[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to new FAIrules

Wed Feb 1 08:11:40 AKST 2012

Yah, I remember those 8-point rolls, out of the box on both ends flying
about 100 m out.

These were rough times. The USPJA in the NW was fading and chairs were
filled with marginally trained club judges who would seldom sit through
subsequent contests. The other thing we had to deal with before the NSRCA
formalized training and certification was local interpretation of the rules.
One could find themselves being judged to significantly different criteria
in different parts of the country.

Interesting you should bring up roll rates in point rolls. The current
flying style of using very slow roll rates make it difficult to judge
variable rate when slowing the rate to sneak up on the point. These slow
roll rates take up a lot of room leaving little time or distance to
demonstrate the hesitation which in some cases appears to be absent
requiring zeroing the maneuver. I guess this evolves from the emphasis on
S&G.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Stuart Chale
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:51 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to
new FAIrules

Way back when at the Nats (1986 I think) watching a friend fly a near
perfect 8 point roll in the old AMA Expert pattern from horizon to horizon.
The way they were meant to be done :)  Scores from one judge was a 5?  When
asked after the flight why, the judge responded because the roll to the
points were not quick enough, not enough of a "snap" to each point.  Even
though there were no specific rules to govern the speed of the roll in the 8
point it was a subjective thing that one judge thought looked better.  This
was before our current judging guidelines and judging schools.  Although not
perfect and always a moving target the current  guidelines at least allowed
us to get away from some of the subjectivity.  I would hate to back in that
direction.  This is one of the issues I have with IMAC although I have flown
a few of their contests.

Stuart C.

On 1/31/2012 9:24 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:
Mark,

While I follow your line of thinking

.and certainly agree that the
perceived geometry is what gets scored.  However, consider –

A square loop with half rolls is given a 9 because 1 roll was off by 15
degrees.  No downgrades were noted for position, size, s+g, and the maneuver
did not exceed the box.

A geometrically perfect square loop is given an 8 because it was deemed to
lack sufficient s+g.  Exactly why were the two points deducted?  Who knows.
Might have been the artistic opportunity missed when the pilot didn’t nicely
frame a cumulus cloud within the loop
.might have been sound of the airplane
wasn’t quite right
.might have been the color contrast on white clouds was
too bold.  Or
it could have been the judge and pilot have different opinions
on what the ideal radius or roll rate is
BUT
.a style allowance has always
been in the rules
specific styles are not supposed to be rewarded or
downgraded.

Go fast, turn left

maybe more objective
but
.do you think some pilots get a
little more leniency on cut calls?  :-)  Still a judgement being made by
a 

well

judge.

Regards,

Dave

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>  [
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:49 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to
new FAIrules

Dave, the answer, by your own math, is that a geometrically perfect maneuver
can't be beaten purely by other criteria.   With geometry making up 50% of
the score, no amount of smoothness can be valued MORE than precision.

I could also argue that a geometrically "perfect" maneuver would always have
at least some level of gracefulness based on that perfect geometry.  They're
not completely independent.

Unfortunately S&G is completely subjective, and as analytical people, we're
not too keen on subjectivity.  But that's the nature of the sport.  It's
perceived precision, not measured.    Vertical lines at the end of the box
don't need to BE vertical, they need to LOOK vertical, etc.

If we want purely objective scoring... look to racing.  Go fast, bank left,
pull.

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com <mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>   |
www.paragon-inc.com <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, DaveL322 at comcast.net
<mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>  wrote:

There has never been guidance for s+g downgrades in AMA or FAI.....which is
why I have always advocated s+g should be eliminated from the judging
criteria.  Of course if I am mistaken about the goal of pattern being
precision aerobatics, then maybe s+g should be the only criteria.

I've never gotten an answer to this question.  How can a geometrically
perfect maneuver be outscored by a geometrically flawed maneuver?  Of course
with the new FAI scoring.....it would seem that geometrically perfect
maneuver might only be scored a 5.

Regards,

Dave

Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!
----- Reply message -----
From: "Ronald Van Putte" < vanputte at cox.net <mailto:vanputte at cox.net> >
Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 09:49
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to new
FAIrules
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
After thinking about this further, I wonder how the change in  ranking
affects anything.  Positioning has specific downgrades (2 point downgrade
for each 1/4 of the maneuver off center).  However, I am unaware of any
specific downgrades for smoothness and gracefulness.

Ron Van Putte

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronald Van Putte < vanputte at cox.net <mailto:vanputte at cox.net> >
Date: January 31, 2012 8:24:56 AM CST
To: General pattern discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new
FAIrules
Reply-To: General pattern discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >

That's interesting.  I know #2. and #3. were in reverse order before.  I
don't remember a rules change vote on this.

Ron Van Putte

On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

FWIW, this is identical to to the ranking in the AMA Competition
regulations:

>From the current AMA document (RCA-12):

1. Precision of the maneuver.
2. Smoothness and gracefulness of the maneuver.
3. Positioning or display of the maneuver.
4. Size or dimensions of the maneuver relative to the maneuvering area,
distance from the judges, and other maneuvers in the flight.

The above criteria are listed in order of importance; however, all of them
must be met for a maneuver to be rated perfect.

Bob Kane getterflash at yahoo.com <mailto:getterflash at yahoo.com>
From: J N Hiller < jnhiller at earthlink.net <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net> >
To: General pattern discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new
FAIrules

I would have thought positioning rated a higher precision aerobatics.
Smoothness and gracefulness is polish.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
<mailto:%5Bmailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org%5D> On Behalf Of
tocdon at netscape.net <mailto:tocdon at netscape.net>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:06 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new
FAIrules

This will keep the list going (and the discussions too).  I recall Michael
Ramel clearly discussing the future of the rules during the judges training
at the World Championships at Muncie.  This was relating to smoothness and
gracefulness being directly related to constant speed.  The following
reflects what he discussed, as cited on page 35, and effect the way a score
is awarded:

Geometry:  50%
Smoothness and Gracefulness: 25%
Position of maneuver: 12.5%
Size of maneuver: 12.5%
Proportion of the maneuver outside the (box) in addition to above.

The specific, objective criteria used to judge smoothness and gracefulness
includes, "maintaining constant speed throughout various maneuver
components, like climbing and decending sections..."

Also the sentence about radii being very loose or very tight, even if equal
size within a maneuver, are grounds for downgrade of smoothness and
gracefulness.

Cheers,
Don

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists..nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4778 - Release Date: 01/31/12
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120201/b55712b1/attachment.html>