Artistic Aerobatics

[Ed Alt]

Bill:
I think that what Fred introduced is an improvement over the previous Freestyle criteria.  The current rules change proposal looks the same as what he introduced at the 2002 IMAC Nats.  Though an unorthodox procedure, he described it at a pilots meeting, asked the pilots to vote and got unanimous consent to use it.  The CD was OK with this change and supposedly so were AMA officials. There was no waiver.  At any rate, I was one of the 4 freestyle judges trying the proposed new criteria out that year.  I thought it was an improvement, providing better tools for a judge to be more objective.  I still don't think you can ever be completely objective for this type of flying, but this seems to be a step forward.

I have to read up on what's being proposed for pattern and get exposed to it through competition.  I'm a complete rookie in this new ballpark, so I can't really comment on AA as proposed, other than share some experience from the IMAC world that might lend a useful perspective to those with the experience & knowledge here.

One thing I like already about pattern is that I haven't yet smashed a part of the Focus II into the wall or ceiling while manuevering it around the workshop to Monokote it.  I used to spend more time patching dings in those 40% planes while building than when flying them.  Much less cussing in the house this way.  Otherwise, I'm pretty much clueless about nose rings, proper soft mounting, wing adjusters etc.  It's almost like starting out new again.  I believe I can probably still tune a glow engine - we'll see.

Good hearing from you
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Glaze 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 5:19 PM
  Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics


  Ed:
  Remember back when you and I were both on the IMAC BOD, how meticulous everyone was in trying to get "objective" judging, as opposed to "subjective, impressionistic" judging?  We (the BOD) were really meticulous, or at least as meticulous as we could be.
  Yet, when we are judging freestyle, we must suddenly switch gears, and be purely subjective.  In fact, it's all impression.  I feel it can be done, (in fact it has been done successfully,) but it certainly requires a quick change in thinking.
  That's the difficulty I see when combining scores on Freestyle and cut-and-dried sequences to get an overall score.  It totally mixes judging philosophies.  It can be done, (in fact it was done successfully at the T.O.C.) but it requires a definite mental shifting of gears for judges.
  Having been fortunate enough to judge at the Don Lowe's and the JR Challenge, I was privileged to see a new system that Fred Johnson has introduced with his  "matrix" for freestyle.  It removes a lot of uncertainty about scoring freestyle.
  And yes, just dragging the tail in the grass, and doing a blender won't get a competitor very far any more.  The days of the one-trick pony are over.  It takes a more holistic approach to WOW the judges nowadays.
  Welcome aboard, Ed.  We'll probably be leaning on you for some valuable electronic advice.  You were very helpful on the big bird lists.

  Bill Glaze


  Ed Alt wrote:

    Hi all:
    I'm new to this list, having decided to get into pattern in '04 after about 7 years of IMAC competition.  I find the comments on Artisitic Aerobatics very interesting, especially coming from this background.  There are some fun aspects of the IMAC Freestyle that can certainly spice up a competition, but it can also become the center of attention by a CD and materially interfere with the quality of the precision sequence flying, which is all that most IMAC flyers usually participate in.  I never even competed in Freestyle until '03, when we were socked in by low ceilings at a contest and the only flying we could do was down low, hence my plunge into the event.  I could never really get my mind around how to properly coreograph a performance to music, so I stayed away from it in competition.  I also didn't much like the idea of the pure subjective nature of the event, the way pure WOW factor could spell a win over superior flying etc.

    Later in the year, I took one more whack at Freestyle and actually won the event, but I couldn't rationalize why.  I thought my performance was mediocre at best.  After that, I think I finally made peace with myself over this and figured that it was just another chance to put the airplane up, show off if you are so inclined and generally have some fun.  FWIW, if you can approach it this way, Artistic Aerobatics could be a nice addition to pattern events if you don't want to be too serious about it.  A few will be able to really do it right, i.e., coreograph something that somehow captures the mood of the music, accentuating it as much as it accentuates the flight of the model, displays precision where it seems like precision should have been achieved and fully exploits the performance envelope of the model at the right moments. They should rise to the top.

    Incidentally, there may be a misconception that the IMAC freestyle is mostly about low torque rolls and dragging the tail in the grass.  That trend is well past.  Excessive time spent doing TRs, or for that matter staying in a pure 3D flight mode and not showing the full capabilties of the model, displaying precision aerobatics at least part of the time and making good use of the aerobatic box is generally not a winning formula anymore.  Lastly, although I can't say that I'm intimately familiar with what's being proposed for AA, it seems that one challenge that deserves much attention is to try to have as much objectivity in the judging criteria as possible.  That's not an easy thing to do and is probably not fully achievable.  IMO, if you can accept the idea that your scores may be strongly influenced by moods and style preferences, then it seems that you may be able to enjoy Artistic Aerobatics.

    Ed Alt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040125/a9c663f6/attachment.html