[NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

Wed Oct 4 09:41:56 AKDT 2006

<<<<<<<<<<<<but to the pilot that presents the best schedule>>>>>>>>>

"Best Schedule"???????............highly open to interpretive biases !   Ya need a better term, Dave.

Boy, this is FUN !

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: DaveL322 at comcast.net 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:57 AM
  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 
      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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20061004/9182f744/attachment-0001.html 