Who are the Experts?

Something just struck me and I had to make a new post.

It seems lately that there is an emphasis on the need to be an "expert" on a subject to have a valid opinion. This would be in terms expert *outside of modeling*, such you would have to be an aeronautical engineer to have an opinion on aerodynamics, a mechanical engineer to have an opinion on structures, or even being a Statistician to have an opinion on stats. this could also apply to inside modeling I suppose.

As I see it, this is patentedly not modeling.

Some of the greatest "experts" in our hobby (or sport) are far from degreed experts in the Real World. In fact, the coorelation between Real World experts and hobby experts is nearly ZERO (rare). In fact, it is nearly the opposite, most of the most innovative people are not degreed or have no college education or training that have to do with the sciences or engineering.

So if it is now paramount to have a resume to discuss issues in modeling , there will be few who qualify. We should all keep that in mind, I think.

Modeling is about having expression outside your profession, don't you think?

Hmmm, I know what you mean. I made a post the other day on a subject on which I am totally unschooled and was asked not to share my opinions. I agreed not to but, darn, I did feel a little unappreciated.

>Hmmm, I know what you mean. I made a post the other day on
>a subject on which I am totally unschooled and was asked not
>to share my opinions. I agreed not to but, darn, I did feel
>a little unappreciated.

You mean me, right?

I really, honestly do not know where this came from.

I read your post. Basically you appeared to be echoing Brett's opinions, which he has yet to validate anywhere on this forum to date. Any explanation of scoring methods really has no basis on the ability of someone to study tendancies (they study tendancies in every sport).

All I was saying was look at the puzzle and its assumptions before you make comment, and give me a little credit that I would not waste your time with "gibberish" (as Brett put it later on). I was not going to respond to Brett's assertions with counter assertions, as I still cannot without giving away my method of study. The idea is to get other methods to prove or disprove your findings. This is how it is done in academia, you publish and have others look at your work. Open and honest, I have done this so far.

I basically told Doug the same thing. He has no personal experience with the subject. I basically said, "wait, this is good, you will see". I guess that is not a leap for Doug, to give me a little credit that my work has some validity. I think, you, on the other hand, appear to have a pre-conceived notion that tests in these fashion are invalid due to what Brett has obviously echoed for some time. I believe, however, he is not correct in this case (though I do believe he is correct a lot on the whole).

How do I answer "the whole thing is invalid?" when I know that it is? Brett is certainly welcome to enter the contest and show how the assumptions are invalid, but he will have to PROVE IT, not just say it.

Please tell me where you were asked, "please do not share your opinions". It simply is not there, or please tell me what I said and I will gladly retract my statement and replace it with another, as your current view was not my intention.

That's the best I can do.

>
>No offence, but you guys are not giving me much credit here.
> Maybe you should look at the test before you comment. You
>assume a lot. Brett appears to want me to tell him the
>method by which the scores were derived. Well, shoot, that
>would give away the puzzle!
>
>What methods are being used to study scores now?

'zilla,

I apolgize for commenting. Won't happen again.

Ted

Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top



godzilla
Charter Member
2329 posts Oct-16-04, 00:37 AM (CDT)

23. "RE: Statistically Studying Scores"
In response to message #8

>>I apolgize for commenting. Won't happen again.
>
>Ted
OK. I appreciate your understanding. Thanks.

The City Smasher

I've got an A&P license, I guess that makes me an expert on the ARF Cardinal.

Hmm

I guess there are 2 sides to this.
On one hand we want to encourage exploring ideas and inovation.
The pros probably don't apply their work expertise to modeling as that is too like work. What does your mechanics car look like?

On the other hand, we don't want missinformation being spread to novices.

I don't like to see the put downs that sometimes appear on this forum,
but what is the answer for good ballance?

>On the other hand, we don't want missinformation being
>spread to novices.

I think this is a myth. I have never been a victim of missinformation, even when I was a beginner, except by "experts" in the hobby. No beginner has ever lead me astray.

I will even give you an example, I will even use Windy's name because I am sure he will not mind. Windy began the 4 stroke movement, along with Bob Z. in the USA. No one was even interested until some point AFTER their movement started. I watched Windy's tapes, and thought it was cool. Except for the engine itself, nothing about Windy's method cooresponded with my own. Was I misinformed? No! Windy stated his findings, free to all, I took what I could and moved on from there. We were obviously, in the end, on very different tracks to meet our personal goals.

Paul and I, on the other hand roughly coorelated (roughly). We shared information, he tried stuff, I tried stuff, but nothing abaout our setups was ever really was the same.

Gordy has gone on and done a better job than me working in a vaccuum.

What does your mechanics
>car look like?

>Regards,
>Ken

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Like crap, but it runs great!

