<!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>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Earl,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To me, that word "signals" would seem to indicate
an information stream coming from an external ( to the judge )source, and would
not necessarily preclude the holding up of a pencil as a reference.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Oh, and in regard to the 175 meter thing, I would
be of the opinion that the reverse of the allowance for smaller aircraft
being accepted at 140-150 meters presenting properly due to their smaller
size, the same being true for those truly voluminous birds, like Quique's
Euphoria, being allowed an additional 25 meters due to the visual perspective
reflecting a similar presentation. It's kind of a parallel to the 5 degree/ 1/3
point deduction. A little discretionary.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Georgie.</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 4:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Judging</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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 =ist</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>
<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>