[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
Del K. Rykert
drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Fri Jun 29 09:59:08 AKDT 2007
Hi Anthony..
Purely addressing the issue of any judge who sits and catches errors that other judges don't, can be a problem. I have brought this issue up before and it has never been addressed. The issues being the software doesn't look at the variables. It is a pet peeve of mine as the hard judge may be the more accurate judge but that judge may be the one crucified for being a poor judge when they just look at statistical numbers on a sheet after the fact. Without the qualifier of manning the same vantage point/angle and watching each maneuver as it is flown isn't fair to the judge to be labeled as the one who is wrong purely based on the numbers that were turned in if you have a panel of only 2 or 3 judges watching those given maneuvers. To many variables that should/could be addressed are not entered into the equation. It lends itself to making some basic assumptions that may be wrong.
The proper way to be a good judge is to always watch all of the complete maneuvers including entry and exits of each without ever taking your eyes off the aircraft. Count the downgrades as they occur apropos to the class your judging. FAI is whole point downgrades. AMA classes are allowed to use as little as 1/2 point increments. If you detect a flaw, reward the apropos downgrade.
With time in the chair you will become comfortable with the challenge of judging. For me, it has always been harder to judge than fly. I am a very hardnosed judge looking for every flaw I can pick up on. But remember to maintain your judging standard while in the chair.
The issue of bias can best be seen when in a panel of 3 or more competent trained judges are all judging the same flight then when you have a judge who repeatedly judges a given individual harder than other pilots on their flight line in identical flight conditions their may be grounds to declare a bias is present. Unfortunately the variables while judging aren't looked at when crunching numbers in the comfort and at a leisurely pace after the flight is over and weather conditions can contribute to a judge nailing one person harder than another judge who feels the pilot deserves a little break because of weather issues. that isn't supposed to occur but I hate to admit how many times I've sat the line and had a fellow judge comment after the session how the conditions were brutal which they took in to account while judging. Hmm. what is wrong with that picture?
Hopefully this helps and not create more confusion for you.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Abdullah
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
I have followed this thread closely and have refrained from comment. I have nothing against or toward any of the parties involved and sincerely hope that we can find a common ground and get past this issue. I am making no assumptions, rather trying to, as a relative newcomer to serious patter competition, get a better understanding of what is considered acceptible judge and participant behavior. You are all my role models for what is right and wrong.
I do have one nagging question that has aroused my curiosity;
I would love to know how you determine a pilot bias based on score sheets? For example, I fly a funny shaped six sided outside loop in advanced. If one judge thinks it is not that bad and another finds enough problems with it to zero it, I may not like it but can not claim bias. His only bias is against the shape of my maneuver even if another judge likes it. I am not saying that is what happened, I would just like to get a better understanding of the application of the judging criteria and its future ramifications as I get further along in my patter career. I thought the only way to determine bias was based on the rule book interpretation of a maneuver vs. the scores given. That can only be determined during a flight or on subsequent video taped review of a flight (don't know if that happened or not and not assuming either way).
I would think this would be more of a training issue than a bias issue. By that I mean review a flight (on tape if possible) of the "wronged" pilot with the "offending" judge and a panel of impartial "fair" judges present. If upon review everyone sees enough errors to warrant the score then that judge is just labeled tough not biased. If the errors seem fabricated or like a stretch, the "biased" judge should be advised of the proper way to judge said maneuver.
I love pattern and I love pattern people. I hate to see the names of people whose work and dedication I respect associated with any kind of ban or disciplinary action.
Just my .02 thanks for taking the time.
Anthony
Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
I've seen some really good words flying around this topic lately - banning, lynching, secretive, uninformed, etc. None of it is true.
The NSRCA worked in concert with the AMA on these charges - everything was done on the up and up and we were in consultation with them from the beginning and they fully supported the outcome. There are other issues beyond the bias charges that the AMA has dealt with (or is dealing with) concerning the individual and since we host the pattern Nationals the AMA asked us to review the data and to make a determination as to whether the bias allegations were valid, and then to make a ruling as to what the punishment would be. We ruled on that after reviewing all the data - and, yes, it is mathematically/statistically possible to make a determination based on one round of data. The full scale aerobatic community uses TBLP on a round by round basis to determine potential bias - we did not use TBLP but the data supports the bias allegations.
The NSRCA board did not jump up and down screaming "yahoo" when the outcome was reached - I think every person on the board was a little saddened by it. I think the bottom line that everyone should remember is that regardless of who the individuals were and what their character is like, bias was present and we needed to make a decision as to the punishment. As someone from D1 mentioned to me in a private email - there has been a long history of acrimony/bias between the people concerned and unfortunately it showed itself in one round of scoring at the Nationals.