>Something just struck me and I had to make a new post.
>
>It seems lately that there is an emphasis on the need to be
>an "expert" on a subject to have a valid opinion. This
>would be in terms expert *outside of modeling*, such you
>would have to be an aeronautical engineer to have an opinion
>on aerodynamics, a mechanical engineer to have an opinion on
>structures, or even being a Statistician to have an opinion
>on stats. this could also apply to inside modeling I
>suppose.
>
>As I see it, this is patentedly not modeling.
>
>Some of the greatest "experts" in our hobby (or sport) are
>far from degreed experts in the Real World. In fact, the
>coorelation between Real World experts and hobby experts is
>nearly ZERO (rare). In fact, it is nearly the opposite,
>most of the most innovative people are not degreed or have
>no college education or training that have to do with the
>sciences or engineering.
>
>So if it is now paramount to have a resume to discuss issues
>in modeling , there will be few who qualify. We should all
>keep that in mind, I think.
>
>Modeling is about having expression outside your profession,
>don't you think?

Agreed!!!!

Example I am at HDU right now (Harley-Davidson University) I have no formal training. 30 years in the trade. I am teaching the teacher. So why am I going to school? To get a stupid paper to tell you I know what I already know.

Brad,

This is a hobby, after all. Rigorous, degreed, professional judgments are professional, paid things.

Many of us have flying talents that have no relevance to the nuts, bolts, threads and cams of formal science or engineering. Aside: I wonder how many engineering degrees Michael Schumacher has... (Formula 1 auto racing champion for recent years -- possibly the best driver ever to strap into an F1 car.)

The rules of thumb we evolve may be, at some distance, rooted in the formal technology. Some among us may, or may not, have deep technical knowledge behind what we do with our models. Where we have true, qualified, experts, it is worth a bit of mental exertion to try to understand insights they offer us, IMHO, anyway. Where someone who never went into those aspects of our hobby has evolved practical, simple, sometimes technically illogical, methods which DO work, and which others CAN apply to their benefit -- that's good, too.

Winning regularly against others who have the same potential combination of knowledge and skill -- alone -- does not establish technical engineering expertise.

And, then, I've known and worked with engineers who had no idea which end of a screwdriver to hold...

This doesn't answer your question so much as broaden the field in which the question could be considered.

Those who do feel it important to win, often and beautifully, ARE experts in *that* at least. Their pointers on how they do that are of value, with or without advanced degrees from respected alma maters.

So, perhaps, in many ways, most of us may be expert in some aspect, or several aspects, or most. Is it really important for us to develop a list of 'those who must be esteemed' by humbler souls? <g>

>So, perhaps, in many ways, most of us may be expert in some
>aspect, or several aspects, or most. Is it really important
>for us to develop a list of 'those who must be esteemed' by
>humbler souls?

No, I do not think so. I have gotten equally bad advice from experts and beginners alike! Best thing to do is figure it out for yourself!

Just for the record, ME's don't do structures - at least not structures as meant in the classical sense.

I get what you mean, though, and totally agree. In one of the previous threads about airfoils, Igor made a comment that might be paraphrased as, "... a lot of complicated calculations, but perhaps better than a pure guess."

We are all guessing, but an analytical approach doesn't necessarily trump an empirical approach. Since you mention ME's, it's interesting to note that one of the leading sub-disciplines within Mechanical Engineering - Thermodynamics - is largely a science developed through empirical testing, observation, and experience.

My point in that previous thread, and I think you agree, is that observed behavior, common sense deduction, and experience is not invalidated simply because the description lacks the proper "buzzwords" of the scientific conventions.

Many years ago as an excited teenager, I recall reading Al Rabe's report on airfoils. His work was a paradigm shift in model airfoils. Looking back on it now, it's easy to say, "Of course, flaps actually lengthen an airfoil, so a max lift 20% section would really be 25% without the flaps." Seems simple now, but no amount of analytical tools would have predicted the effect. It took Mr. Rabe getting out on the highway with his pickup truck to make the discovery.

Finally, I agree with another point - I do enough of this calculation stuff during the day. That might be why I quit for awhile and grew roses - kind've an extreme on the other end.

Definition of expert

1. A guy from out of town
2. A drip under pressure

An expert is useless when you have your fingers in your ears

An expert is often used to blame your failures on
I did exactly as he said---- except for ---

Most of the real experts in this business will say
" Don,t do it that way" " It won,t work" Ask me how I know'
If you are a beginner, a real expert will give you basic knowledge
at the level you are at , or approaching.
With the instructions to practice, practice, practice

>Definition of expert
>
> 1. A guy from out of town
> 2. A drip under pressure
>
>An expert is useless when you have your fingers in your ears
>
>An expert is often used to blame your failures on
> I did exactly as he said---- except for ---
>
>Most of the real experts in this business will say
> " Don,t do it that way" " It won,t work" Ask me how I know'
>If you are a beginner, a real expert will give you basic
>knowledge
>at the level you are at , or approaching.
>With the instructions to practice, practice, practice

Finally someone is making some sense of all this "gibberish."

