<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>In my view the rounding of a half point deduction (in either direction) is
nonsense. Then there’s the issue of how whole points for small errors fit within
the 1 / 15 rule.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>“5B.8.2. THE 1 POINT PER 15 DEGREE RULE</DIV>
<DIV>This basic rule provides a general guide for downgrading deviations from
defined manoeuvre geometry. 1 point must be subtracted for each approximate 15
degrees deviation. In general, lines must be judged more critically than
deviations in yaw or roll.”</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The 1 / 15 rule provides a metric and in some instances provides a
conflict, without using half points, when a smaller defect occurs. There is
wording in some (unofficial) documents that states a defect of “up to” 15
degrees requires a one point deduction. Logic (to me) suggests that this is not
valid basis 5B.8.2. Considering something significantly less than approximately
15 degrees as a “slight defect” and nearly 15 degrees as a “defect” seems to fit
better. (Ambiguous wording like “slight defect” doesn’t define much.) In both
cases a score deduction should be applied and 1/2 points really help a judge
correctly differentiate maneuver quality. But again – rounding the 1/2 point
deduction negates any scoring precision achieved. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And it’s not like half points haven’t worked well in the AMA classes. I’ve
never understood the reluctance of the F3A Subcommittee to incorporate them,
then when they finally do they add some rounding junk – go figure.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Earl</DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">Stuart Chale via
NSRCA-discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 01, 2016 7:08 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=vogel.peter@gmail.com
href="mailto:vogel.peter@gmail.com">Peter Vogel</A> ; <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern discussion</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI 1/2 points</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<P>Even if the interpretation is wrong and an 8.5 should be rounded down to an 8
instead of rounded up to a 9 is that any better? <BR></P>
<P>The better flyer getting all 8.5's gets the same score as the flyer with all
8's, and loses if one maneuver is a 9 instead of an 8.</P>
<P>Stuart<BR></P><BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On 8/1/2016 4:56 PM, Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:CAGBB6kKYQKV05YYcg6HOFk52hWiNPamT_Xpc+8NaU2XXxqoBXA@mail.gmail.com
type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>I still question the interpretation of the rules here. This
is from the FAI sporting code:
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Each judge gives a mark for each manoeuvre during a flight. Assuming the
highest mark 10 at the start of each manoeuvre, every <B>defect</B> is subject
to <B>downgrade</B> of the mark in whole numbers (<B>or in half numbers for
slight defects, but in sum resulting in up-rounded whole numbers</B>). A high
score should remain only if no substantial, severe or multiple defects are
found.<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The original methodology I had implemented in the electronic scribe
resulted in a cumulative downgrade of 1.5 points being up-rounded to 2 points
of DEFECT, resulting in a final score of 8, effectively rounding the final
score DOWN. We asked for a clarification from Michael Ramel but I'm not
sure he understood the clarification we were asking for! The current
implementation in both MasterScoring and the electronic scribe is that 1.5 is
deducted from the final score (8.5) which is then up-rounded to 9. What
I do not like about that is it means that a maneuver with a total of one minor
defect (for a 0.5 deduction) gets a perfect 10 instead of an imperfect
9.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Peter+</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Pavlick via
NSRCA-discussion <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex">
<DIV lang=EN-US vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV><SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal><I>"</I><I><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9.5pt">No particular
reason was given for the rounding up... They preferred it versus rounding
down.</SPAN>"</I></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P></SPAN>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Well
that sounds like a scientific explanation. Since it makes no reference to
how floating point numbers and quantization errors actually work, we’ll have
to accept it as fact. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: wingdings; COLOR: #1f497d">J</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>John
Pavlick</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Cell:
<A href="tel:203-417-4971" target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true"
value="+12034174971">203-417-4971</A></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'><IMG
alt=idslogo2 src="cid:D684BB447A794037945397F5F92538A4@EarlPC" width=91
height=39></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Impact","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Integrated
Development Services</SPAN><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'></SPAN> </P>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
NSRCA-discussion [mailto:<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] <B>On
Behalf Of </B>Scott Smith via NSRCA-discussion<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday,
August 01, 2016 3:43 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Stuart Chale; General pattern
discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI 1/2
points</SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>I asked that same question and was told:</P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><I>"</I><I><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9.5pt">No particular
reason was given for the rounding up... They preferred it versus rounding
down.</SPAN>"</I></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Stuart Chale via
NSRCA-discussion <<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>> wrote:</P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Some ideas and changes are just plain stupid! There
I said it :)<BR><BR>I have always hated the fact that some judging criteria
and downgrades<BR>were different in FAI and AMA. Makes judging which
is a tough job to do<BR>right even tougher. You have to know 2
different sets of rules and in<BR>the long run only lowers the accuracy of
judging, most likely more so<BR>for the FAI fliers. But that is
another can of worms.<BR><BR>I thought that allowing 1/2 points in FAI
sounded like a good idea, we<BR>are used to it in the rest of the
classes. And since the FAI pilots are<BR>in most part the better
fliers they are more likely to make the 1/2<BR>point errors as compared to
the greater inaccuracies usually seen in the<BR>lower classes.<BR><BR>But
wait an 8.5 becomes a 9, and a 9 is still a 9 ??????<BR><BR>So just to
prove how silly this idea can be I used Scott's scoring<BR>program and ran a
fictitious contest with 2 flyers and 2 rounds. I used<BR>a couple of
friends as contestants so to not offend anyone. I also had<BR>to use
the masters sequence as an example, as the program automatically<BR>rounds
up FAI scores.<BR><BR>Hopefully the PDF files are attached.<BR><BR>Each
flyer received identical scores in each of their 2 flights. AR<BR>received
all 7.5's except one maneuver which was an 8.5, and DL all
8's<BR>. In round 1 scores were not rounded up and in round 2 the
scores were<BR>rounded up as they would automatically be done in
FAI.<BR><BR>Look at the files for AR round 1 and DL round 1. It
would seem pretty<BR>obvious who should win that round and without rounding
up AR gets a<BR>947.75 to DL's 1000.<BR><BR>Note that every maneuver but one
was judged higher for DL.<BR><BR>Now look at AR round 2 and DL round 2
rounded up. The same exact judges<BR>scores with only 1 maneuver
scored higher for AR, but due to the<BR>rounding up AR wins the round 1000
to 989.86.<BR><BR>Now this is the extreme and unlikely to actually happen in
a contest to<BR>this extent but just the fact that it works this way makes
the whole<BR>idea of rounding up ridiculous.<BR><BR>Is there really an
argument that this is a good thing?<BR><BR>Stuart
C.<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A></P></DIV>
<P
class=MsoNormal> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
rel=noreferrer target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV> </DIV>-- <BR>
<DIV class=gmail_signature data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training</DIV>
<DIV>Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark</DIV>
<DIV>Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X</DIV>
<DIV>Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)</DIV><IMG
src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6513778381_5569cc985d_m.jpg" width=200
height=154 moz-do-not-send="true"><IMG
src="https://googledrive.com/host/0B4LOPeyGAgOJUVJmU1dJMVl6WWc/AcademyModelAeronauticsLogo.png"
width=200 height=136
moz-do-not-send="true"><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET class=mimeAttachmentHeader></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE wrap="">_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>