On 6/26/07, W. Hinkle <whinkle1024 at msn.com> wrote:
Dave is a good pilot but character being beyond reproach is a bit of a
stretch. Ask John Glizellis about when Dave shot him down and haggled over
the price. This was to replace a brand new model with less than 30 flights
on it at the NATS. The incident was at the NATS during practice at the AMA
field. We all make mistakes, but to penny pinch the guy that just cost his
new model part way through the Nationals. JR had to step in and forced the
hand. If it had not been for Dave the sponsorship threat Dave would still be
argueing the price of a new built model. Dave replaced it after some debate
with JR. This is not character beyond reproach? Dave may be a good guy just
don't be on the same freq. He'll tell how poor your model is built and its
not worth the price of a professional built kit.
I'll agree that both parties in this fight are not angels. I'm not a fan or
Eric's but my question to this forum
Why is the NSRCA involved at all?
Doesn't the NSRCA have better things to do with its time and energy than
lynching a judge at the request of a couple pilots that have character
beyond reproach?
I feel this is another sign of the NSRCA just wasting resources, time and
money in the name of being the Savior of pattern flying. Beware people
beware. Come on. Getting two of Dave's best buddies in D1 to write a program
to damn a person that they and David hate with a passion. To me is smells
like old shellfish. These were the same judges who claimed in the past the
judge that gave the zero was the one that got it right.
The NSRCA has no business in this arena. I find it appalling the Board even
had this on the agenda. I also find it appalling that a ruling was made,
then Eric was notified of the charges and the conviction. As Eric stated, no
statistics can determine what the judge actually saw or better yet what the
pilot actually flew. So Eric's scores were below the average for a given
pilot. Maybe the pilot flew below average in Eric's eyes. This is why the
NATS uses more than one judge. This is a fact of life. This looks very one
sided by the NSRCA.
The NSRCA has no place in this squabble.
>From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org >
>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:27:00 -0400
>
>Len,
> All of the people involved were from D1 - I thought the good ol' boys
>were in D2 and D3! <LOL>
>
>John Pavlick
>http://www.idseng.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leonard Rudy
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>
>
> John,
>
> The conflict may have blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict, but in
>the NHL
> those "with the power" hear both sides and let each side present their
>case before
> the powers to be assign penalties. After the penalties are imposed, the
>player or
> individual still has the right to appeal the decision.
> You say Eric should take whatever the powers to be want and don't
>make any
> noise or waves.
> This is a clear message to others who will be judging at meets in
>the future. DO NOT GIVE THE GOOD OLD BOYS GROUP any low or bad scores or
>you may be on the receiving end of some form of penalty that you will not
>like.
>
> Len Rudy
> "Life is easier if you learn to plow around the stumps" or in other
>words, do not
> hand out low scores to the Good Old Boys or you will pay dearly for it
>one way or
> another.
>
> Fred Huber <fhhuber at clearwire.net> wrote:
> The penalty does not appear appropriate...
>
> It also sounds like it was not applied in a manner consistant with the
>rules system.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Ferrell
> To: Don Ramsey ; NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>
>
> I have the good fortune to not be involved in this dispute. I am
>only aware of the conflict.
>
> Not being very good at staying out of arguments, I offer the
>following observations:
> A heated difference of opinions occurred.
> Every one involved is considered a valuable asset to the Pattern
>Game.
> Things were said that should not have been said.
> Every one thinks they are right.
> There was probably at least one (or may be several) bad call(s) by
>some one.
>
> The conflict blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict and the net
>result was those with the power and responsibility treated it like a Hockey
>Game Conflict! A serious "time out" was assigned to the individual at the
>focal point of the conflict. It was their duty to put the problem on ice.
>
> The expectations of the rest of us who value the game and its
>players is that right or wrong the referee's call must be honored. The
>referee has the power to impose further penalties if the individual
>continues to make waves. Right or wrong, this is the was disputes are
>handled in the world of competition.
>
> If the individual was drawn into the conflict by goading it is still
>he who gets the penalty.
>
> Conflict resolution is not something that is natural to the human
>condition. Conflict is.
>
> Eric needs to take the penalty and get on with things.Those in power
>need to accept that the penalty has been applied and to continue the game.
>
> WE ALL need to be aware that we either play nice or get sent to the
>showers!
>
> Another factor to consider is that the higher profile one achieves
>in this sport the greater the need to hold that individual to higher
>standards.
> Eric is certainly a "high profile" player.
>
> John Ferrell W8CCW
> "Life is easier if you learn to plow
> around the stumps"
> http://DixieNC.US
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Ramsey
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>
>
> I would like to thank Eric for the nice complement in his comment,
>"To circumvent this conflict of interest problem and to keep the Nationals
>above reproach, I steeped out of line and asked Don Ramsey to independently
>choose the judges, Dave could not refuse this method, but I will tell you
>that he got extremely mad at me for doing it."
>
> I must respond that for good or bad I've been choosing the finals
>judges for many years. I started that process when Jeff Hill was Event
>Director. It must also be stated that I've never had any pressure of any
>kind from contest management regarding who I choose to judge. I try to
>pick the best candidates and rotate those so no single judge can influence
>the outcome extradionarly.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date:
>6/23/2007 11:08 AM
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Building a website is a piece of cake.
> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20070629/f6c85f44/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list