Judging behaviour

[Jerry Budd]

>Ah But there's the rub Precision, Smoothness, Positioning and Size 
>or Dimension are all subjective no specific downgrades exist 
>therefore the judge must take it upon himself to interpit the 
>meaning and apply the score based on his viewpoint. The rule book 
>does list all downgrades but one wonders if the most important items 
>should carry a definitive guide so the judge is aware of how they 
>should be applied? Are they applied after the listed downgrades are 
>deducted?  Or does the judge apply his own interpretation and add 
>additional downgrades or rewards in addition to those specifically 
>listed? This is something I have always wondered about but have 
>never been able to find the correct answer. Can anyone explain?   
>Buddy

Hi Buddy,

Considering that judging is itself an inherently subjective process, 
the applications of point deductions is also subjective.  However, 
saying that the four major areas of consideration for judging a 
competitors flight: Precision, Smoothness, Positioning, 
Size/Dimension, are all subjective with no specific downgrades would 
be incorrect.  The categories listed are simply prioritized groupings 
of the types of downgradable errors that a judge should be cognizant 
of, and prepared to deduct points for, when a maneuver has visible 
defects.

Precision is simply the geometry of the maneuver.  Are the vertical 
lines vertical?  Are the rolls centered?  Roll rate constant?  Does 
the maneuver contain all the required elements (was it flown 
correctly)?  In most cases there are specific downgrades listed in 
the rule book for these and other types of geometry errors (the 1 pt 
per 15 deg deduction).

Smoothness is the most subjective of all the downgradable categories. 
How do you put a number on it?  The answer is that you can't.  I look 
for individual discrete occurances of aircraft motion that aren't a 
necessary part of performing the required maneuver elements.  When I 
see them I deduct points in proportion to the frequency and magnitude 
of the deviations.  One of the biggest problems I see among our 
judges today is that many seem to place a greater emphasis on 
smoothness than either Precision/Geometry and Position.  A smoothly 
but incorrectly flown maneuver seems to consistently get a higher 
score than a maneuver flown with far better geometry and positioning, 
but not quite a smooth.  I think the reason is that smoothness is 
easy to see, whereas you have to work as a judge to pay attention to 
geometry and centering (especially for an inexperienced judge).  A 
smoothly flown, but error filled flight can also still "look good" to 
many, and lull the judge into thinking this is "a pretty good pilot" 
when in fact there are other downgrades present.  This is an area 
that needs a lot of work to correct.

Positioning is (IMHO) the easiest downgrade of all to apply (distance 
out excepted).  If the maneuver is not centered the downgrade is 2 
pts per 1/4 maneuver width that the maneuver is flown off center. 
Period.  Also, there is NO deduction for flying in close.  It may be 
difficult for the pilot to keep it smooth and in the box (dependant 
on wind conditions, speed, maneuver size), but any downgrades noted 
must be due to errors in geometry, smoothness, and size.  Applying a 
downgrade for flying excessively far out is (again IMHO) the only 
difficult element in this grouping.  Trying to assess whether the 
plane is at or around 150-175 meters is difficult at best, if not an 
unreasonable task to ask of the judge.  Debating whether a plane is 
150 meters out or 175 meters out is like debating whether the wind is 
blowing 12 mph or 15 mph.  Without some way to measure it you can't 
tell whether it is or not! (but you can tell that one is greater than 
the other).  When judging I start deducting points when the maneuver 
flown is at a distance where visual acuity becomes compromised and I 
start having problems seeing the little things like wings level, 
heading in/out etc.

I remember being at the '97 Team Trials overhearing a comment from 
one competitor that they thought that nearly everyone was flying 
inside the poles at about 135 meters.  This was around noon when the 
shadows created by the sun was projecting almost straight down the 
flight line, parallel to the direction of flight.  I asked this 
individual if he thought the plane in the air at the time was "in" or 
"out".  He responded "it's well in, at about 130 meters".  I asked 
him how was that possible when the planes shadow was tracing a path 
well outside of the center pole (Site 2 at Muncie has a slight 
upslope and it's easy to see this when the sun is shinning).  He 
didn't respond (to be honest I'm not sure he even understood my 
point).

Size/Dimension is the proportion of one maneuver to the next, or 
within elements of more complex maneuvers.  There is some overlap in 
applied downgrades between Precision (aka Geometry) and 
Size/Dimension and one has to be careful that you don't deduct points 
twice for the same error.  An example of this would be a double 
immelman where the pilot exited higher than they entered due to the 
half loops being different (but constant) radius's (also assume for 
this example that the level flight segments were level).  There is a 
geometry erroe due to a sizing error within the same maneuver.  You 
don't take off additional points for this.  I know it's a subtle 
nuance but it does need to be mentioned as I have been asked about it 
in the past.


My personal opinion concerning judging today is that the adoption of 
the "turnaround" format of flying has increased the workload on the 
judges immensely, to the point where it's questionable whether one 
can really perform the task at hand, consistently, and for any 
reasonable period of time.  I believe we need to develop a system 
where the judge isn't burdened with the math, they simply note the 
maneuver downgrades (including magnitude or severity) on a critique 
sheet, and we have a computer algorithm calculate the score.  I've 
been working on the concept (off and on, but more off than on) for 
some time now (since the 1989 Nats) and I'm thinking that now might 
be a good time to dust it off and see where this might lead.  Anyway.

With all this you wonder why anyone would volunteer to judge.  The 
answer to that is without judges we'd be just sport flying, not 
competing.  And we do so love to compete!

Thx, Jerry

-- 
___________
Jerry Budd
mailto:jbudd at qnet.com
=====================================
# 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.
#