<!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=#000000 size=2><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#8000ff
size=2>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I believe that the present quality of judging has / is improving
except in some areas that inject a measure of personal opinion driven by errors
in interpretation and definition that tend to magnify the error factor in
contest scores.</DIV>
<DIV>It seems to me that the controversy about score differences was
escalated when, a few years ago people complained about weather snaps
and spins being performed by FAI pilots were to fast and the question arose as
to weather they were not actually doing a snap or just a fast roll. Much
emphasis was placed on a judging criteria to determine the correct methods
to assure that those particular maneuvers were judged correctly.</DIV>
<DIV>Due to the human factor, inconsistencies filtered down to all classes and
since most of the snap maneuvers are high K-factor this fact has resulted in
skewing scores to the point where the ability due to personal
opinion for some judges to accurately distinguish the correctly performed
maneuver is resulting in an error factor which decreases the
probability of selecting the proper results in a contest. </DIV>
<DIV>This leads me to believe that the descriptions of actual performance
requirements is much better than the ability to judge them correctly in many
cases and makes me wonder if descriptions which fall in this area are actually
an obstacle that leads to a worse situation when our goal is to determine
the best pilot.</DIV>
<DIV> Two choices exist to minimize our situation, 1. Eliminate the problem
maneuvers. The AMA rule description is somewhat confusing at best and in
fact incorrect or misleading if taken literally I believe the FAI rules
provide a much better description ("At the start of a snap-roll,
the fuselage attitude must show a definite break and separation from the
flight path, before the rotation is started." ) instead of the AMA rule which
says (" Since the maneuver is defined as a stall maneuver (induced by a rapid
stall of the wing induced by a change in pitch attitude"), <U>The nose of
the fuselage should show a definite break from the flight path in the direction
of the snap while the track closely maintains the flight path. </U> </DIV>
<DIV>In reality the nose and the tail should show a definite break in attitude
(the angle of the model in relation to the flight path) from the flight path.
</DIV>
<DIV>I think wording of the AMA rule overlooking this reality is a primary
cause which results in many of the errors in scoring and in fact in relation to
less experienced judges actually foster it.</DIV>
<DIV>2. Make an all out effort to correct the description and judge training in
this area.</DIV>
<DIV>Many newly trained judges actually award a higher score for a rapid barrel
roll than they do for a well done snap that is done at a higher speed and
actually zero many if them incorrectly.</DIV>
<DIV>Likewise another area which results in large point spread errors with less
experienced judges is their lack of firmiluarity with the geometric
requirements of the maneuvers.</DIV>
<DIV>Spin entry is another problem area that must be addressed that is also a
culprit that in many cases is judged incorrectly. </DIV>
<DIV>We have a ways to go guys but the effort will be rewarded, look where we
were a few years ago and I believe you will agree we have come a long way toward
improving the system.</DIV>
<DIV>Just a few of my thoughts and a lot of rambling on in an effort to get
you to thinking of solutions and the means to an end.</DIV>
<DIV>Buddy </DIV></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>