[NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines, and Box Definition

Wed May 16 15:54:46 AKDT 2007

Right on Matt!
A large and growing group of us know that the only way to actually improve judging, make it more consistent from judge to judge, and discover erroneous thinking is, as my 8th grader learned recently, the Socratic seminar (i.e. discuss real life events as a way to come to group concensus - for those of us that slept through 8th grade).  A little transparency in the process is important.  There are many ways, some better than others. Faux judging, or sitting with a friend and pointing out the downgrades and what score you would assign is one of the best.  Learning goes both ways.  Judges are often wrong. There are many variables.  A judge that is good on lines and geometry may forget to match radiuses or roll rates, or any other combination.  Howver, these errors are inevitable as we are human. However, when someone is using unwritten rules, or is over/under downgrading, or showing bias then we have a problem and discussion is one way out.  

As I've always maintained, its nice to know that you scored a 7.5 but sometimes until someone tells you why you can't improve.  This is especially true when you watch another guy fly and you think "how did that flight beat mine?".  Without something to go on many of us can get frustrated and lose interest.

--Lance
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Matthew Frederick 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition

  Yes, Lance, so many choices, each one further away than the last. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to accept that a judge could have been wrong? Same contest in question the judges one round decided to discuss whether or not a maneuver performed by someone else (not me) was a zero or not. The more experienced judge convinced the other to change his score to a zero. Luckily my friend protested, and he was awarded the original score given by the judge. The only way to maintain the integrity of our contestant judging system is to have ongoing discussions about judging issues, not just assume that a seminar and a test can cure all our woes. It would seem our drive to achieve perfection in our flying would also make us strive to achieve perfection in our judging.

  Matt
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Lance Van Nostrand 
    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:52 PM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition

    Tony,

    I don't agree that the view of the pilot and judge are the same.  I have a habit, taught to me by senior judges in d6 long ago, that I do when judging.  Before sitting down I stand in the pilot station and look at the poles( best) or a landmark on the box lines.  then I sit and look again.  I think it is amazing how even a 10 ft judge setback can change the perception of the box line.  I know a lot of pilots that like to stretch the box and scrape the edges on turnarounds so its important to recognize even small parallax issues.

    BTW Matt, there were 2 judging seminars in D6. One in Temple and one in Albuquerque.  So many choices, it can be hard to choose.

    --Lance
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Matthew Frederick 
      To: NSRCA Mailing List 
      Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:45 AM
      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition

      Thank you, Tony. My point exactly. I'm glad someone else realized that I was not asking for help on how to avoid breaking the box, but just trying to bring up a potential problem with box size judging based on simple geometry. Even though seminars are making judging more uniform, there are still people like me who just flat-out can't make a 10-hour drive to a contest just so they can attend a seminar. The website is helpful; but open, ongoing discussion on these topics will keep them fresh in our minds.

      Matt
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Tony Stillman 
        To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
        Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:44 AM
        Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judges' Positioning, Zero Lines,and Box Definition

        Matt:
        This is something I have spoken about several times.  The poles are there for the JUDGES.  The lines are for the PILOTS.  If the poles cannot be place on their proper location, THEY SHOULD NOT BE USED!  This if because of the very thing that you are talking about.  If the poles are at the 150 meter out location, the difference between the view of the pilot and the judges, even if they are 25 feet behind the pilot, are virtually the same.  The closer you bring in the poles, but more of an error you will create.  

        Tony Stillman, President

        Radio South

        3702 N. Pace Blvd

        Pensacola, FL 32505

        1-800-962-7802

        www.radiosouthrc.com

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

        From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Frederick
        Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:29 PM
        To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
        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 more 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

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

      _______________________________________________
      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/20070516/c23181d3/attachment-0001.html 