Thanks for the sound input Charlie!

on the other hand

and expert is someone who has already made all the mistakes you are planning to try!!!

In one area I used to work, and expert was : First time, learning experience, second time, learning reenforcement, and third time, local expert and guess who gets all those jobs/problems!
Expert: one with lots of bad experinces and how to avoid them!!

I totally agree with all of you! This is a HOBBY and is supposed to be FUN. We all make mistakes and have to learn from them. If anyone out there is an EXPERT, then we can all learn from them. However, I find that doing some things the old way works for me and is FUN! Fun is what this hobby should be and anyone out there that thinks otherwise is really missing out on a lot of it. I make kits for hundreds of people and don't make any profit if you take in the 20 or more hours it takes me to cut the kit and do all the wood ordering and boxes and printing plans. I do it because I enjoy it and love the HOBBY. I am no EXPERT, and do this the old way. Experts may laugh, but I'M HAVING FUN. BTW, I also am an A&P and know just a little bit about airplanes too. (as if that will help) Have FUN doing this hobby and let every one have an opinion. I have learned from many of your opinions during the past year or so.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn, so I'm an expert on "What not to do"

That only works if it was a Holiday Inn Express!

I have just returned from the contest at Huntersville, and I stayed at the local Holiday Inn Express. I came home with only one "busted" plane, my ARF Nobler. Maybe something to that stay. NAH.

>I totally agree with all of you! This is a HOBBY and is
>supposed to be FUN. We all make mistakes and have to learn
>from them. If anyone out there is an EXPERT, then we can
>all learn from them. However, I find that doing some things
>the old way works for me and is FUN! Fun is what this hobby
>should be and anyone out there that thinks otherwise is
>really missing out on a lot of it. I make kits for hundreds
>of people and don't make any profit if you take in the 20 or
>more hours it takes me to cut the kit and do all the wood
>ordering and boxes and printing plans. I do it because I
>enjoy it and love the HOBBY. I am no EXPERT, and do this
>the old way. Experts may laugh, but I'M HAVING FUN. BTW, I
>also am an A&P and know just a little bit about airplanes
>too. (as if that will help) Have FUN doing this hobby and
>let every one have an opinion. I have learned from many of
>your opinions during the past year or so.

I wonder how many people in this hobby have real aircraft experience? I was a AMS in the USN.

HI Robert, ya old airdale. I have met more former Navy types in this hobby than any other service. I often wonder if the Navy Nats might have been a subliminal inspiration. It was intended, by Admiral Nimitz, as an recruiting tool many, many years ago.
When I was on the USS Lexington, I was a tour giude for the Jr. and Sr NATS winners. They came aboard for a one day tour at sea. Got my modeling juices going again. Never looked back.
And as you mentioned, most of the guys were in the Aviation field, as pilots or mechs. Me, I was an skivvee waver par excellence!

One point of view:

This is a point well made over and over again, not just in modeling or hobby suff. It also applies to many many other areas. Theory is important, but often theory is contiually being adjusted to account for what actually happens out there in the "real" world.

I am a chemical engineer, having returned to college long after I made it out of highschool. Now have 20+ years experience. I understand and can explain a number of equations of state (PV = nRT,), thermodynamics, reaction kinetics and how to find the number of theoretical trays needed for a particular separation, but the other day when a friend at the flying field asked me about some fuel he's got that has some nitroethane in it. I didn't know. Somewhat tongue in cheek, I told him nitroethane had one more carbon atom in it than nitromethane. And, then I told him I'd have to do a little research.

Really all I could do, since I have no experience in fuel mixtures, would be to start searching the literature to see what I could find. Granted, I might know what and/or how to go abut finding the answer better than a layman, but the fact of the matter is, I am a degreed chemcial engineer with 20+ years experience and I had no idea how to answer his question.

I also recognize that one of the racers in our cub who has messed around with fuels and mixtures for years and years who has no degree of any kind could probably give him a much more practical answer than I could.

Theories are most often formed from observation. Experiments are designed with idea to prove or disprove the theroies. The data collected leads to more theroies and more experiments. The two are intimately tied together.

What I like about this forum is there are a great number of guys who've been doing this stuff for a long time and they have built up a vast amount of data and most are willing to share the knowledge they've gained. Moreover, the novice who jumps in there and participates might very well sees something new, where the "expert" is so focused on a particular detail that he misses seeing the obvious that's right in front of him. It's combined effort and it seems to work pretty well.

