Judging class design

[Bill Glaze]

Eric:
I admit to "shooting from the hip" on this one, but I wanted to get in a 
couple of thoughts.
As it developed, (no pun!) I did a lot of filming at the Nats.
 
1.)  Any usable film, showing an entire sequence, would be a good thing 
to go through for potential judges, preferably as soon before the flight 
to be judged as possible.  (even a week or so would be a help.)   It 
might help alleviate that problem where the first flier is the judges 
learning curve, and, sometimes, may get an unfair score. (Either higher 
or lower than deserved.)  Just seeing the maneuvers, in sequence, would 
be a help particularly after a winter layoff.  The figures certainly 
need not be perfect, just well recognizable.

2.)  My tapes showed me that perfection is certainly not necessary on 
the part of the photographer--believe me!  I had no difficulty following 
the person's flying, and, knowing the next figure was a great help in 
anticipating where the airplane was to be "pointed."  In fact, after 
showing a top-notch pilot a maneuver he thought he had zeroed, he could 
plainly see that the figure was, in fact, rather good.

3.) Because the main problem was shakiness on my part, (try holding a 
camera steady for 15 minutes at 32 power magnification, you'll see what 
I mean) next time I will try a good-quality pan-head tripod.  I did try 
sitting down in a lawn chair, which helped, but it still did nothing to 
brace my elbows.  Photographer fatigue IS a problem.

4.) With respect to the magnification, the lower powers will show the 
airplane and any clouds (or possibly some background) which makes it 
easier to check for geometry, but won't show errors such as wings not 
level, etc. A good compromise seems to be about 10-15 power; not always 
the case, but frequently so.

Just a few rapid-fire thoughts.

Bill Glaze


Henderson,Eric wrote:

>      One thing that I have always wished we could do, with judges 
> training, is run through each schedule with the specifics for each 
> maneuver. The thinking being that it is OK to learn all the possible 
> down grades, but it is easier to remember a set of down grades for a 
> schedule. There are the usual generic downgrades like angles and 
> centering etc. But each maneuver has a list that is probably worth 
> going through. There are classics like which way the pull or the push 
> is on a Humpty, or which way up the cross line is in a reverse top 
> hat. Breeding familiarity with the 2004 schedules might be beneficial.
>  
>     As regards tools to help do the job. I think that a video of each 
> schedule, not necessarily flown perfectly, would be more fun to go 
> though than just the basic rules tape. I have tried to make them and 
> was not happy with the results. Recent feedback showed me that I was 
> shooting for perfection. A perfect rendition of a schedule is not 
> really possible. Especially when the camera often makes a bad maneuver 
> look right and vice versa. I am beginning to think that we should give 
> the observer more credit and trust them to allow for camera bouncing 
> and angular distortion due to non parallel backplanes etc.
>  
>     Most of us fall into three learning groups. We hear, we see or we 
> try it. More "eyes-on" experience could improve our judging and make 
> us feel better about the "guy" behind us at a contest.
>  
>     Some things that became clear during two filming sessions were. 
> You need a very steady and patient camera person. You need to fly the 
> maneuvers much, much closer. That means that you need to accept that 
> you can't draw good separation lines. Smaller planes flown close in 
> reduced the camera waving/shake/wobble
>  
>     If you try and segment maneuvers such as stall turns and snaps you 
> need to keep the camera on track and not follow the displacement 
> of the plane. (Also set auto focus off and select infinity). Spins 
> have to be dome very low and or the camera needs to be on top of the 
> "clubhouse". You just can't get the plane to look level. Often we 
> could only do one spin we were so low trying to get a good result.
>  
> I would appreciate any feedback from anyone who is giving this a shot.
>  
> Regards,
>
> Eric
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040109/b434d453/attachment.html