<!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 6.00.6000.16546" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Hi Georgie</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In the F3A rules currently there is the sentence "Audible
and visual signals to indicate violations of the maneuvering zone are not to be
employed". Sporting Code. Section C, Part Five, specifically 5.1.8. I believe
that all such wording is now gone from AMA rules.</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">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=geobet@gis.net href="mailto:geobet@gis.net">george w. kennie</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 1:06
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Judging</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial> <<<<<<<Various wording in
both AMA & F3A rules have prohibited judging "aids".
>>>>>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>It would be very helpful to me if someone could point me
to this reference in the rulebook as I have never been able to find
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Georgie</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></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=ejhaury@comcast.net href="mailto:ejhaury@comcast.net">Earl
Haury</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 12:25
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Judging</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ejhaury@comcast.net href="mailto:ejhaury@comcast.net">Earl
Haury</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">Discussion List, NSRCA</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 17, 2007
10:29 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion]
Judging</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Allow me to start a new thread for the purpose of
analyzing the issues Jim and others highlighted in the D3
thread. Most of us have been frustrated over the years by
inaccurate scoring, both high and low. Forget the notion that it doesn't
matter if an inaccurate judge is consistent - that person is just
consistently wrong and it does matter, the rules require both accurate and
consistent scoring. I also don't believe that judging ability depends
entirely on class flown, masters and FAI folks aren't inherently smarter
than others. Experience does improve accuracy and it's important to know
what maneuvers / schedule that will be judged (called preparation).
However, it's not important what class is flying the maneuver - a half
loop or immelman or stall turn is the same in intermediate as F3A. The
NSRCA Judge Cert program has improved the quality of judging immensely! So
- now that I've gotten these generalities out of my system, let's take a
look at why F3A scores may vary a lot by judge / region.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I've heard the opinion expressed that the whole
point scoring in F3A dictates that no downgrade is applied until an error
of 15 deg or more is observed. Conversely, others feel that any error in
F3A requires, at least, a one point downgrade. Hmmmm - that'll make a
difference! F3A adopted whole point scoring in an effort to force
judges to use the entire 10 - 0 range of scores, rather than the upper 3
or so as was typical. This is probably where the 1pt for any error notion
comes from. But it was difficult to quantify how much to
downgrade many errors, and a wide variation occurred between judges of
equal skill, some saw a 5 deg error worthy of a point deduction - others
would see a 30 deg error as worthy of only a point. Probably the most
useful metric available to judges is the 1/15 rule! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>However, the 1/15 rule fails to define just what
should be done for errors of less than 15 deg. Honest differences of
opinion exist and these become more important the better a maneuver is
flown. I suspect that some evaluation of the wording of the rules might
help. F3A requires "marking" (scoring) in whole points, but uses the word
"downgrade" regarding the judges assessment of the "mark". While examples
of egregious errors are noted in whole points, there is no exclusion
forbidding the judge to use smaller downgrade increments to arrive at the
whole point score. So why is the downgrade for errors smaller than 15 deg
undefined? Well - pattern folks are certainly smart (or we wouldn't be
doing this - right?) and have no problem recognizing the downgrade
applicable to 30, 45, etc. errors basis the 1/15 metric, there shouldn't
be any difficulty in the other direction either as 5 deg = 1/3 pt,
7.5 = 1/2 pt, etc. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>A problem arises when a judge is between whole
points with the proper downgrades. (Things would be a lot easier if F3A
adopted 1/2 pt scoring - I've made the arguments and some are listening -
but don't expect a change any time soon.) The scenario might be a simple
turnaround maneuver with a slight 5 deg error of some sort which deserves
a 1/3 pt downgrade. Some will score this a 10, others a 9. The F3A rules
dwell on major defects and leave these situations nearly unaddressed.
Consider that a 9 is unfair - might as well make a 15 deg error. Some will
say a 10 is unfair as the maneuver is imperfect and we are striving for
perfection. OK - the F3A rules state "<SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
size=3>A high score should be given only if no major defects are found and
the maneuver is well positioned." <FONT face=Arial>You decide - I would
probably go with a 10, as there's no "major" defect, and feel comfortable
rounding to the nearest whole number. Unfortunately, unintentional bias
(basis pilot reputation, quality of current flight, etc.) can slip in here
and result in like maneuvers being rounded up and down for different
pilots - here's a place where judge consistency must be applied.
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
size=3><FONT face=Arial></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
size=+0><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3>Centering is another area where
downgrades often vary in that some focus on a center "key point" of a
maneuver and downgrade heavily if that point is missed. F3A rules state
"<SPAN lang=EN-GB><FONT face="Times New Roman">This may be in the range of
1 to 4 points subtracted" </FONT><FONT face=Arial>with regards to
centering errors, without defining a metric. Most assume 1 pt / 25%. OK -
the middle of the inverted portion of a 4 pt roll is way off - the 90 deg
roll ends at the pole - most would ding this a couple of points. But, a 4
pt roll may be 1000 ft long, so a 2 pt downgrade would be appropriate for
a 500 ft error, the example is probably less than 200 feet - so a 1pt
downgrade would be more appropriate. If the overall length of a maneuver
is considered, centering downgrades are often less than scored. This
concept is even more important for "narrow" center
maneuvers.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
size=+0><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN
lang=EN-GB></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
size=+0><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN lang=EN-GB>So - there are a
couple of places where judges can disagree in scoring and these will
generate large differences in scores by flight and, possibly, by region.
Our NSRCA judging program has done and is doing a good job of ensuring we
all recognize errors. The 1/15 rule provides a good metric and works well
with the AMA 1/2 point scoring system. This same 1/15 metric leaves
us hanging a bit in F3A when used with whole point scoring. Maybe a
solution is for us to use 1/2 pt. scoring in F3A events in AMA contests.
Certainly we might include direction in our judging program to ensure
folks judging F3A handle this issue
consistently.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
size=+0><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN
lang=EN-GB></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: FR; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT
size=+0><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3><SPAN
lang=EN-GB>Earl</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<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>
<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>
<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>