"Experts" don't need degrees and degrees don't make experts.

>Thermodynamics - is largely a science developed through empirical testing, observation, >and experience.

Not much testing (I assume) to find out that a machine can't produce more juice than it spends...

Oh, you'll find some guys still trying, but they are mostly living in funny farms.

I cannot comment on this as I have no degree and little formal training.
Chris...

>Some of the greatest "experts" in our hobby (or sport) are
>far from degreed experts in the Real World.

True, but (some of them) have very strange ideas as to why,and how, some things work. Understanding is key to applying a concept to more than single cases,and to improving on the basic concept.

In fact, the
>coorelation between Real World experts and hobby experts is
>nearly ZERO (rare).

Not true. While not every "expert" is a scientist or engineer,all true experts have a firm grasp of the principles involved in their area of interest.

In fact, it is nearly the opposite,
>most of the most innovative people are not degreed or have
>no college education or training that have to do with the
>sciences or engineering.

This implies that only those who have no rigorous training can be creative.This is not only patently untrue, It's an insult to those whose training in other fields,such as the arts, is equally rigorous. It also implies that no one can be "expert" in more than one field.

>So if it is now paramount to have a resume to discuss issues
>in modeling , there will be few who qualify. We should all
>keep that in mind, I think.

There are ALWAYS few who qualify as experts,unless the field is so uncomplicated as to qualify anyone. By the way, good, bad, or indifferent, everyone has a resume.
>
>Modeling is about having expression outside your profession,
>don't you think?

Expression and expertise are two vastly different things. Look at a garage band's "music"; expression? yes, technique? yes,familiarity with their instrument? yes, knowlege of musical or artistic theory????????

The "infinite number of monkeys typing Shakespeare" method may do for the "non-expert",but remember that it takes an infinite length of time. True experts connect the dots and short circuit the cut and try of the "expremntrs" among us, and knowlegable non-experts take advantage of this wisdom. Even outside the box thinking has to have a sound basis in principle.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

>
> In fact, it is nearly the opposite,
>>most of the most innovative people are not degreed or have
>>no college education or training that have to do with the
>>sciences or engineering.
>
>This implies that only those who have no rigorous training
>can be creative.This is not only patently untrue, It's an
>insult to those whose training in other fields,such as the
>arts, is equally rigorous. It also implies that no one can
>be "expert" in more than one field.

That is not what I meant. I meant that in CLPA, most of the "experts" almost universally, are non-degreed scientists or engineers. Not to say a degreed engineer or scientist COULD NOT be an expert (or artist---good point). All I meant to say is that most of the people held in high regard in modeling have careers that have nothing to do with classic "expert" fields that have any direct relation to modeling.

I certainly did not mean to "insult" anyone (your word). In fact, it is high praise to the accomplishment.

> In fact, it is nearly the opposite,
>most of the most innovative people are not degreed or have
>no college education or training that have to do with the
>sciences or engineering.

That's mostly true. But some of the smartest engineers I know, including those I work with/supervise, are model airplane guys. For example - Howard Rush, Frank Williams, Paul Walker are true engineering experts by any standard. And recognized as such in their professional fields of endeavor.

The breadth of knowledge required to be a successful model airplane expert is quite extensive. And that includes engineering knowledge, whether its formal, or not formal. The number of people who can go out with minimal knowledge and just thrash it until they are competitive are few and far between, and becoming rarer and rarer all the time.

>So if it is now paramount to have a resume to discuss issues
>in modeling , there will be few who qualify. We should all
>keep that in mind, I think.

On the other hand, if one is going to use engineering and mathematical concepts to argue various points, it would seem wise to be able to understand those concepts sufficiently to ensure they are valid. Discussing it, or asking about it, is one thing - arguing points of logic is another thing entirely, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect some subject matter knowledge, and be able to explain it on a level that meets some standard of expertise. Posting assertions and then holding on to them like grim death, despite unresolved and unaddressed counter-arguments, doesn't accomplish anything useful.

Not to say that you have to go to school to learn it to become an expert. Anybody can learn this stuff themselves- nothing we have ever discussed, with a few rare exceptions, goes much beyond high school depth of knowledge. Heck, Einstein did poorly in school and was a clerk at the patent office. But he made himself an expert in the area of theoretical physics and mathematics. None of are likely Einstein, but anyone of reasonable intelligence and with sufficient motivation can learn enough to understand anything we have ever discussed here.

And frankly, that's what I beleive has made stunt such a successful event and keeps people interested for extremely long periods. There's always something else to learn, and a new area to explore.

