[NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines, and Box Definition
Matthew Frederick
mjfrederick at cox.net
Mon May 14 21:37:17 AKDT 2007
While I appreciate the advice, Vince, I'm no spring chicken. I was district champion in Novice the last full season I competed (yes, it was called novice when I won it). I just came back and while I do fly faster than most are used to seeing, I by no means fly too close in, if anything I'm too far out. I couldn't attend a seminar because timing and money did not work out to make it to one... nevermind the only one in our district is in Texas. I have, however, read everything that I could find on the NSRCA site regarding judging, including the powerpoint presentations for every class. I frequently call for all classes except Novice, and I know what it means to bust the box. Having just recently moved to 4 strokes, I know I have a learning curve that I'm dealing with regarding throttle management. That wasn't the issue. My issue was that the judges were 20 feet directly behind me, not calibrated to the box, and I got judged incorrectly because they just looked up at the pole and made my box smaller. I'll say this one more time: I'm not trying to complain about my experience, I just wanted to spark a discussion that would make everyone more aware of a potential problem. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't want the discussion to waver from the original intent.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: vicenterc at comcast.net
To: NSRCA Mailing List ; NSRCA Mailing List
Cc: Matthew Frederick
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines, and Box Definition
Matthew,
My best advice now is that you try to attend a pattern seminar. I don't know how long you have been flying pattern but attending a seminar is very important for you if you haven't done this. In general, new pilots in lower classes have the tendency to fly too close and fast (trying to manage the left stick). That make a lot easier to break the box (sides and center). This could cause a lot of other problems since there is not time to set up for the next manuever and other errors and downgrades are produced a lot easier.
Regards,
--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
Vince, I fly Intermediate. Don, now that I think about it I do remember hearing you discuss the cranes in the distance, and how they kept moving, so I know you were calibrating yourself, but I also don't think you ever judged my class. I really didn't bring this up to try and complain about judges, just wanted some discussion on the topic to help those who were unable to make it to a judging seminar (myself included) to understand how we as judges should go about determining box size and downgrades. I did appreciate at this contest that our judges were at the very least more consistent than I had seen in the past, but I was also disappointed that the pilot's meeting didn't cover any potential judging issues (and with the new rules regarding takeoff and landing I felt this was a mistake). Again, I'm just using this example to start discussion in order to increase awareness, not to knock one particular judge or contest. The more we all know abou t our rules and procedures, the better we will become... as pilots and as judges.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: John Ferrell
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition
If judges were perfect we would only need one per line.
John Ferrell W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US
----- Original Message -----
From: Del K. Rykert
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition
Please remember that at some local contests not all judges my be NSRCA members or even certified. When their is a small turnout would you rather not have a contest? or let the cd fill the sits with the most capable people they can to keep the contest going. In a perfect world all agree that all should be working from the same page.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Huber
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition
When the judges are not properly "calibrating" themselves as to the 60 deg box limits... its justification to contest the downgrade they are giving for breaking the box.
The only cure for improperly trained judges is... judge training sessions.
As noted in some other replies... the judges being 15 to 20 ft behind the pilot is WELL within the distance the regs list. So there's no reason to complain about the judges being that far back.
There are methods for estimating the 60 deg angle... and there are ways to establish references to the corret box limits without use of a pocket protractor. (also explained in other people's replies.
If you know the downgrades were for box violations due to judges' error... you need to be seeing the CD.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Frederick
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition
Fred,
The problem with your assumption is that you're assuming the judges are judging box ends based off of a 60-degree angle from them. How could they possibly be doing that? Do they have a protractor in their pocket? The only pole is the one that is 60 degrees from center for the pilot, not for the judges. I promise you, I drew it, I did the geometry, and their angle to the pole is smaller (in my example the judges had 51.55 degrees to each box end pole), reducing the size of the box. If the poles aren't there for judges to use as referrences, why are they there at all? I'll just let them know if I busted the box at the end of the flight... they can trust me, right? I'm not saying the judges' chairs define the box limits, I'm well aware of the fact that where I'm standing defines the box. The problem is, in this case the judges failed to take into account how far back they were, used the pole as their referrence, and downgraded me 4 points for busting the box when I didn't. Sure, relative to the distance from me to the airplane it's a small amount, but when the poles are used as reference points to judge box ends, the distance is no longer negligible. Put the poles out the same distance as the aircraft, then you can put the judges as far back as you feel, in fact it would make it easier for them to judge the box ends then, but as long as the poles are a few feet beyond the far side of the runway, the difference in angles is not negligible. The parallax everyone keeps talking about lately only applies to appearance of angles in maneuvers, it has nothing to do with the box ends, which for the judges are perceived by their position relative to the poles; move them further back from the poles, and the angle to the poles gets smaller... period... it's simple geometry that we learned in 7th grade.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Huber
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition
The judges being behind the pilot... if the model is past 60 deg to the judge, its past 60 deg to the pilot. (except potentially one edge of the box if the judge is off to the opposite side...)
