<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Earl,
<br>Thanks very much for the K #'s. They changed my final results radically.
I'm not all that familiar with the scoring procedure for FAI, but what
I did was to score each round individually and then normalize and then
take each pilot's normalized score from each round and add them together
which gave me a relative value for the total number of rounds flown. Jason
still came out the winner, but my numbers indicated Sean ahead of everyone
else. That really floored me because during the action my feeling was that
he would probably end up around 5th. My gut feeling definitely does not
reflect the numbers that I myself recorded.Scary!
<br>Another reflection regarding the recording of scores on a separate
piece of paper by the judge. At one point I was asked to judge Masters
finals and was told that I would be required to supply the chief judge
with my personal numbers, so I proceeded to site 3 to practice on Wed P.M.
As I would look down to record my number for the maneuver currently being
evaluated I found that by the time I looked back up there were times when
the aircraft was already half way up the vertical line and part way through
a rolling element. I would miss the radius, with it's associated corrections
for radius and heading and the length of the vertical line and the
rotational errors in the first point of the rolling element so that some
of the time I was guessing.I quickly became aware that if I recorded the
numbers without looking down at my paper that my column was snaky and erratically
spaced.I had been informed by the chief judge that he would require this
sheet from me and I felt embarrassed that I would be submitting a messy
scribble sheet to be used as a proof form. At the time I was practicing,
there was an active panel in operation so I decided to check out how they
were managing this problem so I sneaked up behind one of the judges between
rounds and peeked over his shoulder to see how he had formatted his sheet
and what I saw was a column down the left hand side of the page with a
number from one to 23 on every line. Very neat. So I said to myself,
"how the heck is he getting his numbers down exactly opposite the maneuver
number" so I decided to observe his methodology. When the next flight commenced
I witnessed a human being experiencing the same problems that I had experienced.
Between some maneuvers there was sufficient time to record and return the
gaze to the flight path of the model in time to judge the entry line but
there were times when this judge did not see the first quarter of the maneuver
and yet a score was rendered.
<br>I'm not sure that we've arrived at a good solution to the problem of
scribing errors yet.
<br>Anyway, thanks for helping me out.
<br>Georgie
<p>Earl Haury wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-1><b>Congratulations</b>
to all the Nats Finalists, Nats Champion Jason, runner-up Quique, and the
US Team Jason, Chip, & Sean, as well as Team Alternate, Don.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Here
are some of my thoughts from the F3A Nats finals basis what I observed
from the Judges chair. These are my views only, I did not / have not seen
the work of other judges (other than the outcome).Hopefully these observations
won't offend anyone. Other Judges may feel free to do the same, in agreement
or challenge, so as to best serve the game.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>The
Judges discussed snaps and distance at length, along with the usual details,
in a number of "official" and impromptu sessions. Of course, snaps require
a "visible" attitude break and separation from track in pitch (from the
flight path) before rotation is started and stall maintained throughout.
Barrel rolls and axial rolls score zero.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Unfortunately,
there are some (pilots and judges) who believed that there is an undocumented
exception for rolling circles regarding distance out. This isn't true in
pattern. Maybe it comes from IMAC or is an artifact of TOC? The downgrade
highlights for the rollers include mention of downgrades for distance /
size. Anyway, the consensus was that visibility would the criteria for
rollers rather than a hard distance "wall".</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>We
(Judges) observed "calibration" flights at 150, 175, & 200 meters and
warm-up flights before F-05 and each unknown. The wind conditions were
strong down the runway with a fair inward slant as the finals started and
then diminished a little as the day wore on.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>The
wind, and the pilots desire to stay close in, created severe right (and
some left) side box violations. Generally, in an effort to "save" the box
there was often no line between center / box maneuver, which now costs
a point on the (higher K) center maneuver and the TA. The TA was either
flown well, but mostly out of the box, or the maneuver was compromised
to reduce the box error. Either way, large downgrades. I don't know if
the pilots thought that better scores were available inside 150 m, they
were trying to stay in to setup the roller, and/or the were loath to fly
the attitudes needed to hold track in the wind (more downgrades here).
Centering was also not executed well for many maneuvers in either direction,
but being late on downwind maneuvers was fatal! As the day worn on this
improved by pilots moving out a little, managing the wind better, and the
lessening of the wind.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>The
early round rollers were huge, suffered numerous roll rate changes, and
oval in shape (wind). It's pretty obvious that the finalists all have better
eyesight than me! Very few rollers started rolling at center, some were
ruddered around some 45 degrees (3 pts) before the roll started. The wind
made these tough, but the pilots let the wind reek havoc by flying the
rollers so big (as to make it difficult to roll slow enough) that the wind
really elongated the "circle". Huge downgrades! As the day wore on some
dramatically improved their rollers (as the wind lessened) by reducing
the diameter.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Snaps
were another item. Obviously a number of pilots refined their technique
to provide just enough (very rapid) pitch change to effect the minimum
track separation with stall, a rapid rotation while reducing the elevator
to maintain minimum stall, and allow a very clean finish. <b>Nothing wrong
with that,</b> but some took it too far! In certain maneuvers the break
was not visible. No <b>visible </b>break = 0! As some snaps during
a flight were nice - others left doubt, again- possible wind effect. A
number of judges must have observed the same thing, as obvious adjustments
were made by some pilots after reviewing their scores, but (in my opinion)
going too far in the other direction. These snaps now became departures
from track in pitch / yaw & roll for several degrees before stall (downgraded
1pt / 15 in each axis) were ugly, and the offsets often destroyed the general
maneuver geometry. Seemed that the decision was that a downgrade (even
if large) was better than a zero. Then some of the altered ugly were barrel
rolls which also = zero.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Box,
snaps, rollers cost the most points. The standard defects are alive and
well. Then there was some very good flying. The F05s and first unknown
were tough in the wind! The 2nd unknown was a wimp (pilots must have been
getting tired when they put that one together). At least the 2nd unknown
gave the Judges an opportunity to get rid of some of the basket of 10's
were holding most of the day.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>My
strongest suggestion for improved scoring is pretty simple. Be a student
of the game, understand the maneuver descriptions and apply techniques
to <b>clearly</b> present those maneuvers to the Judges. Don't give the
Judge something to doubt! For example, ugly "wifferdils" don't get it for
snaps. They don't need to jump all over the sky and screw up the rest of
the maneuver. They do need to clearly show a break and maintained stall.
Rollers should not (and may not) exceed the distance limits. The choice
is to start at 175 m and do a 100 - 125 m roller <b>in</b>, or to start
close in and make the diameter small enough to stay inside the limits.
Rollers are neat done slow and big - but that isn't what's required (without
a rule change), smaller is easier, less affected by wind, and will score
better. Don't misunderstand me here, a rule change to allow rollers to
visible distance is OK by me - but a dispensation from the rules (at any
level of authority) is totally inappropriate, sets a dangerous precedent,
and is bad for pattern.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Earl
Haury</font></font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>