History of our Judging Situation

[Dean Pappas]

Hello Earl,
 
You said a mouthful! The good part of the present, contestant-judged, world we live in is that you can be almost certain that the person judging is as rabidly devoted to the event as you are. If for some reason we find ourselves regarding the guys in the chairs as philistines ... we would have only ourselves to blame. As a whole, our efforts as judges are as honest and flawed as our flying. All is right with the World.
 
You touched on some of the history, and I think that there is a story in here that has waited too long for the telling. The USPJA was an organization with both its strong and weak points. By merging the pools of Scale and Precision Aerobatics afficionados, we got enough judges together to be able to judges both events (one at a time!) at the NATs. A few contestant judges would chip in. That's how I got to know a bunch of the old USPJA folks. Yes, their abilities varied (no surprise there) but I can also remember more than one excited discussion with an old USPJA member when, for example, they "discovered" the aileron-only-snap-exit-cheat, or something similar. Obviously there was a passion to do that job right! Please remember that this was in the late '80s: snaps were new (well almost) and we were just beginning to get a real judging grip on Turnaround, because we had just moved to all classes flying Turnaround. From '84 to '88 only FAI flew in that style, and many judges still only worked the one-maneuver-per-pass style. All these less adventurous judges were being "upgraded", and that's never a painless process.
 
In the midst of all this, there was a "let's kill off the USPJA and make our own judging destinies" movement. Maybe it was part and parcel of the effort for NSRCA to run the Pattern Nats, but I always felt it was a shame that there was a concerted effort to drive friends and contributors away. Granted, USPJA had some real structural problems (the biggie was a seniority based advancement system instead of a merit-based advancement system) but those were philosophical issue that might have been talked out. Instead we insulted them and lost their help. Bummer.
 
The good old days are often the bad old days, at the same time. I never flew at a Navy NATS, but there was some magic in having judges "beam in from Mars". Being Naval personnel, you were bound to do better if your plane was painted in the Blue Angels scheme  than if you showed up with a red MIG! On the other hand, the un-jaded judges could do something we have completely lost ... Back then, in both Pattern and in CL Stunt, a "nobody" won the NATs upon attending for their first time. I am speaking of the late Jim Kirkland in Pattern  and the very much with us Bart Klapinski in Stunt. They were both " just that good". No matter how brilliant the flyer, can you even imagine this as a possibility, today? 
 
Do I remember this right, Earl? Is that how the dissolution of USPJA happened?
 
Regards,
    Dean P.

-----Original Message-----
From: EHaury at aol.com [mailto:EHaury at aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:26 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Judging Landing & takoffs. (was Re: Spoilers for Pattern Planes?????)


Ladies and Gentlemen
 
Our game requires competitors and judges. The competitors apply the requirements of the game (maneuvers - rules) and the judges score the quality of performance. Without both, there is no game. Some are better than others, both as competitors and judges. We generally don't demean the less skilled flyer but try to help him / her improve. A judge should receive the same.
 
I recall (us old guys get to do this) a time when judges and the interpretation of the rules were unique to each contest. A CD would fill chairs anyway possible with both skilled and unskilled judges. This was true even at the Nats, soliciting the spectators at the last minute for anyone willing to take a stab at judging. Often scores were higher for familiar pilots, as they had "paid their dues."
 
A few dedicated and skilled folks set about to fix that. The USPJA was formed and provided a pool of folks from which to draw for major meets. The pilots enjoyed meets where the judges were experienced and "usually" there were plenty of judges. While there were judges meetings to review the rules at major meets, the interpretation sometimes varied and the pilots could be unaware of expectations. Of course both used the same rulebook, but we all know how interpretation can vary. We criticized the folks that were willing to of take their time to judge our game until they were / are no more. We would have been better served to help them.
 
The NSRCA Judge Certification program came into being. It was, and still is, the best thing ever done to improve pattern competition. (With the possible exception of the equal exposure to judges rule.) Of course a pilot would be foolish to compete without knowing the rules and is therefore an excellent candidate for judging. For a while we enjoyed a good mix of both flying and non-flying judges. Then the latter began to diminish, could it be that they simply got tired of working for the pattern competitor and getting griped at in return? 
 
So we're now using pilot / judges for the most part. Guess what, we're still griping about scores and working harder! I've judged numerous meets over the years and within the various systems. I've not known one judge who I regarded as dishonest. Some are more skilled than others, some are more informed of the rules, and some didn't have clue. It really doesn't matter if they fly or not. Fortunately the cert program has minimized the clueless.
 
No individual, no matter their experience, falls into the hallowed few category. Just what is the correct score for a given maneuver? I may observe downgrades that someone else doesn't and vice versa. It's interesting to line up a group of judges and score a maneuver (not a whole flight) and then discuss the individual scores and why. This exercise demonstrates why there needs to be as many judges on a line as possible. 
 
We have a tendency to assign our view of a persons judging capability to the class they fly. Why is this? Is the FAI or Masters pilot smarter or better educated or more familiar with the rules than the Intermediate or Advanced pilot? I don't think so! Neither is the non-flying judge less qualified because they don't fly. The class a person flies only demonstrates their skill level as a pilot. I suspect there are folks who would excel at judging and might like to give it a shot if ask.
 
This is getting too long, but I will state that I have worked with a good number of different pilot / judges at the Nats and elsewhere and find them, while not always enthused about having to judge, dedicated and competent in performing the job. (The only exception I may find in this is when I review my own flight scores :>)). Judging will always be a work in progress and let me assure you that it's significantly better than it once was. We all must work within the rules to ensure consistent interpretation and accept that we will not always agree.
 
Earl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20031113/5a94850c/attachment.html