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

Thu Jul 1 09:25:56 AKDT 2010

I totally agree with Earl.  This is way overdue.  If necessary raise the
weight limit to 5.5K to dispel any rationalization about weight regarding
the additional electronics.  This electronic package totally is objective
and a lot would be gained by this.  It was distressing to read some of the
blogs by at least one of the world judges which revealed his true lack of
knowledge about clearly written rules.  Too often the application of the
rules are bent or biased in favor of the popular pilot.  Seen it way too
many times.  At least various box violations could be addressed in this way.
The powers that be are hesitant to do this because of the possibility of
penalizing the popular pilot.  Need to start comparing apples to apples.

My 2 cents

Mike  

From: f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
[mailto:f3a-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 9:21 AM
To: f3a-discussion at lists.f3a.us
Subject: Re: [F3A-Discussion] Modifications toproposedmaneuverexecution
guide and to F schedules

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 <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>  

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
<http://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
<http://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/20100701/788778e4/attachment-0001.html>