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

[Bill Glaze]

Yes.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Ferrell 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 12:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 3 letterword)


  The FAI folks have no interest in our problems or solutions, they have troubles of their own. Our representation to the FAI process is tiny. They are slow to react and even slower to admit there may be a problem. If you get the opportunity to watch a FAI conducted event, be very critical of the judging, the outcome as well as the elements. We have a better game in the US than exists on an international level. 

  It is not necessary to ignore their rules but we need to take advantage of the opportunity to improve and adjust where practical. 

  More consistent judging and fewer ambiguous rules are especially important goals. 

  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: Keith Black 
    To: General pattern discussion 
    Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:25 PM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 3 letterword)


    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 Richards 
        To: General pattern discussion 
        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





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


    _______________________________________________
    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/20091012/70a521da/attachment.html>