F3A Finals, Judges View

[george kennie]

Earl,
Thanks very much for the K #'s. They changed my final results radically.
I'm not all that familiar with the scoring procedure for FAI, but what I
did was to score each round individually and then normalize and then
take each pilot's normalized score from each round and add them together
which gave me a relative value for the total number of rounds flown.
Jason still came out the winner, but my numbers indicated Sean ahead of
everyone else. That really floored me because during the action my
feeling was that he would probably end up around 5th. My gut feeling
definitely does not reflect the numbers that I myself recorded.Scary!
Another reflection regarding the recording of scores on a separate piece
of paper by the judge. At one point I was asked to judge Masters finals
and was told that I would be required to supply the chief judge with my
personal numbers, so I proceeded to site 3 to practice on Wed P.M.  As I
would look down to record my number for the maneuver currently being
evaluated I found that by the time I looked back up there were times
when the aircraft was already half way up the vertical line and part way
through a rolling element. I would miss the radius, with it's associated
corrections for radius and heading and the length of  the vertical line
and the rotational errors in the first point of the rolling element so
that some of the time I was guessing.I quickly became aware that if I
recorded the numbers without looking down at my paper that my column was
snaky and erratically spaced.I had been informed by the chief judge that
he would require this sheet from me and I felt embarrassed that I would
be submitting a messy scribble sheet to be used as a proof form. At the
time I was practicing, there was an active panel in operation so I
decided to check out how they were managing this problem so I sneaked up
behind one of the judges between rounds and peeked over his shoulder to
see how he had formatted his sheet and what I saw was a column down the
left hand side of the page with a number from one to 23 on every line.
Very neat. So I said to  myself, "how the heck is he getting his numbers
down exactly opposite the maneuver number" so I decided to observe his
methodology. When the next flight commenced I witnessed a human being
experiencing the same problems that I had experienced. Between some
maneuvers there was sufficient time to record and return the gaze to the
flight path of the model in time to judge the entry line but there were
times when this judge did not see the first quarter of the maneuver and
yet a score was rendered.
I'm not sure that we've arrived at a good solution to the problem of
scribing errors yet.
Anyway, thanks for helping me out.
Georgie

Earl Haury wrote:

> Congratulations to all the Nats Finalists, Nats Champion Jason,
> runner-up Quique, and the US Team Jason, Chip, & Sean, as well as Team
> Alternate, Don. Here are some of my thoughts from the F3A Nats finals
> basis what I observed from the Judges chair. These are my views only,
> I did not / have not seen the work of other judges (other than the
> outcome).Hopefully these observations won't offend anyone. Other
> Judges may feel free to do the same, in agreement or challenge, so as
> to best serve the game. The Judges discussed snaps and distance at
> length, along with the usual details, in a number of "official" and
> impromptu sessions. Of course, snaps require a "visible" attitude
> break and separation from track in pitch (from the flight path) before
> rotation is started and stall maintained throughout. Barrel rolls and
> axial rolls score zero. Unfortunately, there are some (pilots and
> judges) who believed that there is an undocumented exception for
> rolling circles regarding distance out. This isn't true in pattern.
> Maybe it comes from IMAC or is an artifact of TOC? The downgrade
> highlights for the rollers include mention of downgrades for distance
> / size. Anyway, the consensus was that visibility would the criteria
> for rollers rather than a hard distance "wall". We (Judges) observed
> "calibration" flights at 150, 175, & 200 meters and warm-up flights
> before F-05 and each unknown. The wind conditions were strong down the
> runway with a fair inward slant as the finals started and then
> diminished a little as the day wore on. The wind, and the pilots
> desire to stay close in, created severe right (and some left) side box
> violations. Generally, in an effort to "save" the box there was often
> no line between center / box maneuver, which now costs a point on the
> (higher K) center maneuver and the TA. The TA was either flown well,
> but mostly out of the box, or the maneuver was compromised to reduce
> the box error. Either way, large downgrades. I don't know if the
> pilots thought that better scores were available inside 150 m, they
> were trying to stay in to setup the roller, and/or the were loath to
> fly the attitudes needed to hold track in the wind (more downgrades
> here). Centering was also not executed well for many maneuvers in
> either direction, but being late on downwind maneuvers was fatal! As
> the day worn on this improved by pilots moving out a little, managing
> the wind better, and the lessening of the wind. The early round
> rollers were huge, suffered numerous roll rate changes, and oval in
> shape (wind). It's pretty obvious that the finalists all have better
> eyesight than me! Very few rollers started rolling at center, some
> were ruddered around some 45 degrees (3 pts) before the roll started.
> The wind made these tough, but the pilots let the wind reek havoc by
> flying the rollers so big (as to make it difficult to roll slow
> enough) that the wind really elongated the "circle". Huge downgrades!
> As the day wore on some dramatically improved their rollers (as the
> wind lessened) by reducing the diameter. Snaps were another item.
> Obviously a number of pilots refined their technique to provide just
> enough (very rapid) pitch change to effect the minimum track
> separation with stall, a rapid rotation while reducing the elevator to
> maintain minimum stall, and allow a very clean finish. Nothing wrong
> with that, but some took it too far! In certain maneuvers the break
> was not visible. No visible break = 0!  As some snaps during a flight
> were nice - others left doubt, again- possible wind effect. A number
> of judges must have observed the same thing, as obvious adjustments
> were made by some pilots after reviewing their scores, but (in my
> opinion) going too far in the other direction. These snaps now became
> departures from track in pitch / yaw & roll for several degrees before
> stall (downgraded 1pt / 15 in each axis) were ugly, and the offsets
> often destroyed the general maneuver geometry. Seemed that the
> decision was that a downgrade (even if large) was better than a zero.
> Then some of the altered ugly were barrel rolls which also =
> zero. Box, snaps, rollers cost the most points. The standard defects
> are alive and well. Then there was some very good flying. The F05s and
> first unknown were tough in the wind! The 2nd unknown was a wimp
> (pilots must have been getting tired when they put that one together).
> At least the 2nd unknown gave the Judges an opportunity to get rid of
> some of the basket of 10's were holding most of the day. My strongest
> suggestion for improved scoring is pretty simple. Be a student of the
> game, understand the maneuver descriptions and apply techniques to
> clearly present those maneuvers to the Judges. Don't give the Judge
> something to doubt! For example, ugly "wifferdils" don't get it for
> snaps. They don't need to jump all over the sky and screw up the rest
> of the maneuver. They do need to clearly show a break and maintained
> stall. Rollers should not (and may not) exceed the distance limits.
> The choice is to start at 175 m and do a 100 - 125 m roller in, or to
> start close in and make the diameter small enough to stay inside the
> limits. Rollers are neat done slow and big - but that isn't what's
> required (without a rule change), smaller is easier, less affected by
> wind, and will score better. Don't misunderstand me here, a rule
> change to allow rollers to visible distance is OK by me - but a
> dispensation from the rules (at any level of authority) is totally
> inappropriate, sets a dangerous precedent, and is bad for
> pattern. Earl Haury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040728/bcc0ef66/attachment.html