Brett,

Of course, but you know - even great engineers have had a few failures on the way to success. Paul even built one airplane that was constructed a little too lightly. I think it landed a little on the to soon side and not on both wheels together. He even admitted to building one with too much flex, but said it would do great hourglasses. I guess it didn't loose that momentum on the first couple of turns Ted!
It's never too late to learn something new!

One?

>One?

Howard is absolutely correct !!!

I used to be able to beat Chuck Rudner at combat, then he got that Aeronautical Engineering Degree from U of M and I could never beat him again.

They should make a seperate class for Aero Engineers and give the rest of a chance.

Posting
>assertions and then holding on to them like grim death,
>despite unresolved and unaddressed counter-arguments,
>doesn't accomplish anything useful.

Once again, I will say, I believe that there is communication gap, not a competence gap.

Please go to the other thread and state your counter argument, not your opinion (we all got that), your argument. It will be addressed, but not right now as it violates the "game". I explained that. I will certainly explain my method when it is time, just not in YOUR time.

Also, it is very hard to have a discussion when the implication is that standard tools need validating just to keep ONE GUY happy. So far, you are the only "learned" person I have discussed this with who has shared your opinion. NO ONE I HAVE SPOKEN TOO AGREES WITH YOU!!!! Even The current Chief Judge apparently studies "coorelation" of scores even if it is at the most rudimentary level of looking at line graphs. If you can form a hypothesis and a null hypothesis about a set of data, you can study it with several different means. Is this valid? Absolutely! Is it useful? Maybe. All I am looking at are means to study the data. To say this is incorrect or mpossible? I do not have answer for you, I really do not.

If you have some rule of statistics that is being broken please state it. If not, you appear to be the one who is holding on like Grim Death.

>If you have some rule of statistics that is being broken
>please state it. If not, you appear to be the one who is
>holding on like Grim Death.

I would note that I did not mention your other post in any way. And your statistics post is hardly unique in that regard.

But, once again, here are some counter-arguments/faulty assumptions I think you made in your process:

#1 The scores do not represent "meaurements" of a a flight's quality in the sense used in statistics derivations, but are the result of entirely subjective judgements - as none of the deductions are defined, and none of the errors/features of the maneuvers for which points are deducted are measured in any objective way.

Thus there is no validity to the idea that there is some correct value for the score that is buried in random noise.

#2 It is an erronous (or at least, not remotely proven) assumption that the variations in scores are are a function of random measurement noise.

If you were timing speed flights with stopwatches, then you would have a perfectly valid point. It did take actual, definitive amount of time to go 7 laps, A large component of any variance would be random measurement errors. If you had 100 people timing the flights (in order to provide n>>1), then you would be able to apply standard statistical methods with validity.

But stunt scoring is a completely different type of process, where the score is an opinion.

#3 Based on the above, you make an assumption that attributes narrow scoring range on individual manuevers to a particular, invalid, practice ("bracketing scores") when in fact the variance could just as easily be attributable to a virtually infinite number of other factors - including, if it had been valid (which is isn't) a judge with a low level of "measurement noise", Which would, in general, be a *good* thing, not a bad thing.

And then you created a data set that you intentionally made fit that assumption, and use this to "validate" the method. But that's not a particular problem, because even the use of real data would contain the same assumptions.

If it's not a measurement, nor is it random, conclusions based on derivations assuming that there is some actual objectively right value for the "measurement", and randomness in the creation of the scatter, are not valid.

How's that? Four points were I state clear conceptual objections. First chapter of the book. I'm interested in hearing your counter-arguments.

BTW, on the topic of what NATs officials do - I and others have addressed this issue with them, and made the same points (since in some ways the "tracking" plots are really all you are doing with variance), to no avail. But I didn't thnk it needed to be publically thrashed. and I'm not hard over about it, since, based on the real data, no objective post-processing method I have tried changes the results. Including the "variance" thing, which was hashed out after the 93 Team Trials in extraordinary length. I don't fault you for not being aware of that fact, but it is on point.

Of course one can cherry-pick the result intending to find the "right" answer* based on how you wanted it to turn out, but that's *not* something you are doing with your method, so that doesn't apply here.

Brett

*"Anatomy of a Team Trails" Baron, Sept 1993

Right on, Brett!

People ain't electrons...

Judges decisions aren't "random".

> #1 The scores do not represent "meaurements" of a a
>flight's quality in the sense used in statistics
>derivations, but are the result of entirely subjective
>judgements - as none of the deductions are defined, and none
>of the errors/features of the maneuvers for which points are
>deducted are measured in any objective way.

No argument from me.

> Thus there is no validity to the idea that there is some
>correct value for the score that is buried in random noise.

