<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Anthony..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Purely addressing the issue of any judge who
sits and catches errors that other judges don't, can be a problem. I have
brought this issue up before and it has never been addressed. The
issues being the software doesn't look at the variables. It
is a pet peeve of mine as the hard judge may be the more accurate judge but that
judge may be the one crucified for being a poor judge when they just look at
statistical numbers on a sheet after the fact. Without the qualifier of manning
the same vantage point/angle and watching each maneuver as it is flown isn't
fair to the judge to be labeled as the one who is wrong purely based on the
numbers that were turned in if you have a panel of only 2 or 3 judges
watching those given maneuvers. To many variables that should/could be addressed
are not entered into the equation. It lends itself to making some basic
assumptions that may be wrong. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The proper way to be a good judge is to always
watch all of the complete maneuvers including entry and exits of each without
ever taking your eyes off the aircraft. Count the downgrades as they occur
apropos to the class your judging. FAI is whole point downgrades. AMA
classes are allowed to use as little as 1/2 point increments. If you detect
a flaw, reward the apropos downgrade. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>With time in the chair you will become
comfortable with the challenge of judging. For me, it has always been harder to
judge than fly.</FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>I am a very hardnosed judge
looking for every flaw I can pick up on. But remember to maintain your judging
standard while in the chair. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The issue of bias can best be seen when in a panel
of 3 or more competent trained judges are all judging the same flight then when
you have a judge who repeatedly judges a given individual harder than other
pilots on their flight line in identical flight conditions their may be grounds
to declare a bias is present. Unfortunately the variables while judging aren't
looked at when crunching numbers in the comfort and at a leisurely pace after
the flight is over and weather conditions can contribute to a judge nailing one
person harder than another judge who feels the pilot deserves a little break
because of weather issues. that isn't supposed to occur but I hate to admit how
many times I've sat the line and had a fellow judge comment after the session
how the conditions were brutal which they took in to account while
judging. Hmm. what is wrong with that picture? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hopefully this helps and not create more confusion
for you. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Del </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=aabdu@sbcglobal.net href="mailto:aabdu@sbcglobal.net">Anthony
Abdullah</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, June 29, 2007 11:48
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5
Going too far.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I have followed this thread closely and have refrained from comment. I
have nothing against or toward any of the parties involved and sincerely hope
that we can find a common ground and get past this issue. I am making no
assumptions, rather trying to, as a relative newcomer to serious patter
competition, get a better understanding of what is considered acceptible judge
and participant behavior. You are all my role models for what is right and
wrong.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do have one nagging question that has aroused my curiosity;</DIV>
<DIV>I would love to know how you determine a pilot bias based on score
sheets? For example, I fly a funny shaped six sided outside loop in advanced.
If one judge thinks it is not that bad and another finds enough problems with
it to zero it, I may not like it but can not claim bias. His only bias is
against the shape of my maneuver even if another judge likes it. I am not
saying that is what happened, I would just like to get a better understanding
of the application of the judging criteria and its future ramifications as I
get further along in my patter career. I thought the only way to determine
bias was based on the rule book interpretation of a maneuver vs. the scores
given. That can only be determined during a flight or on subsequent video
taped review of a flight (don't know if that happened or not and not assuming
either way).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I would think this would be more of a training issue than a bias issue.
By that I mean review a flight (on tape if possible) of the
"wronged" pilot with the "offending" judge and a panel of impartial
"fair" judges present. If upon review everyone sees enough errors to
warrant the score then that judge is just labeled tough not biased. If the
errors seem fabricated or like a stretch, the "biased" judge should
be advised of the proper way to judge said maneuver.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I love pattern and I love pattern people. I hate to see the names of
people whose work and dedication I respect associated with any kind of ban or
disciplinary action.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just my .02 thanks for taking the time.</DIV>
<DIV>Anthony<BR><BR><B><I>Derek Koopowitz
<derekkoopowitz@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV>I've seen some really good words flying around this topic lately -
banning, lynching, secretive, uninformed, etc. None of it is
true.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The NSRCA worked in concert with the AMA on these charges - everything
was done on the up and up and we were in consultation with them from the
beginning and they fully supported the outcome. There are other issues
beyond the bias charges that the AMA has dealt with (or is dealing with)
concerning the individual and since we host the pattern Nationals the AMA
asked us to review the data and to make a determination as to whether the
bias allegations were valid, and then to make a ruling as to what the
punishment would be. We ruled on that after reviewing all the data -
and, yes, it is mathematically/statistically possible to make a
determination based on one round of data. The full scale aerobatic
community uses TBLP on a round by round basis to determine potential bias -
we did not use TBLP but the data supports the bias allegations. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The NSRCA board did not jump up and down screaming "yahoo"
when the outcome was reached - I think every person on the board was a
little saddened by it. I think the bottom line that everyone should
remember is that regardless of who the individuals were and what their
character is like, bias was present and we needed to make a decision as to
the punishment. As someone from D1 mentioned to me in a private email
- there has been a long history of acrimony/bias between the people
concerned and unfortunately it showed itself in one round of scoring at the
Nationals. </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 6/26/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>W.
