<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #8000ff; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 8/1/2005 10:34:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
pattern4u@comcast.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Try
looking at this from the view that Dave G. had at the Nat's. If a pilot
<BR>shows up and is certified to judge AMA and/or FAI then Dave has to use
that <BR>pilot in any class that the schedule allows.<BR><BR>There's no
"scale" of experience or skill level that Dave can
apply.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Eric.<BR><BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message
----- <BR>From: "Earl Haury" <ehaury@houston.rr.com><BR>To: "Discussion
List, NSRCA" <discussion@nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005
10:47 AM<BR>Subject: Judges<BR><BR><BR>> There are two overlapping issues
being discussed. Judge competency and <BR>> score accounting at the Nats,
this note is about judges and another will <BR>> address Nats
scoring.<BR>><BR>> I contend that judge competency is better than it's
ever been. Primarily <BR>> two things account for that, the NSRCA
certification program and <BR>> pilot-judges. Our cert program is designed
to ensure that everyone is <BR>> exposed to the proper judging techniques
and the current rules. Using <BR>> pilot-judges provides an indication that
the judges are interested in the <BR>> details of the game. As with
anything, there are some outliers and they <BR>> need to be addressed -
especially at the Nats.<BR>><BR>> Could the system be better? You bet!
Unfortunately, the cert program <BR>> doesn't require (it's suggested)
actual flight scoring and review. Nor is <BR>> there any ranking of
ability. Nor can we simply base a person's judging <BR>> talent on the
class they're flying (that works both ways in that a FAI <BR>> pilot may
not be a competent judge while an Intermediate flier may be). We <BR>>
really need some sort of ranking process.<BR>><BR>> We've migrated from
one end of the judge spectrum to the other in that the <BR>> old USPJA
ranked judges by experience, but didn't quantify skills nor have <BR>> a
good training program / requirement. (Then there was the overlap into <BR>>
Scale, with associated judges - but that's another story.) If our cert
<BR>> program would have been integrated into the USPJA we might actually
still <BR>> have been able to go to a Nats to compete only. This group had
many fine <BR>> non-pilot judges, and just as now, some who had difficulty.
Most of us <BR>> believed that things would improve with certified
pilot-judges, and it <BR>> has. But at a the price of doing it ourselves
while still being subject to <BR>> errant scores, probably OK to good at
local meets - but really poor at a <BR>> Nats. Hmmm - "be careful what you
wish for" seems to apply here.<BR>><BR>> Given our current system
doesn't have the resources to "calibrate" or <BR>> "rate" everyone with
actual flight judging, things aren't going to change <BR>> dramatically any
time soon. We'll keep plugging away to try and educate as <BR>> best we can
and hope that information can be applied during judging <BR>>
activity.<BR>><BR>> Earl<BR>><BR>>
=================================================<BR>> To access the email
archives for this list, go to<BR>>
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> To be removed from
this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>> and follow the
instructions.<BR>><BR>> List members email returned for mailbox full
will be removed from the <BR>> list.<BR>>
<BR><BR>=================================================<BR>To access the
email archives for this list, go
to<BR>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>To be removed from
this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>and follow the
instructions.<BR><BR>List members email returned for mailbox full will be
removed from the list.<BR><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Eric</DIV>
<DIV>I thought that you and Dave did a great job at this years Nat's and do
understand the difficult task of trying to satisfy all of the people all of the
time. From my vantage point, which is very low looking up and fully
understanding the goal's and recourses available it seems to me and I might be
wrong that certain areas were compromised to the possible benefit of
others.</DIV>
<DIV>I feel sure that this was not intentional but it did happen. It just seems
to me that we are giving more weight to the fact that many people only want to
judge one half day at the Nat;s than we give to try and determine the correct
order of finish when deciding the winners. It may be appropriate to
increase the recourses available in order to put the Nat's in the proper
prospective by requiring more help from those who are qualified, if in fact we
can identify them and by changing the format to provide equal exposure to all
classes which could be done if you have more recourses by adding finals to
Intermediate and Advanced classes OR by eliminating the finals in Masters
by providing equal exposure having all pilots face the same
judges. You called me a trouble maker at the Nat's and I don't know
why but I assure you that my intentions are to try and help solve problems
not make them. If I am out of line just tell me to shut up I am pretty good at
understanding plain English.</DIV>
<DIV>Buddy </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>