Who said correct? Where did I say correct?

> #2 It is an erronous (or at least, not remotely proven)
>assumption that the variations in scores are are a function
>of random measurement noise.

You could study it and find out. Noise IS ALL WE GOT!!!!!

> But stunt scoring is a completely different type of
>process, where the score is an opinion.
>
>#3 Based on the above, you make an assumption that
>attributes narrow scoring range on individual manuevers to a
>particular, invalid, practice ("bracketing scores") when in
>fact the variance could just as easily be attributable to a
>virtually infinite number of other factors - including, if
>it had been valid (which is isn't) a judge with a low level
>of "measurement noise", Which would, in general, be a *good*
>thing, not a bad thing.
>
> And then you created a data set that you intentionally
>made fit that assumption, and use this to "validate" the
>method. But that's not a particular problem, because even
>the use of real data would contain the same assumptions.

Nobody "validated" crap! You have no idea of what you are talking about, this is simply your standard stance of "everyone is a suspect".

Once again you have chosen to put me and everyone else through the wringer based on something that we (at least I) had nothing to do with and happened years ago (I thought this was going toward the Baron connection paranoia). Anatomy of a Team Trials was about trying to prove collusion and bias, I have said nothing about looking at either. I do not think you could prove bias statistically. You could however, show correlation between judges and use the information to understand why some judges track better than others, and why some do not track at all.

> If it's not a measurement, nor is it random, conclusions
>based on derivations assuming that there is some actual
>objectively right value for the "measurement", and
>randomness in the creation of the scatter, are not valid.

Bull. This is a mis-statement. No one said there is a "right" answer, only that the *rate of change* would coorelate, more less depending upon the judge.

By your measure every score is "noise", and has no measure of anything on its own. You cannot be serious!!!!

When all this is said and done we agree that the score is the judges *opinion* (I say *highly educated* opinion based on some objective criteria). How do we know the judges opinion is worth anything? How do we measure his opinion's worth as a group? As a group, not just one or two folks making the decision for us. How do we measure the worth of a judges opinion? Tell me that.

>
>>#3 Based on the above, you make an assumption that
>>attributes narrow scoring range on individual manuevers to a
>>particular, invalid, practice ("bracketing scores") when in
>>fact the variance could just as easily be attributable to a
>>virtually infinite number of other factors - including, if
>>it had been valid (which is isn't) a judge with a low level
>>of "measurement noise", Which would, in general, be a *good*
>>thing, not a bad thing.
>>
>> And then you created a data set that you intentionally
>>made fit that assumption, and use this to "validate" the
>>method. But that's not a particular problem, because even
>>the use of real data would contain the same assumptions.
>
>Nobody "validated" crap! You have no idea of what you are
>talking about, this is simply your standard stance of
>"everyone is a suspect".

Well, Brad, that's pretty non-responsive. "Noise" is random. Subjective judgements are not measurements, but neither are they random. In fact, your premise is that some of the subjective judgements are the result of intentional systematic techniques - i.e. bracket scoring - and therefore *can't* be random noise, making your concept internally inconsistent. Never mind that this, too, is merely an assumption on your part, and certainly only one of many systematic sources of a narrow scoring range from maneuver to maneuver.

You don't want to understand, that's fine with me, but I would prefer you didn't just keep insulting me.

I'll defer my assessment of your expertise in statistics. Please defer your assessment of mine as well. Try to stick to the actual argument.

> You don't want to understand, that's fine with me, but I
>would prefer you didn't just keep insulting me.

Where did I insult you? By saying that you are suspicious by nature, especially on the boards? I think that is very evident and not just to me. If you feel insulted, maybe you should do a little soul searching.

> I'll defer my assessment of your expertise in
>statistics. Please defer your assessment of mine as well.
>Try to stick to the actual argument.

What a joke. My expertise in statistics has never been asserted. Yours has---over and over and over and over, etc you throw your expertise around like confetti. We get it, you are the expert.

You did not answer the question.
You have all the answers.
Answer the question.

When all this is said and done we agree that the score is the judges *opinion* (I say *highly educated* opinion based on some objective criteria). How do we know the judges opinion is worth anything? How do we measure his opinion's worth as a group? As a group, not just one or two folks making the decision for us. How do we measure the worth of a judges opinion? Tell me that.

To not answer the question shows that you are deflecting from the real issue.

>> You don't want to understand, that's fine with me, but I
>>would prefer you didn't just keep insulting me.
>
>Where did I insult you? By saying that you are suspicious
>by nature, especially on the boards? I think that is very
>evident and not just to me. If you feel insulted, maybe you
>should do a little soul searching.

I have many areas where I am lacking. My conscience in clear on this one. But I'm glad I have a "delete" key...

