[F3A-Discussion] Modifications toproposedmaneuverexecution guide and to F schedules

Thu Jul 1 06:21:25 AKDT 2010

Good points all. My rant.

I've been a student of this game a long time and have seen the spectrum of judging from untrained club judges to trained contestant judges to trained and well experienced WC judges. At the same time pattern has evolved from "ballistic" without borders to turn-around with box limits. Maneuver complexity has increased exponentially and the list of proper downgrades has grown likewise. The dedication required of today's judges & pilots for just a level of competency is pretty high. Easy to say "train judges" hard to find the dedication. 

All of the tweaks to the wording of the rules, the interpretations, the clarifications, the appropriate downgrades are at a point where only the most dedicated judge will get most of it correct. There aren't many of these folks! Most judges grasp some of the details but are overwhelmed to the point of missing some. The tendency is to downgrade obvious errors and blend those with a subjective impression for a final score. There is a lack of consistency overall, some judges focus on lines, others radii, etc. while overlooking other factors. I'm not saying folks don't try hard to do a good job - judging is better than it's ever been! I am saying we've reached a point where it is extremely difficult to evaluate every factor of each maneuver accurately for every pilot. Call it judge overload. This doesn't benefit pattern and is extremely discouraging for pilots who spend the time and money to get it right at a level beyond the skill of those judging them.

Pattern is about smoothly flying precision maneuvers within a defined space. The measure of this currently lies with the judges. The pilot puts in the work and is entitled to accurate scores - not opinions. Like other sports, there are electronic tools to assist judges in arriving at the correct score. Why aren't we using them? I've experimented with various technologies for a number of years and generally the tools either weren't available or were too expensive. GPS and gyro technology have improved rapidly in the last couple of years (some smart phones have multi-axis gyros, GPS, and tons of memory). While some magic machine won't show up overnight to take over judging, it certainly is time to begin to use technology to aid the judges (no - I don't mean some widget to record the judges score). An accurate measure of distance and box infractions isn't difficult. Actually judging the geometry is possible and quickly becoming doable at a reasonable price. Wow - what a practice tool! Imagine going to a contest and not having to sit in the judges chair and intently focus on a sequence and rules different than you fly!

My ideal scenario looks something like this. A small device is placed in the airplane and a sequence is flown before judges. The judges score presentation, S&G subjectively as now. At flight end the device is plugged into a computer that applies downgrades for position (distance / box / centering) and geometry errors. The scores for each element (including the judges) are weighted as currently intended and the total maneuver score is recorded. 

I discussed this with Bob Skinner at the '09 WC and he wasn't enthused, but later suggested the CIAM subcommittee consider forming a committee to explore options. I haven't heard that any action has been taken. It's time!

Earl

-- Original Message ----- 
  From: Atwood, Mark 
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion]Modifications toproposedmaneuverexecution guide and to F schedules

  Agree completely.  Moreover, I would argue that many use S&G and overall presentation over and above the more objective criteria which we strive so hard to perfect.

  Regarding 175meters, I always thought it would be interesting to have the 150m - 175m depth objectively enforced with distance judges.  I think we would be unpleasantly surprised.

  Mark Atwood

  Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President

  5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 

  Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102

  mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

  From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Dave
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:10 PM
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications toproposedmaneuverexecution guide and to F schedules

  Mark,

  You are 100% correct that the objective criteria are being evaluated in a subjective manner, and this can be minimized/reduced with training and experience.  I'm certainly not taking the absurd position that S+G and size are not being evaluated, rather I am taking the position that we should not have scoring criteria without any standards or guidance, and the rules should not promote or legitimize arbitrary and subjective scoring by including S+G and Size as scoring criteria.

  Size could be reasonably legislated and become more objective (still subjectively judged), and it would be complicated because there would be a million exceptions based on particular maneuver combinations (ie, P11 Fig M and ½ Rev), and I doubt size would be judged anymore accurately than distance - not having seen a WC since 1989, I can only say I've heard flying far beyond 175 meters in recent years is not downgraded per the rule book.  

