggling with a four point roll for example may
> ask
> > for some advice if the person who is judging is a more experienced
> > flyer.
> >
> > I guess what I am trying to say is if a pilot is struggling with some
> > elements of his flight and concedes that he has, at the end of his
> > flight by asking for help then I have no problem with giving some
> > feedback.
> >
> > I feel my situation was a little different. I didn't ask. I guess he
> > could have expressed his view to the other judges if I wasn't there
> but
> > I can't stop that.
> >
> > The point I tried to make in my original post was judges and pilots
> need
> > to maintain some level of ethical behaviour at comps to say "keep the
> > peace"
> >
> > I am the first to admit that criticism and comments are needed to make
> > you
> > A better pilot, however there is a time and place for that and that
> > isn't on the flight line of a national championship.
> >
> > The old saying that "Money is the root of all evil" it is similar to
> say
> > that "judging is the root of most arguments at pattern competitions"
> > unfortunately, I don't think I am on my own here when I say this. By
> > keeping opinions to ourselves certainly goes a long way to keep
> harmony.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Pennisi
> > Pentagon Systems
> > P.O Box 4280
> > Eight Mile Plains
> > QLD 4113
> > Australia
> > Phone:    61+0738414234
> > Fax:        61+0733419203
> > Mobile:   0408007206
> > Email: pentagon.systems at bigpond.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
> > On Behalf Of Dave & Sue Funk
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2003 22:28 PM
> > To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > Subject: Re: Judging behaviour
> >
> > I agree with Rick completely. Comments from the judges is welcome.
> (POST
> > FLIGHT)
> >
> >  Dave
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rick Wallace" <rickwallace45 at hotmail.com>
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 5:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: Judging behaviour
> >
> >
> > > I'm a fairly new pattern pilot, and welcome the comments of more
> > experienced
> > > pilots anytime I can get 'em, especially since they're  pilots too,
> > and
> > are
> > > virtually always more experienced than I am.
> > >
> > > I look at immediate post-flight conversation w/ the judges as a way
> to
> > > improve my flying. I'll routinely turn to the judges after I land
> and
> > ask
> > > them for their comments.
> > > Sometimes they'll let me know that they'd rather not comment, and I
> > thank
> > > them and leave. Often, though, one or more will be willing to give
> his
> > > impressions and perceptions of the flight - this can be as valuable
> as
> > any
> > > other input.
> > >
> > > Of course, if the next guy already has his engine running, and is
> > waiting
> > to
> > > step into the box then there's no discussion- -it's his flight line.
> > > Otherwise, why not get the mini-critique?
> > >
> > > By the same token when I judge, when a competitor *asks* for
> feedback
> > (and
> > > only then) after his flight, I'll give it (usually deferring to the
> > more
> > > senior judge if there is one) when there's time before the next
> > pilot's
> > up.
> > > I trust the other judge not to be influenced (not to be swayed in
> his
> > > judgiung the rest of the round) by my comments, as I try not to be
> > swayed
> > by
> > > his comments.
> > >
> > > We pattern guys don't fly together enough as it is, and should take
> > max
> > > advantage of the chances to help each other and to be helped.
> > >
> > > My $.02 -
> > > Rick
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I recently attended a competition in which the conduct of a
> > particular
> > > >judge
> > > >left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. As I turned towards the
> > judges
> > > >after
> > > >completing my flight this particular person (experienced F3A judge)
> > made
> > a
> > > >number of comments about my flight being flown too far out and that
> > he
> > > >docked several points per manoeuvre. These comments were made in
> the
> > > >presence of the other two judges.
> > > >
> > > >I am not going to argue that I was or wasn't. The concern I had
> with
> > this
> > > >behaviour was he could have influenced the other judges to think
> the
> > same
> > > >as
> > > >they had less experience. This type of conduct should not be
> allowed
> > to
> > > >happen. Judges should be able to judge a flight based on their own
> > > >perception and interpretation of rules etc. If this particular
> person
> > > >thought that I should be docked 2 points per manoeuvre then that
> > should
> > be
> > > >his opinion only.
> > > >
> > > >The issue here is that most of us on this list judge and fly
> > aerobatics.
> > > >Everyone deserves to be judged fairly and unbiased by people who
> have
> > their
> > > >own perception on how a flight should look and should be flown. Why
> > have
> > 3
> > > >or 5 judges?
> > > >
> > > >If you looked at this incident from another angle some of my
> > competitors
> > > >may
> > > >say that I was being coached by a judge which could raise another
> set
> > of
> > > >problems.
> > > >
> > > >All in all, the fact he said anything was wrong.
> > > >
> > > >Just my thoughts
> > > >
> > > >Peter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >***************************** Disclaimer
> > *****************************
> > > >
> > > >The contents of this electronic message and any attachments are
> > > >intended only for the addressee and may contain privileged or
> > > >confidential information. They may only be used for the purposes
> for
> > > >which they were supplied. If you are not the addressee, you are
> > > >notified that any transmission, distribution, downloading, printing
> > > >or photocopying of the contents of this message or attachments is
> > > >strictly prohibited. The privilege of confidentiality attached to
> > > >this message and attachments is not waived, lost or destroyed by
> > > >reason of mistaken delivery to you. If you receive this message
> > > >in error please notify the sender by return e-mail or telephone.
> > > >
> > > >Thank you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >=====================================
> > > ># 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.
> > > >#
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > # 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.
> > #
> >
> >
> >
> > =====================================
> > # 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.
> #
> 
> 
> 
> =====================================
> # 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.
> #
> 
-------------- next part --------------
************************************************************************
*PLEASE NOTE*  This email and any attachments may
be confidential. If received in error, please delete all 
copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or 
dissemination of this email or its attachments is 
prohibited without the consent of the sender.

WARNING RE VIRUSES:  Our computer systems sweep
outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty 
is given that this email or its attachments are virus free. 
Before opening or using attachments, please check for 
viruses.  Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any 
affected attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the 
individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views of the 
organisation.
************************************************************************