<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Steve, that makes me ask an immediate "WHY" they
both have to have the same input/advantage/disadvantage.The rule book does not
specify both have to have the same info. Again it is the Pilot's
responsibility to present "for the judges to evaluate,and per the rule book".
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>What I think I see when I am flying, and also
when calling for someone, is not always consistent with what the judges
apparently see. I expect the judges to use the best info they can have to
judge me. The more standardized they are collectively, the more accurately, and
consistently they can tell me how bad I am really doing. That way we should
reduce the large spread of judges results/scores we sometimes
see.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That brings up another point--is the AMA judging
video supposed to be true to the rules, in all aspects.I would expect it to be,
but it seems to add some things I do not find in the rule book.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Flame suit on!!!!!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jerry</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=patternrules@sbcglobal.net
href="mailto:patternrules@sbcglobal.net">Steven maxwell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:54
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Distances</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Something to think about is the judges and the pilot has to have
the same advantage, meaning that if we would use distance judges it would have
to be an auditable so everyone would know, it wouldn't be fair to give the
judges something and not the pilots.</DIV>
<DIV> Steve Maxwell<BR><BR><B><I>Jerry Stebbins <<A
href="mailto:JAStebbins@worldnet.att.net">JAStebbins@worldnet.att.net</A>></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Earl, seems like there are three ways to get
the distance:1 Judge guessing based on experience/visibility,2 Setting
someone off each of the box boundies at 180M, or 3 Measuring, in real
time what it really is.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Most of the FAI judges are older,more
experienced, may be able to guess accurately, but also eysight problems
can creep in.Trying to see what is going on ,due to distance, really adds to
the load of evaluating all the other things that are
more "judgeable ".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Putting a couple folks out of the box like we
do in pylon racing is fairly easy to do, logistically, and reporting wise.
Would also need a "distance judge" seated with the others to provide them
guidance on where the plane was.(hard to do real time). Could also be
done post flight as an added downgrade column for each maneuver that is
imposed across the board against the "judged" value, where the pilot
violates the "distance box". </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Then there is the "hi-tech" answer of a "two
distance judges" that have range finder lasers that track and report/record
the distance out. Two to give added credibility/ consistency to what is
"seen".ORRR-install a transponder in the planes that would automatically
give you position data -related to the box "limits". I have no doubt that
there is a tiny device /system that is capable of this already available
somewhere.Then there would be no doubt on ALL box violations,only the
"degree" of the violation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This would require software to accommodate the
"end of box " distances ,versus centered distances, but that would not be
too tough. Also could be more sophisticated to add triggers for
"over distance" reporting only, recording of data in real time on a
comparable judging form, or some form of input to the judges in real time
(beeper) or post flight for added downgrades.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All this is somewhat academic, since it
behooves the pilot to "present" to the judges his best , and
observable performance, to get the best scores.</FONT> <FONT
face=Arial size=2>But maybe helping the judges have a better/prcise
observation data base might be a step forward to him getting more exactly
"what he deserves".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ain't this more fun than sitting out in the sun
and baking, while trying to do the best you can to observe, evaluate, and
score?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Jerry</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>