[NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
Stuart Chale
schale at optonline.net
Wed Oct 4 06:18:08 AKDT 2006
There should be no points for S&G. There should be no points subtracted if
a flyer is flying sharp corners and quick rolls as long as they are
geometrically correct.
Now the reality. "Impression" judging will always be there. Even if a
judge tries to follow point deduction rules for errors only, some
subjectivity enters the picture. The flier that flies with "more" S&G will
likely get a slightly higher score. Not that they should but it is human
nature. I pilot who is getting straight 5's and 6's for their maneuvers is
unlikely to get a 9 for a near perfect next maneuver, where a good flier
scoring 9's is unlikely to be scored a 5 for a botched maneuver by a good
percentage of judges. Some may be able to overcome this natural tendency
but many will not.
On the other hand precision is in the eye of the beholder. Some judges may
prefer quick rolls and interpret the rules as such. Way back in '86 at the
Nats flying AMA expert, I was calling for Norm Staub who flew an awesome 8
point, one judge scored him 6's. When asked what was wrong with it after
the scores came back, he reported that the rolls needed to be quick and
sharp, not slowly rolled into them as he did. So as we know judging has
quite a bit of subjectivity to it, even with the best of trained judges.
Stuart Chale
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:58 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
My problem with S+G is that it is not adequately defined, and never will be,
because of the subjective nature. Precision is supposed to be the priority,
and a technically perfect maneuver should be a 10 (and a "smoother" manuever
should not be an eleven, despite claims that some scales of measurement do
go to "eleven").
A "crisp" flying style is never at risk of lacking definition for start/stop
of rolls/corners, but has higher risk for actually hitting all the rolls and
lines. A "smooth" flying style is more at risk for maintaining definition,
but more at risk for lacking definition. It is a balancing act between the
two styles/approaches to find the best ratio of easiest to fly, lowest
exposure, and maintaining definition.
Nitpick - we are not striving to give the highest rewards to the pilot that
demonstrates the most skill, but to the pilot that presents the best
schedule. How much skill used by a pilot in a given routine is not relevant
- easiest example is when Pilot A flies in calm air, and Pilot B flies in
extremely windy/turbulent air. The fact that Pilot B may be known to be the
better pilot and the clear winner in equal weather conditions is of no
conisideration for the judge - the best schedule should score the highest,
even if it clear that greater skill were employed on a lesser quality
schedule (in poor weather conditions).
Dave
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Keith Black" <tkeithb at comcast.net>
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 <mailto:geobet at gis.net>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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 <mailto:patterndude at comcast.net> Nostrand
To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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 <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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>
Id love to hear some feedback to the following: (or maybe not, but it might
help my understanding of what were trying to accomplish in our
judging/flying:-))
Question:
Isnt clinical precision flying the only way to attempt to remove impression
judging? Shouldnt 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 70s.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 somewhereokay
my motive is to learn so Ill 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/fd1e1729/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list