Hinkle</B> <<A
href="mailto:whinkle1024@msn.com">whinkle1024@msn.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Dave
is a good pilot but character being beyond reproach is a bit of
a<BR>stretch. Ask John Glizellis about when Dave shot him down and haggled
over <BR>the price. This was to replace a brand new model with less than
30 flights<BR>on it at the NATS. The incident was at the NATS during
practice at the AMA<BR>field. We all make mistakes, but to penny pinch the
guy that just cost his <BR>new model part way through the Nationals. JR
had to step in and forced the<BR>hand. If it had not been for Dave the
sponsorship threat Dave would still be<BR>argueing the price of a new
built model. Dave replaced it after some debate <BR>with JR. This is not
character beyond reproach? Dave may be a good guy just<BR>don't be on the
same freq. He'll tell how poor your model is built and its<BR>not worth
the price of a professional built kit.<BR><BR>I'll agree that both parties
in this fight are not angels. I'm not a fan or<BR>Eric's but my question
to this forum<BR><BR>Why is the NSRCA involved at all?<BR><BR>Doesn't the
NSRCA have better things to do with its time and energy than <BR>lynching
a judge at the request of a couple pilots that have character<BR>beyond
reproach?<BR><BR>I feel this is another sign of the NSRCA just wasting
resources, time and<BR>money in the name of being the Savior of pattern
flying. Beware people <BR>beware. Come on. Getting two of Dave's best
buddies in D1 to write a program<BR>to damn a person that they and David
hate with a passion. To me is smells<BR>like old shellfish. These were the
same judges who claimed in the past the <BR>judge that gave the zero was
the one that got it right.<BR><BR>The NSRCA has no business in this arena.
I find it appalling the Board even<BR>had this on the agenda. I also find
it appalling that a ruling was made,<BR>then Eric was notified of the
charges and the conviction. As Eric stated, no<BR>statistics can determine
what the judge actually saw or better yet what the<BR>pilot actually flew.
So Eric's scores were below the average for a given <BR>pilot. Maybe the
pilot flew below average in Eric's eyes. This is why the<BR>NATS uses more
than one judge. This is a fact of life. This looks very one<BR>sided by
the NSRCA.<BR><BR>The NSRCA has no place in this squabble.