>Answer the question.
>When all this is said and done we agree that the score is
>the judges *opinion* (I say *highly educated* opinion based
>on some objective criteria). How do we know the judges
>opinion is worth anything? How do we measure his opinion's
>worth as a group? As a group, not just one or two folks
>making the decision for us. How do we measure the worth of a
>judges opinion? Tell me that.

You can not, at least not in any objective way. Any more than the judges assess the pattern in any objective way. Which was my point all along. If most non-partisans agree with it, it's probably a reasonable reflection of the general opinion. Adn that's about the best you can do.

Which is exactly the case in practice right now - there is little or no controversy as to the results of large contests aside from the cheering sections.

How do we measure the worth of a
>>judges opinion? Tell me that.
>
> You can not, at least not in any objective way. Any more
>than the judges assess the pattern in any objective way.
>Which was my point all along. If most non-partisans agree
>with it, it's probably a reasonable reflection of the
>general opinion. Adn that's about the best you can do.

So, you are saying that judges should be recuited and simply allowed to score however they wish? Are you saying this is what we do now? If so, you know this not to be true, several people evaluate our judge's performance during the course of a Nationals contest. Judges are evaluated, face it.

So, by what you are saying the judges should not be evaluated even by current methods?

Not only is this entire view irrational it is apparently only shared by you as it is not the procatice today.

All I ever wanted to know is there was any other method to study coorelation other than a simple line graph. You have taken all this and turned it into a circus.

OOOh, I couldn't resist!!!
>Brett
> #1 The scores do not represent "meaurements" of a a
>flight's quality in the sense used in statistics
>derivations, but are the result of entirely subjective
>judgements - as none of the deductions are defined, and none
>of the errors/features of the maneuvers for which points are
>deducted are measured in any objective way.
>
> Thus there is no validity to the idea that there is some
>correct value for the score that is buried in random noise.
>

"Rulebook para 9.1 Scoring shall be based on the appearance of the model and the degree of perfection with which maneuvers are performed. "
If the judge's opinions are entirely subjective and not a "measurement" then they can't be used for purposes of para. 9.1, and the whole event is a farce. But as I've said many times before, this is not true. The judging process is used in many situations to generate numbers to represent some score that often can't be measured any other way. --"depth" of finish on a car, ease of use of a control, likeability of a food product, the perceived intensity of a light, color of an apple, the list is endless. Statistics are properly used to evaluate this data. They've been used this way since they began. It's been shown many times over that judgements like this tend to have a normal distribution and can accurately measure things and that statistics do a good job of helping to understand the results.

> #2 It is an erronous (or at least, not remotely proven)
>assumption that the variations in scores are are a function
>of random measurement noise.

I have run thousands of taste tests. Basically the person is asked to rate something, such as "how much do you like this product", strictly an opinion for sure. Given a large batch of something made as nearly identical as possible, piece to piece, different people give the product different ratings. The same tester will give the same batch of produce different ratings(random variation)in different tests. In the end, using sufficient number of tastings and statistics to evaluate the results, it is possible to determine which sample tastes "better", and often also, why.

> But stunt scoring is a completely different type of
>process, where the score is an opinion.

doesn't really matter. see above.

Thank you Phil.

>OOOh, I couldn't resist!!!
>>Brett
>> #1 The scores do not represent "meaurements" of a a
>>flight's quality in the sense used in statistics
>>derivations, but are the result of entirely subjective
>>judgements - as none of the deductions are defined, and none
>>of the errors/features of the maneuvers for which points are
>>deducted are measured in any objective way.
>>
>> Thus there is no validity to the idea that there is some
>>correct value for the score that is buried in random noise.
>>
>
>"Rulebook para 9.1 Scoring shall be based on the appearance
>of the model and the degree of perfection with which
>maneuvers are performed. "
> If the judge's opinions are entirely subjective and not a
>"measurement" then they can't be used for purposes of para.
>9.1, and the whole event is a farce.

That it's subjective is not in serious debate (aside from you, apparently). That it's subjective also does not mean it's a "farce", either. It's different than most other events, and if that means "farce" to you, then so be it. I think it's no more a farce than any other judged event, but if you don't recognize the legitimacy of subjectively-judged events, then I really can't and won't try to convince you otherwise.

Either one enjoys the event and accepts that the judges did their best (but still could easily have made other decisions) and lives with it- OR - one imagines it to be objective and therefore it's legitimate to argue about the results, and thus engender endless frustration.

If there is some way to increase the objectivity (like provide standard deductions for particular errors, and to provide accurate measurement means to determine the magnitude of the errors), then by all means let's hear it and see if it's something we want as a group to implement.

