[NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

Wed Oct 4 01:45:03 AKDT 2006

To paraphrase a well known quote:

"I can't describe smoothness and grace, but I know it when I see it."

I agree with Keith's comments! He comes close to describing S&G.

When I am judging, I do use the "subtraction method" I assume the pilot
has a 10 for the upcoming maneuver. As he enters the maneuver I start
deducting points for errors I can observe. I don't think S&G comes much
into play except possibly in a neg way. Keith hit it in his comments by
saying the the pilot is exposing himself longer if he is doing larger,
slower, more graceful manuvers. That gives me more time to see and deduct
for minor burbles. On the other hand, if the maneuver is well done, and I
have deducted few points, I can rest assured that I have recorded an
accurate number for the maneuver.

Terry T.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:31:53 -0500 "Keith Black" <tkeithb at comcast.net>
writes:
Is the issue for those who are against scoring S&G that you don't feel
S&G should be rewarded, or is it that we have not adequately defined how
the S&G score should be applied? 

I'm a logical guy and can't determine how S&G should be applied, this
bothers me. 

HOWEVER, there's an innate sense in me that says if a pilot has enough
control over his plane to stretch a slow roll from horizon to horizon, or
to slowly and cleanly draw out his 4 of 8 in a Cuban Eight then that
pilot should prevail over one that does the minimum length slow roll and
four quick, jerky (but accurate) points in the Cuban.

Some pilots clearly have more control over their planes and open
themselves to more exposure by making nice slow rolls and radii and
therefore if each pilot flew a maneuver with 1/2 point geometry downgrade
it seems to go against what we're all striving for NOT to reward the one
that demonstrated more control (skill).

The problem is that we haven't defined specifically how this should be
applied. Perhaps that was intentional to allow flexibility in rewarding
what was inherently understand, I'm not sure.

Keith Black

----- Original Message ----- 
From: george w. kennie 
To: NSRCA Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

Even if the S&G criteria were removed from the rulebook, it would remain
in the subconcious. There is just something in the depths of the human
psyche that cries out for a way to award the performance accomplished
with polish in a way that separates it from the one executed with
mediocrity. That has to be IMPRESSION guys..........I
think.................
G. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lance Van Nostrand 
To: NSRCA Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

I'm a ditto head to Dave on this one.  I can't imagine a situation where
someone could fly perfect precision -  I mean  really perfect with all
lines straight, radiuses matched, etc that should not get scored all 10s.
 How would the pattern be flown differently to introduct S&G and maintain
10s?  Should a very smooth and graceful sequence flown with a bunch of
9.5 precision scores (actual defects that cause a .5 point downgrade) be
given 10s?  If we were to eliminate S&G and have only downgrades for
precision errors then judges must interpret S&G critically in that S&G
flair can hurt but not help a manuver.  truth is, pilots will use S&G to
mask precision errors, or to mask difficult timing and centering issues. 
I watch pilots much better than me get away with murder but do it so
purposefully and smooth that judges don't seem to even see it. 

Eliminating S&G from the judging criteria would not eliminate S&G from
flying nor from judging, but it would weaken it as a reason to downgrade.
 If all you can say is that the manuver seemed technically correct but
there was "something" wrong, then what you are really saying is that it
was not technically correct and you saw the downgrade but you just can't
put your finger on it in your conscious mind.  I would be OK with
admitting that was my limitation as a human judge and I will not penalize
the pilot for it.

--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net 
To: NSRCA Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:04 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/flyingJ)

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

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

_______________________________________________
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/20061004/ebb5125a/attachment-0001.html 