[NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 3 letter word)

[Dave Burton]

Right on!

 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Black
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:25 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 3 letter
word)

 

I know the USA centric thinkers won't like this, but I think we should stay
consistent with the FAI descriptions of the maneuver. Like it or not RC
Aerobatics is not that big of a pond. Why in the AMA (all one or two hundred
of us active Pattern fliers) do we have to have our own definitions? Many
countries ONLY fly FAI. It's cool that the AMA has it's own classes,
sequences, even event rules, but why have our own maneuver descriptions?  

 

Seems to me that we just create confusion for judges and pilots alike when
we have different maneuver descriptions from the rest of the world. If we
feel a description is poorly defined why not appeal to the FAI?

 

Keith Black


 

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:16 PM, <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:

"Maneuvers should be easy to judge and hard to fly."   An old and excellent
concept!

We have been working on describing a snap and  judging them for lots of
years.
Descriptions are pretty good.   Judging consistently and accurately is still
not good.
Guess we need to keep working on it, not that we have not been trying.

In the meantime, do we continue using maneuvers with snaps, knowing the
judging is likely inconsistent?   There is an argument to be made; they need
to stay in schedules so pilots and judges can practice them.

While practice goes on another X years, round scores continue to be heavily
influenced by the scores on high K snap maneuvers.  We could fix most of
that, by assigning a low K to snap maneuvers.    Got a better idea?

Ron Lockhart

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ferrell" <jferrell13 at triad.rr.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2009 12:04:51 PM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question

I have always felt that if you cannot get consistent judging on a maneuver
it should no be in the sequence...

 

Maneuvers should be easy to judge and hard to fly.

 

John Ferrell  W8CCW
 
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of
justice is no virtue."
-Barry Goldwater
"You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note."
-Doug Floyd

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

From: Bob <mailto:bob at toprudder.com>  Richards 

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 1:11 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question

 


It is unfortunate that we sometimes have to "adjust" our flying to give the
judges what they are looking for, even if what they are looking for may be
wrong.  Unfortunately I always had difficulty doing that. :-(


Bob R.


--- On Thu, 10/8/09, Vicente "Vince" Bortone <vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote:

 

Don,

 

If the plane skid into the wind the lines can not be exactly vertical and
horizontal as described by both AMA and FAI.  Therefore, I am not sure how
the 2 FAI pilots could be correct.  I guess that I have to follow your
recommendation to get better scores.   

Vicente "Vince" Bortone


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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/20091012/e8b446bf/attachment.html>