Performance Judging? (how did we get where we are)

[Grow Pattern]

To add to what you say I spent a flying session on Monday trying to see what a plane will and will not do. Even with ridiculously high roll throws I could come nowhere near the roll rate that a snap-roll exhibits. Adding just rudder and aileron never showed a break and just aileron and elevator was plain ugly.

I could snap-roll pretty effectively with elevator and rudder but it was hard to stop it at level.

I did see a lot of examples that were not snaps and began to believe that pictures, especially moving pictures could do a much better job than all of thousands or word written about this his stuff. It is 2000 plus. we have the technology???

One closing point is that if a  stall-turn is better envisaged as a hammerhead, then would it not be much easier to see this as a "Flick-roll". And lastly what really is a break????? The plane flies like a boat with a rudder on the back.....!!!.

Regards,

Eric.


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: BUDDYonRC at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:39 PM
  Subject: Re: Performance Judging? (how did we get where we are)



   I believe that the present quality of judging has / is improving except in some areas that inject a measure of personal opinion driven by errors in interpretation and definition that tend to magnify the error factor in contest scores.
  It seems to me that the controversy about score differences was escalated when, a few years ago people complained about weather snaps and spins being performed by FAI pilots were to fast and the question arose as to weather they were not actually doing a snap or just a fast roll. Much emphasis was placed on a judging criteria to determine the correct methods to assure that those particular maneuvers were judged correctly.
  Due to the human factor, inconsistencies filtered down to all classes and since most of the snap maneuvers are high K-factor this fact has resulted in skewing scores to the point where    the ability due to personal opinion for some judges to accurately distinguish the correctly performed maneuver is resulting in an error factor which decreases the probability of selecting the proper results in a contest. 
  This leads me to believe that the descriptions of actual performance requirements is much better than the ability to judge them correctly in many cases and makes me wonder if descriptions which fall in this area are actually an obstacle that leads to a worse situation when our goal is to determine the best pilot.
   Two choices exist to minimize our situation, 1. Eliminate the problem maneuvers. The AMA rule description is somewhat confusing at best and in fact incorrect or misleading if taken literally I believe the FAI rules provide a much better description ("At the start of a snap-roll, the fuselage attitude must show a definite break and separation from the flight path, before the rotation is started." ) instead of the AMA rule which says (" Since the maneuver is defined as a stall maneuver (induced by a rapid stall of the wing induced by a change in pitch attitude"), The nose of the fuselage should show a definite break from the flight path in the direction of the snap while the track closely maintains the flight path.  
  In reality the nose and the tail should show a definite break in attitude (the angle of the model in relation to the flight path) from the flight path. 
  I think wording of the AMA rule overlooking this reality is a primary cause which results in many of the errors in scoring and in fact in relation to less experienced judges actually foster it.
  2. Make an all out effort to correct the description and judge training in this area.
  Many newly trained judges actually award a higher score for a rapid barrel roll than they do for a well done snap that is done at a higher speed and actually zero many if them incorrectly.
  Likewise another area which results in large point spread errors with less experienced judges is their lack of firmiluarity with the geometric requirements of the maneuvers.
  Spin entry is another problem area that must be addressed that is also a culprit that in many cases is judged incorrectly. 
  We have a ways to go guys but the effort will be rewarded, look where we were a few years ago and I believe you will agree we have come a long way toward improving the system.
  Just a few of my thoughts and a lot of rambling on in an effort to get you to thinking of solutions and the means to an end.
  Buddy   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050805/e36a25fb/attachment.html