Scoring formula: Process, Human factors, cut for length

[Jim_Woodward at beaerospace.com]

Hi All,

The scoring formula thread brings in two camps of thoughts (from my 
reading) that each should be addressed.  Troy, Earl, and Eric have touched 
on the method or "process" that should go into scoring and tear sheets for 
FAI.  Troy had some great, valid points about the tear sheets in which I 
agree would lead to a more honest judging result, and create the 
"transparent" view of the contest to the contestants.  Besides process or 
following FAI rules, the other issue several people have tried to 
delicately step around is the topic that if one brings up, is typically 
attacked as having "sour-grapes" or upset in other ways at the outcome. 

So lets bring up the big question and debate as free-thinking adults:  How 
do we ensure that the flight in question (any class) is being judged 
purely on the technical quality of the flight compared against the known 
set of downgrades?  If the flight in question is judged with integrity and 
without prejudice, it is quickly recognizable as a less than perfect 
event.  The judging committee has gone a long way to create information 
sets and education regarding the rules and technical guide lines for the 
patterns and the individual maneuvers.  In the class though, we then 
typically say something like, " .... but you have to remember that judges 
are human."  While this catch all statement is used (in the class room 
setting) to present a case as for why there may be minor differences in 
scoring (judge-to-judge), we may not be giving the "human" factor the 
priority of education it deserves as compared to the affect this same 
"human" factor has on the outcome of the event.  How do we ensure that 
each flight is being scored on its quality and merits, without regard to 
any additional factors?  How do we ensure that any institutional or 
historical bias does not turn one fliers "7" into an "8", and another's 
"7" into a "6"?  We have taken the "technical" education pretty far - but 
how can human behavior  be changed?

Ideally, the judges should not even "know" who is flying which is to say 
again, that the score is not based on the flyer, but the quality of the 
flight.  For example:  Should the pilots all fly the same plane, with the 
same color scheme, with the judges shielded from view of the identity of 
the pilot?  I doubt this would go over well for many reasons however - one 
reason is that recognition for past performance is a key factor in today's 
or future results.  Thus, each pilot with excellent or poor prior results 
is at advantage or disadvantage to have the judges to know that it is 
indeed, them who is flying.  Opposition to such on the high end in regards 
to scoring, is evidence of this "X" factor in the overall final results. 
I'm not advocating a 1-design class, just using it for example.  How do we 
ensure that judges are evaluating the flight on its merits alone, and not 
according to additional factors such as (name your favorite).  The 
additional human factors if brought to the chair,  are worthy of 
discussion.  Heres a question:  Do you want habitual long standing judges 
with years of experience in the FAI/Masters finals chair, or somewhat 
newer judges who are technically educated but bring less prior experience 
to the chair of this same group of competitors? 

Again, the point is process (in the FAI since following what rules are 
there), and human, ensuring the each flight is evaluated solely on the its 
own merit, as unique discreet events without regard to past performance or 
future expectation.  However, from the previous threads, it appears that 
"Advanced" suffers from a lack of technical knowledge in the chair where 
as the other end of the spectrum (FAI) can suffer from the human factor 
part of the equation.

All ideas welcome,
Jim W.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050801/cde25c38/attachment-0001.html