The further back the judges are... the more ADDED SPACE they will perceive as being inside the 60 deg box. The judges are tasked with locating the box limits in relation to the pilot... not some poles that are not at the 175 meter maximum box limit line.
If the poles are just 40 feet from the pilot, they are only good as references for the pilot, not the judges. (even if the judges are under 5 ft from the pilot) If the judge wants to try to use them as reference... he has to allow for the plane to appear to have passed the pole by however many wingspans he is behind the pilot. (which errs slightly in favor of the pilot)
If you attend a judge's training seminar... there are guidelines about judge positioning. The judge positioning is supposed to be such that thier perspective will be similar to the perspective of the pilot. The judge being 15 to 20 ft back isn't unreasonable as its a small fracton (appx 1/35 to 1/40) of the average distance from pilot to airplane. The difference in "parallax" between what the pilot sees and what the judge sees will be very small. (with the judge having LESS parallax if he's straight behind the pilot)
The judge's chair position DOES NOT define the box limits. The pilot position (which is assigned and marked) DOES. All of the field markings are relative to the pilot position(s).
The CD can assign the safety/zero line as the runway edge if desired... Setting it behind the pilots is something I would not ever recommend. Since the pilots are typically stationed fairly close to the runway, having the edge close to the pilot be the safety line is usually reasonable.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Frederick
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition
OK, this forum has been too quiet lately, so let's get some controversy going! This comment/question is mainly directed to Don Ramsey, but I would appreciate everyone's opinion. The good thing is, Don was at the contest where what I'm about to describe happened. What I'm talking about here is the positioning of judges behind the pilot. Under most circumstances the judges are positioned maybe 3-5 feet behind the pilot with each judge's seat placed on (or very close to) one of the 60-degree lines. Now, at a contest I attended last week the judges apparently decided it was too hot out there on the actual flight line, and they moved their chairs about 15-20 feet behind the pilot in the shade of the shed at this particular field. My question is, should this be something that is allowed since the judges' chairs define the zero line of the flight line (and moving it back this far puts spectators in danger), and also because it gives the judges an even mor e skewed view of the 60-degree lines than they already have? I bring this up partly because of what Don wrote in this month's K-Factor, but also because I was gigged for busting the box by these "displaced" (in Louisiana we call them refugees) judges when in fact, I knew I was close to the edge, but since I was actually standing on the line, I knew I didn't bust it. As a pilot I should not have to adjust the size of the box that I'm permitted to fly in just so the judges can be more comfortable (granted, comfort in the heat and humidity of Louisiana is relative). I didn't bring it up at the contest because by the time it bit me, it was too late to complain. In the future, however, I think there need to be rules regarding the positioning of judges if there aren't already, and if there are rules, let's bring them to light and enforce them, and you can bet I'll refuse to fly before judges that are that far behind me. Then again, I also think the close edge of the runway should be the zero line on maneuvers, not the judges' chairs. I did a little (ok, a lot) of math to figure out how much box a pilot would be missing out on with the judges postitioned 15 feet behind him. Using approximated numbers from the contest in question I calculated that if the poles are 40 feet out from the pilot, and the judges are 15 feet behind the pilot, the box size at 150 meters (which is 259.81m) based on the judges' point of view is reduced by 232.61 feet (70.9 m), or 25.2%! This would have been even greater if the poles were closer in or the judges were further back.
Matt
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/797 - Release Date: 5/10/2007 5:10 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/797 - Release Date: 5/10/2007 5:10 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20070515/539bb63f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list