[NSRCA-discussion] D3 FAI

[Woodward, Jim]

Emory, and others concerned,  Thank You for the supporting side-emails.

 

Let me fist "bound" the issue by summarizing the feelings left in the
FAI participants (and I am speaking for more than myself) after
analyzing the scoring trends, then seek to offer tangible solutions:

1.	Scoring has been so low that our D3 FAI pilots would probably
not make the semi-finals at the US Nationals.
2.	This is equivalent saying there is not a single amateur pilot in
the entire south east region that is qualified to make the semi-finals
at a US Nationals.
3.	It is unthinkable right now for any D3 FAI pilot to consider
flying FAI at the US Nationals - doing so in front of our own D3 judges
would assure low-scores and early dismissal (based on past performance).
4.	Obviously (... as the message we receive from scoring dictates),
no one is D3 FAI is remotely qualified to make the US Nationals Finals.
The scoring indicates we are literally not on the same flight
line/playing field.
5.	Nationals-level winning rounds are flown, only to receive mid to
high 800 scores (both P and F sequences). 
6.	While we all have received positive qualitative comments about
the "high-level" of FAI flying in D3, the generalized "increase" in all
piloting skills, the raw scoring has remained level or is dropping.  
7.	Normalization does its part to compare flyers, judges should not
use RAW scores as the primary "real-time" comparative force while in the
process of judging.  RAW scores should be independent of anyone entered
in the contest or other factors.
8.	The scoring indicates there is no future for any of us,
resulting in the Fun-Factor removed and competitive spirit killed.  We
are not satisfied with this.  
9.	This is just not about scoring, the actual standings for 2nd,
3rd, and 4th, have become a roll-of-the-dice.

 

As a solution, I first ask each of the judges to first look within and
diligently analyze their own judging performance.  If a judge feels a
round was "close," they must look at the resultant round scores and ask
them selves why there was such a huge point discrepancy, then implement
their own self-correction for future rounds.  "K-Factors" is not always
the single-solution answer.  Beyond revisiting the judging code of
ethics, here are some observations:

1.	It is not the responsibility of a judge to use "real-time" RAW
score evaluations from maneuver to maneuver (against previous or future
flights) to ensure an "order" is reached, or room is left at the top
(.... If this is happening....)
2.	It is the responsibility of the judge to appropriately apply the
correct maneuver downgrades.  If a judge does not know these, or is
incapable of applying them, they should disqualify themselves from the
chair and study the rulebook before judging again.
3.	Most simply stated, focusing on these factors alone would nearly
correct the situation:

	a.	Box lines
	b.	Equal radii
	c.	Roll centering

4.	What is more difficult to correct is bias whether it is:
unintentional, intentional, or institutionalized.  This must be dealt
with internally by each person.  

 

The floor is open.  Competitors want to leave contests feeling their
efforts are justly evaluated, which should not be confused with
"winning" in every circumstance.

 

Respecfully,

Jim W.

 


 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and proprietary information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 
________________________________


From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
schroetere
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:20 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Cc: Jim Woodward
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 FAI

 

 Hey Jim, 

I debated with myself to respond to you or the list. But, since you
brought this up here, I'd like to hear some more from you and others as
well.

I know that you are not alone in your frustration. We talked about this
mid-season at length. I'm just not sure what can be done to "fix"
judging differences. When it comes down to it, we are all human. Until
we get some sort of camera hooked up to a computer, we will never have
perfect judging. Even then, I'm sure someone will complain that the
software algorithm that calculates the score isn't correct. All we as
judges can do is sit down in the chair and do our best. Some times we
get it right and some times we don't. It will never be better than that
(my opinion).

I hate to see that you are feeling so beaten down that you feel a class
switch is the only way to fix it. I have no doubt that you will have
great success in Masters if that is what you choose. To me, all the guys
flying FAI in our district should be there. You are all fantastic
pilots.

So, what needs to be fixed in your opinion and how should this be done? 

Thanks, Emory

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Woodward, Jim <mailto:jim.woodward at baesystems.com>  

	To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>


	Cc: McLaughlin, Ryan (FRS.JAX) <mailto:ryan_mclaughlin at ml.com>
; NSRCA District III <mailto:dist3 at nsrca.org>  ; Joseph Walker
<mailto:JWalker at ponikvar.com>  

	Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 4:43 PM

	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

	 

	It is my opinion that abject failure to score FAI rounds and
standings accurately has been consistently occurring in District 3,
punctuated by the final two contests of 2007 (JAX and D3 Champs).
Recognizing these inequities in FAI, I look forward to joining the
Masters class for the 2008 season beginning with the Tangerine.  

	Copied from www.dictionary.com   Abject: 

	-adjective 

1.

utterly hopeless, miserable, humiliating, or wretched: abject poverty. 

	 

2.

contemptible; despicable; base-spirited: an abject coward. 

	 

3.

shamelessly servile; slavish. 

	 

4.

Obsolete. cast aside. 

	Thank You,

	Jim W.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20071016/23643f46/attachment-0001.html