[NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

Tue Oct 3 10:28:39 AKDT 2006

Hi Gang,
How about this?
We need to teach the difference between "smooth and graceful" and "vague and mushy". At least we need to teach something like it.
Historically, I have seen judges mistake oozing into and out of lines for smoothness.
I have seen vague roll starts and stops rewarded, when they are really prolonged and pre-emptive error fixes.
S&G needs to be defined as the absence of any bobbles, wiggles, hitches, or discontinuities in maneuver execution.
To accompany this, the downgrading of changes in roll rate and radius at maneuver element endpoints needs to be highly stressed.
This is the source of the crispness that has been mentioned.
Maybe this will steer in between the two extremes of mushiness and geometry at any cost.

The finest flight I ever saw was the first one up in the morning round on Finals day in Avignon France.
Naruke flew brutally correct geometry. There was not a single bobble, not a molecule of that airplane went anywhere but exactly where it was supposed to go.
All his rolls had precisely the same roll rate from the degree they started to the degree at which they ended, and if he had missed a stop, there would have been no hiding.
The same was true for all looping segments: constant radii met perfect tangents with no place to hide in between.
It was kata-like in its precision, and there was no doubt that I had witnessed the man operating at that limit of human performance, where conscious thought would only get in the way.
The judges murdered him! I am fairly sure that to some extent, that flight is part of why the rules were changed to mandate a warmup pilot.

The problem ... ( enter one can of worms and a can opener) is that perfection is defined as what we do not see,
and when a pilot shows you more by taking exposure, there is no place to reward that, as compared to someone who shows you less by flying more conservatively.
later,
Dean

Dean Pappas 
Sr. Design Engineer 
Kodeos Communications 
111 Corporate Blvd. 
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
(908) 222-7817 phone 
(908) 222-2392 fax 
d.pappas at kodeos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of george w. kennie
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:04 PM
To: patternrules at earthlink.net; NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

I have to say,........been there, done that. Very common scenario in my repertoire. 
You nailed it Steve.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Steven Maxwell <mailto:patternrules at earthlink.net>  
To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

 Dave good points as always, to me smoothness and gracefulness is, while not defined, is natural part of pattern, and maybe shouldn't be included in the rules, but how many times do you hear "you are so smooth or graceful" by a onlooker, sport flyer, 3D dude.
 An example would be say squares, you could do a setup that has the ailerons and elevator coupled and do very tight square corners, say 2 to 3 ft radius it would be technically correct and should be a 10 if all things are perfect, but it wouldn't look smooth or graceful, it's just not how our planes fly.
 Let me ask a question to all, there are times that I see a maneuver that just looks wrong  I can't really put a finger on what it was, it was rolled right and done correctly but something just doesn't look right, would this fall into impression judging or just that I can't place the error to the proper downgrade,  I have to make a split second decision, not like pre turnaround where you had time to evaluate, I know it didn't look as good as the person that just flew so I can't give it the same or better score. If this is what people are considering as impression I'm guilty as sin.  I do try and do my best when I judge and try to judge all on the same level, without style impressions. I might add that I have always turned down judging finals at Nat's because I feel there are much better judges than me, I'm ok for a local contest but wouldn't want me to determine a national champion or team member.

Steven Maxwell

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net> 
To: NSRCA Mailing  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> List
Sent: 10/3/2006 11:04:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

Technically perfect is well understood and can be objectively assessed.  Specific judging criteria and downgrades are well defined/documented in our judges guide.  Yes, gray areas do exist in which it is difficult to extract an exact point value downgrade from the rulebook, but guidance/basis is there, and it is the job of a judge to make judgements (and in my experience 90% of the time the answer to the gray areas is apply 1 point per 15 degrees).

Smooth and graceful (S+G) is subjective, and to date has never had a point value or downgrades associated with it.  The S+G criteria allows an impression judge to score a technically flawed maneuver higher than a technically perfect maneuver.

Should a sequence that is flown technically perfect be awarded the highest score?  

Should it be possible to outscore a technically perfect sequence with a technically flawed one that is "more smooth" or "more graceful"?

I don't think we should include (S+G) or pursue (Impression score) criteria which are ill-defined or purely subjective - pattern is about precision aerobatics which can be (is) well defined, and is a thing of beauty (to the select few that appreciate it) without the need for S+G, style, or impression points.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "White, Chris" <chris at ssd.fsi.com> 

I'd love to hear some feedback to the following: (or maybe not, but it might help my understanding of what we're trying to accomplish in our judging/flying:-))

Question:

Isn't clinical precision flying the only way to attempt to remove impression judging?  Shouldn't the sequence itself if flown to precision "be" the art form?

Example 1: 

I saw one pilot fly the FAI sequence at our contest last June.... To me his flying was clinically precise without any "Style" of his own.  I mean that very much as a compliment.  The roll rates and radiuses and speeds to me were very consistent....his timing and flight line control were very "Clinically precise"  It struck me at that if a computer GPS link could have been flown with an autopilot laying out the perfectly executed sequence he would have been close.  The nearly perfect geometry of the sequence spoke for itself.

Example 2:

An example of impression that I can think of would be some of the point rolls that I used to see in the 70's....the ones that kind of slip & lock into each point (exaggerated lock in), but I could not score them better than points that merely stop where they are supposed to with minimum fanfare.....could I? (In fact since one could argue that the roll rate changes to get that effect it could be downgraded more.....)  But I like it, its an individual preference, but to the letter of the law its incorrect.

Maybe we should judge by technical merit and each judge give an overall "Impression" rating someplace on the scoresheet???

(Wow I spent all this time trying to think of how to word this....Gee do I hit the send button.......??????  I hope this strikes a positive chord somewhere...okay my motive is to learn so I'll send it.)

Chris White

  _____  

  _____  

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061003/e0636754/attachment.html 