<BR><BR><BR>>From: "John Pavlick" <<A
href="mailto:jpavlick@idseng.com">jpavlick@idseng.com</A>><BR>>Reply-To:
NSRCA Mailing List <<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
</A>><BR>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.<BR>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun
2007 01:27:00 -0400 <BR>><BR>>Len,<BR>> All of the
people involved were from D1 - I thought the good ol' boys<BR>>were in
D2 and D3! <LOL><BR>><BR>>John Pavlick<BR>><A
href="http://www.idseng.com/">http://www.idseng.com
</A><BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>>
From: Leonard Rudy<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing
List<BR>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:47
PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too
far.<BR>><BR>><BR>>
John,<BR>><BR>> The
conflict may have blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict, but in<BR>>the
NHL<BR>> those "with the power" hear both sides and let
each side present their <BR>>case before<BR>> the powers
to be assign penalties. After the penalties are imposed,
the<BR>>player or<BR>> individual still has the right to
appeal the
decision.<BR>> You say
Eric should take whatever the powers to be want and don't <BR>>make
any<BR>> noise or
waves.<BR>> This is a
clear message to others who will be judging at meets in<BR>>the
future. DO NOT GIVE THE GOOD OLD BOYS GROUP any low or bad
scores or<BR>>you may be on the receiving end of some form of penalty
that you will not <BR>>like.<BR>><BR>> Len
Rudy<BR>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow
around the stumps" or in other<BR>>words, do not<BR>>
hand out low scores to the Good Old Boys or you will pay dearly for it
<BR>>one way or<BR>>
another.<BR>><BR>> Fred Huber <<A
href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">fhhuber@clearwire.net</A>>
wrote:<BR>> The penalty does not appear
appropriate...<BR>><BR>> It also sounds like
it was not applied in a manner consistant with the <BR>>rules
system.<BR>> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> From: John
Ferrell<BR>> To: Don Ramsey ; NSRCA
Mailing List<BR>> Sent: Monday,
June 25, 2007 8:12 AM<BR>> Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
<BR>><BR>><BR>> I have the
good fortune to not be involved in this dispute. I am<BR>>only aware of
the conflict.<BR>><BR>> Not
being very good at staying out of arguments, I offer the<BR>>following
observations: <BR>> A heated
difference of opinions
occurred.<BR>> Every one involved
is considered a valuable asset to the
Pattern<BR>>Game.<BR>> Things
were said that should not have been
said.<BR>> Every one thinks they
are right. <BR>> There was probably
at least one (or may be several) bad call(s) by<BR>>some
one.<BR>><BR>> The conflict
blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict and the net<BR>>result was those
with the power and responsibility treated it like a Hockey <BR>>Game
Conflict! A serious "time out" was assigned to the individual at
the<BR>>focal point of the conflict. It was their duty to put the
problem on ice.<BR>><BR>> The
expectations of the rest of us who value the game and its <BR>>players
is that right or wrong the referee's call must be honored.
The<BR>>referee has the power to impose further penalties if the
individual<BR>>continues to make waves. Right or wrong, this is the was
disputes are <BR>>handled in the world of
competition.<BR>><BR>> If the
individual was drawn into the conflict by goading it is still<BR>>he
who gets the penalty.<BR>><BR>>
Conflict resolution is not something that is natural to the human
<BR>>condition. Conflict
is.<BR>><BR>> Eric needs to take
the penalty and get on with things.Those in power<BR>>need to accept
that the penalty has been applied and to continue the
game.<BR>><BR>> WE ALL need to
be aware that we either play nice or get sent to the
<BR>>showers!<BR>><BR>>
Another factor to consider is that the higher profile one
achieves<BR>>in this sport the greater the need to hold that individual
to higher<BR>>standards.<BR>>
Eric is certainly a "high profile" player.
<BR>><BR>> John
Ferrell W8CCW<BR>>
"Life is easier if you learn to
plow<BR>> around
the stumps"<BR>> <A
href="http://dixienc.us/">http://DixieNC.US</A><BR>><BR>>
----- Original Message
-----<BR>> From: Don
Ramsey<BR>> To: NSRCA
Mailing List<BR>> Sent:
Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:32
PM<BR>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
<BR>><BR>><BR>> I
would like to thank Eric for the nice complement in his
comment,<BR>>"To circumvent this conflict of interest problem and to
keep the Nationals<BR>>above reproach, I steeped out of line and asked
Don Ramsey to independently <BR>>choose the judges, Dave could not
refuse this method, but I will tell you<BR>>that he got extremely mad
at me for doing
it."<BR>><BR>> I
must respond that for good or bad I've been choosing the finals
<BR>>judges for many years. I started that process when Jeff
Hill was Event<BR>>Director. It must also be stated that
I've never had any pressure of any<BR>>kind from contest management
regarding who I choose to judge. I try to <BR>>pick the best
candidates and rotate those so no single judge can influence<BR>>the
outcome
extradionarly.<BR>><BR>>
Don<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>
<A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>>
No virus found in this incoming
message.<BR>> Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<BR>> Version: 7.5.472 /
Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date:<BR>>6/23/2007 11:08
AM<BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________
<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
Building a website is a piece of cake. <BR>> Yahoo! Small
Business gives you all the tools to get
online.<BR>><BR>><BR>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________ <BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</A><BR><BR><BR>>_______________________________________________<BR>>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>