[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonew FAIrules

Tue Jan 31 10:43:07 AKST 2012

The sequences flown were published in the old rule books. Be aware that over
the years some of the class names changed.
Some time back I applied K-factors to those non-turnaround schedules to try
to understand the migration of increasing difficulty, concluding that the
K-factor alone is a poor indicator of actual difficulty. But we all step up
to the challenge regardless of the difficulty.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Peter Vogel
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:23 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Cc: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonew
FAIrules

I was reading some of the archived K-factors and it got me curious, is there
an archive of the sequences pre-turnaround?

Peter+

Sent from my iPhone4S

On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Joe Lachowski < jlachow at hotmail.com
<mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com> > wrote:
You can log on at the NSRCA website and then proceed to the judges section
and click on archived documents. Thanks to Jim Hiller who provided me a lot
of these, I was able to scan them in and put them into the PDF Format.
Anyone who has anything older than whats up there, send a hard copy to me to
scan and I'll have Derek put them up.

  _____

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:45:38 -0800
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to
new FAIrules

We have a pretty good collection of AMA and FAI rule books on the website if
anyone wants to see what rules were like, or how much they have changed over
the years...

Click on the link below:

http://nsrca.us/index.php/archiveddocuments

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jon Lowe < jonlowe at aol.com
<mailto:jonlowe at aol.com> > wrote:
It would appear that the FAI is going down the same road as IMAC, with
IMAC's subjective "airspace control" factor.  The smoothness and
gracefulness 25% gives a judge a non-objective way to give a downgrade of 2
to 3 points.  Since there is no scoring criteria for it that I could find,
other than Michael Ramel's instructions to the judges at the WC, I'm not
sure what we do with it.  I would think that his instructions would have
been protestable, if anyone had wanted to go down that path, since I'm
unaware of any official FAI rule interpretation saying, for example, that
constant speed is a part of smoothness and gracefulness.  I'm sure he was
just trying to give meaning to a poorly writen criteria.

Very sorry to see the FAI going this way.
Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Atwood < atwoodm at paragon-inc.com <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>
To: General pattern discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:49 am
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:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?> ]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

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120131/bf7d17f3/attachment.html>