<!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 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Judging is a brutal and demanding
CHORE.!! if done correctly, IMHO. Much harder than flying. I have
always judged all classes brutally honest. Anything less I felt was a
dis-service to the pilots being judged. If I saw no error then a 10 was awarded.
If I caught any error an apropos downgrade was awarded. I have always read the 1
point/15º to mean if one could detect a 16º error then that pilot earned
more than a 1 point downgrade. I realize I can't detect a 15 versus 16
degree error. This whole issue is part of reason I have trouble with
software that is supposed to analyze judges when nowhere did anyone record the
flight for proper reference before condemning or condoning a judge for their
time in the hot seat. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> My argument has
always been if only the perfect maneuver is supposed to receive the 10 to
interpret the 1pt/15º any other way is rewarding the people that fly close to
perfect with the same score. I thought the intent is to separate the great from
the best. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> Making complex
maneuvers that need to re-teach the judges to properly score them don't help the
situation. Not all areas hold judging schools timely. Not all pilots attend
judging schools. If we are trying to recruit new blood and not drive
people from the sport putting more demands on them does not seem like a
win/win to me. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> Del</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=bob@toprudder.com href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com">Bob Richards</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> Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:38
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Judging</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In theory, using GPS to judge flight path, or even just box violations,
sounds like a good idea. I, however, am very much opposed to it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The reason the judges are positioned close to the pilot is so they will
see, as much as possible, the same thing the pilot sees. IMHO we should
not try to judge something the pilot has no chance of seeing. If the
plane drifts in or out slightly while doing a point roll, the pilot is not
likely to see it and neither are the judges. That is the way it should
be.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At the next pattern contest, walk out to the 150m mark, outside the box
looking in, and see how bad the flight path drifts for most pilots. Rolls that
look fine from the pilot and judge perspective may look horrible when viewed
from the end. Then try telling a pilot he was downgraded for defects that he
has little chance of seeing from his perspective.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ever watch full-scale aerobatics? Vertical lines that drift, changes in
radius, etc. From a pattern pilots viewpoint, they could do a lot better. But,
the pilot can't see drift during vertical lines. They can't tell the radius is
changing. That is why the full-scale judges don't have that as part of their
criteria. They judge the attitude of the airplane, and the rate-of-change of
the heading during looping segments (someone correct me if I am wrong). Again,
don't try to downgrade a pilot for something he can't see from his
perspective.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>M2CW.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob R.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Anthony Romano <anthonyr105@hotmail.com></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
The new Eagle tree does collect GPS data. Has anyone played with one
yet?<BR> <BR>Anthony<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
From: ejhaury@comcast.net<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Date:
Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:25:54 -0500<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Judging<BR><BR>
<META content="Microsoft SafeHTML" name=Generator>
<STYLE> </STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Some thoughts that might help unburden judges and
improve accuracy. These are outside the box a bit - process box, not
flight box. As some have mentioned, replacing human judges with some form
of computer scoring system is the ultimate answer. I hope I live long
enough to see that work, not that it's impossible now - just no one with
the interest / skills / finances has approached it. Much time has been
spent discussing ways to transfer the score from the judges mind to paper
- but, guess what, a pencil and paper works just fine! (It's not even too
hard to process scores with a calculator!)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>F3A rules preclude the use of means to define box
violations other than the judge's observation. Various wording in both AMA
& F3A rules have prohibited judging "aids". This seems contradictory
to the purpose! A pilot is supposed to demonstrate skill in flying an
aircraft within the constraints of the box with perfection being the goal
- while being judged by a bunch of ill-positioned folks who vary in being
able to determine distance +- 50 meters? In the days of interrogated
circuits, dual conversation RX, and giggle Hertz freq we still choose to
rely on guesstimates for distance! Nonsense. Very little effort would be
required to provide accurate excessive distance and box excursion
information. Take this burden from the judge and apply any distance / box
downgrades post flight. Sure - I don't know just what these machines are
at the moment (could be just properly placed people in major meets) - but
asking the question may get somebody thinking.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If the pilot is expected to display perfection in
flight - we should move into the 21st century in devising ways of
accurately judging whether or not that perfection is present. Of course it
might cost some of us judges a job - darn, I would hate to lose the
income!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Earl</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<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>