  Regards,

  Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:35 PM
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications toproposedmaneuverexecution guide and to F schedules

  All of that being said, 

  This IS a subjective sport.  Period.  We may have SOME objective criteria, but those are evaluated in a subjective manner. Your opinion on what a 45deg line is, or 15 deg of rotation, etc.   Everything about our sport is subjective with the possible exception of weight and noise rules which are objectively evaluated (arguably).

  The idea that the general size and shape of maneuvers throughout the entire flight isn't ALREADY being evaluated is absurd.  Of course it is.  Overall presentation is a big part of what we do.  We roll to the canopy and stall with the top of the plane showing because we feel it looks and scores better.  

  I'm not thrilled about adding "size" to the written criteria just because it will give some people another arbitrary justification to judge people, rather than the flying, but the reality is it's already in there.

  Mark Atwood

  Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President

  5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 

  Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102

  mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

  From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Mark Hunt
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:08 PM
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications toproposed maneuverexecution guide and to F schedules

  Without a doubt, #2 sucks....we need to get it the hell out of the AMA rulebook too!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 11:38:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications toproposed maneuverexecution guide and to F schedules

  Ok...my "rant"

  The proposed judging principles -

  1. precision

  2. S+G

  3. Positioning

  4. Size

  1 is clear enough, and examples of errors and appropriate downgrades are given.  This is an objective type of criteria, and suitable for a PRECISION event.

  2 has never been clearly defined, and examples of errors and downgrades have never been given.  This is a wholly subjective criteria, and suitable for an ARTISTIC event.

  3 is clear enough, and examples of errors and appropriate downgrades are given.  This is an objective type of criteria, and suitable for a PRECISION event.

  4 is not clearly defined, and examples of errors and downgrades have never been given.  As currently presented in the rules, this is a wholly subjective criteria, and suitable for an ARTISTIC event.

  If specific downgrades that are objective and not subjective can not be defined, they should not be in the rulebook.

  If F3A is really about precision flying, #2 and #4 should be deleted from the book as they are either 100% subjective, or close to it, and have nothing to do with precision.

  If F3A is not really about precision flying, lets add criteria for rhythm, flow, style, originality, "zen" factor, and maybe even spectator appeal?  I hope the intent of S+G and Size is to promote "beautiful" flying in addition to precision flying, but I challenge anyone to fly precise maneuvers with proper positioning without being "beautiful".

  With the World Cup ongoing at the present..I think most can agree the game is more appealing when it is "beautiful"..but the winner is determined by the score, which is objective, and not subjective.

  Regards,

  Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:23 PM
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications toproposed maneuverexecution guide and to F schedules

  I agree.

  I've asked for clarification on how this scoring is applied.  Is it to be done at the end of the sequence like the old noise score?  What is the deduction?  This rule just doesn't make any sense to me.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Dave" <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:09:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications to proposed        maneuverexecution        guide and to F schedules

  Keeping maneuver size relatively the same as the box can't practically happen with the current P11..unless the Figure M is very narrow and short in height..draw it out graphically..by the time you make the Figure M and following ½ reverse Cuban 8 fit in the box, neither come anywhere near close to the top of the box.

  Regards,

  Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:58 AM
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications to proposed maneuverexecution guide and to F schedules

  Meaning that the expectation is that the maneuvers should try to be the same size and relative to the box?

  Good question - that one will generate a lot of discussion in the F3A community as well.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "john fuqua" <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:53:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications to proposed maneuver execution        guide and to F schedules

  Derek

  What is with the criteria on size of maneuvers.  That will create a lot of discussion list arguments.

  From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:27 AM
  To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
  Subject: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications to proposed maneuver execution guide and to F schedules

  Please review the attached documents and provide feedback if you have any...

  The Maneuver Execution Guide was formally the "Judge's Guide"... it has been cleaned up and hopefully enhanced.  Some changes have been made to the proposed F schedules for F13 and F15 - changes are in blue.

  _______________________________________________
  F3A-Discussion mailing list
  F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us
  http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion

  _______________________________________________
  F3A-Discussion mailing list
  F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us
  http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  F3A-Discussion mailing list
  F3A-Discussion at lists.f3a.us
  http://lists.f3a.us/mailman/listinfo/f3a-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/f3a-discussion/attachments/20100701/fabd4d7e/attachment-0001.html>