[NSRCA-discussion] Judging

[Del K. Rykert]

Judging is a brutal and demanding CHORE.!! if done correctly, IMHO. Much harder than flying.  I have always judged all classes brutally honest. Anything less I felt was a dis-service to the pilots being judged. If I saw no error then a 10 was awarded. If I caught any error an apropos downgrade was awarded. I have always read the 1 point/15º  to mean if one could detect a 16º error then that pilot earned more than a 1 point downgrade. I realize I can't detect a 15 versus 16 degree error.  This whole issue is part of reason I have trouble with software that is supposed to analyze judges when nowhere did anyone record the flight for proper reference before condemning or condoning a judge for their time in the hot seat.  
    
    My argument has always been if only the perfect maneuver is supposed to receive the 10 to interpret the 1pt/15º any other way is rewarding the people that fly close to perfect with the same score. I thought the intent is to separate the great from the best. 
 
    Making complex maneuvers that need to re-teach the judges to properly score them don't help the situation. Not all areas hold judging schools timely. Not all pilots attend judging schools.  If we are trying to recruit new blood and not drive people from the sport putting more demands on them does not seem like a win/win to me. 
 
    Del


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Richards 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging


  In theory, using GPS to judge flight path, or even just box violations, sounds like a good idea. I, however, am very much opposed to it.

  The reason the judges are positioned close to the pilot is so they will see, as much as possible, the same thing the pilot sees. IMHO we should not try to judge something the pilot has no chance of seeing. If the plane drifts in or out slightly while doing a point roll, the pilot is not likely to see it and neither are the judges. That is the way it should be.

  At the next pattern contest, walk out to the 150m mark, outside the box looking in, and see how bad the flight path drifts for most pilots. Rolls that look fine from the pilot and judge perspective may look horrible when viewed from the end. Then try telling a pilot he was downgraded for defects that he has little chance of seeing from his perspective.

  Ever watch full-scale aerobatics? Vertical lines that drift, changes in radius, etc. From a pattern pilots viewpoint, they could do a lot better. But, the pilot can't see drift during vertical lines. They can't tell the radius is changing. That is why the full-scale judges don't have that as part of their criteria. They judge the attitude of the airplane, and the rate-of-change of the heading during looping segments (someone correct me if I am wrong). Again, don't try to downgrade a pilot for something he can't see from his perspective.

  M2CW.

  Bob R.


  Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> wrote:
    The new Eagle tree does collect GPS data. Has anyone played with one yet?
     
    Anthony




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: ejhaury at comcast.net
      To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
      Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:25:54 -0500
      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging


      Some thoughts that might help unburden judges and improve accuracy. These are outside the box a bit - process box, not flight box. As some have mentioned, replacing human judges with some form of computer scoring system is the ultimate answer. I hope I live long enough to see that work, not that it's impossible now - just no one with the interest / skills / finances has approached it. Much time has been spent discussing ways to transfer the score from the judges mind to paper - but, guess what, a pencil and paper works just fine! (It's not even too hard to process scores with a calculator!)

      F3A rules preclude the use of means to define box violations other than the judge's observation. Various wording in both AMA & F3A rules have prohibited judging "aids". This seems contradictory to the purpose! A pilot is supposed to demonstrate skill in flying an aircraft within the constraints of the box with perfection being the goal - while being judged by a bunch of ill-positioned folks who vary in being able to determine distance +- 50 meters? In the days of interrogated circuits, dual conversation RX, and giggle Hertz freq we still choose to rely on guesstimates for distance! Nonsense. Very little effort would be required to provide accurate excessive distance and box excursion information. Take this burden from the judge and apply any distance / box downgrades post flight. Sure - I don't know just what these machines are at the moment (could be just properly placed people in major meets) - but asking the question may get somebody thinking.

      If the pilot is expected to display perfection in flight - we should move into the 21st century in devising ways of accurately judging whether or not that perfection is present. Of course it might cost some of us judges a job - darn, I would hate to lose the income!

      Earl



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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20071017/542b37b7/attachment.html