[NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
Dean Pappas
d.pappas at kodeos.com
Wed Oct 4 09:48:17 AKDT 2006
Hi George,
You are on to something here ...
When Keith talked about doing individual elements slowly enough to demonstrate complete moment-by-moment control, he points out something important. Good, too.
Is it more impressive if someone demonstrates the same complete control in a less leisurely fashion? Maybe, maybe not, but that is style: and not subject to downgrade. (ahem)
It certainly is less impressive if you get the impression that the pilot flew up to the element - exercized some pre-in-the-head-programmed sequence of stick movements -
and then started flying the plane again. That's muscle memory flying, not complete control.
The complaint is with judges who look for smoothness, while ignoring fundamental geometry flaws, no one has a gripe with looking for the impression of control.
Two examples of the problem:
some judges mistake the complete lack of a defined line between two elements as a smooth exit from the previous and a smooth entry to the next.
It's not a smooth entry/exit, it's a missing element! I have seen pilots win big contests doing this, and banging my head against my fieldbox didn't help it make sense.
Similarly, the transitions between elements should be smooth and defined, rather than mushy and ill-defined. Try teaching that to new judges, I triple dog dare you!
The unfortunate fact is that judges will find it hard to find fault with what you do not show them.
Don't draw a line between maneuvers, and no one will see that you heading was off!
Only the astute judge will notice the lack of line, because we are generally taught to find flaws with what was shown.
We talk about this problem in the judges' guide, but it's tough to train ourselves to judge all the elements we should have seen, rather than the ones we did see.
It's all glittering generalities, I'm afraid ...
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: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:07 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
One more good illustrative viewpoint, which I am in total agreement with (this guy seems to always make sense to me). I wonder if there might be some variation in the definition for different individuals making it difficult to assign an applicable standard?
G.
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith <mailto:tkeithb at comcast.net> Black
To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
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 Nostrand <mailto:patterndude at comcast.net>
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>
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
_____
_______________________________________________
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/20061004/60ee6413/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list