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

Wed Jun 30 11:13:26 AKDT 2010

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/f3a-discussion/attachments/20100630/135c70e3/attachment-0001.html>