The opinion that subjectively-judged events are not legitimate sports comes up all the time - like every Olympics, including this year.

Brett,
I know I am late in responding, but where did you get the quotes from the following:
"Anatomy of a Team Trials", Baron, 1993.
Did Bob publish something in response to his feelings after the 1993 contest? I can only imagine the content of this material. Hmmmm, However, I would be interested in reading it....Thanks DAvid

>Not to say that you have to go to school to learn it to become an expert. Anybody can >learn this stuff themselves- nothing we have ever discussed, with a few rare exceptions, >goes much beyond high school depth of knowledge. Heck, Einstein did poorly in school >and was a clerk at the patent office. But he made himself an expert in the area of >theoretical physics and mathematics.

Brett, it was during his days at the Swiss Patent Office in Berne that Einsten published the papers about light having both wave and particle proprieties, about brownian motion and about relativity.

That was in 1905, he was 25 or 26, and that was the main stuff he did in all his life.

I was in two different Free Flight clubs in the 70's and most, not all, of the older memebers were, 1. Jr. High or High school science teachers or 2. Aeronautical engineers for McDonnel/Douglas, Northrop, Boeing, Grumman, etal and were the most layed back guys in modeling I have ever met, unlike those in speed or combat.

And yes, I know all those companies have merged or just plain folded or what ever, but this was the 70's.

>Something just struck me and I had to make a new post.
>
>It seems lately that there is an emphasis on the need to be
>an "expert" on a subject to have a valid opinion. This
>would be in terms expert *outside of modeling*, such you
>would have to be an aeronautical engineer to have an opinion
>on aerodynamics, a mechanical engineer to have an opinion on
>structures, or even being a Statistician to have an opinion
>on stats. this could also apply to inside modeling I
>suppose.
>
>As I see it, this is patentedly not modeling.
>
>Some of the greatest "experts" in our hobby (or sport) are
>far from degreed experts in the Real World. In fact, the
>coorelation between Real World experts and hobby experts is
>nearly ZERO (rare). In fact, it is nearly the opposite,
>most of the most innovative people are not degreed or have
>no college education or training that have to do with the
>sciences or engineering.
>
>So if it is now paramount to have a resume to discuss issues
>in modeling , there will be few who qualify. We should all
>keep that in mind, I think.
>
>Modeling is about having expression outside your profession,
>don't you think?

Remember this engineers design it and mechanics make it work. Fact in all mechanical fields.

>Remember this engineers design it and mechanics make it
>work. Fact in all mechanical fields.

Almost every single time. I never build any of my own designs when I get paid for it. Usually some trade had to correct a few mistakes.

Well Now,

If stunt flying expertise in real life carried over to models, move over David, Billy, Ted and Paul - Kirk Wicker would be Nats and world champion for a while. However, the skills processes are pretty much different for real life stunt flying and model, ahem, precision aerobatic flying!

"In fact, the coorelation between Real World experts and hobby experts is nearly ZERO (rare)."

I apologize for being an elitist about the way I spell correlation, but you might look at the fraction of Nats stunt winners in the last couple of decades who are aeronautical engineers. It's somewhat greater than that of the general population.

>"In fact, the coorelation between Real World experts and
>hobby experts is nearly ZERO (rare)."
>
>I apologize for being an elitist about the way I spell
>correlation, but you might look at the fraction of Nats
>stunt winners in the last couple of decades who are
>aeronautical engineers. It's somewhat greater than that of
>the general population.

Only because it is loaded by a few outstanding examples. OK, zero is overstated.

My point is that I do not fly with anyone in Texas except for maybe Frank Williams who is even close to an aeronautical engineer. Pilot maybe, but not engineer.

Steve is a flight attendant, does that count?

I keep hitting that oo in correlation. Simple typing error...

Your present District 8 rep was once the senior staff engineer to the manager of the spacecraft integration, test and launch ops for a major contractor. We launched a lot of spacecraft over the years.

Don't know if this pertains to the actual question, but........

I fly with, and enjoy the company of, a bunch of guys with a great diversity of backgrounds.
A few are actual engineers, machanical and automotive are a couple I know, and others who may or may not have even finished High School.
A real estate agent, a retired fire fighter, etc., etc., and love them all. (well almost! )

I know what I know, and I know it. If it is improtant, and I don't know it, I know who to ask. And I ask, work, ask, work, until I get something that works for me.
I think the whole idea of a hobby is for the personal enjoyment of it.

I will take as examples six of the most noted, and winningest, fliers of recent history (apologises to any left out, but I choose these six because I know what they do/did for a living pretty much): Billy Werwage, Paul Walker, Al Rabe, Ted Fancher, Bob Hunt, and Les McDonald.

Billy: Professional Musician, horse trainer.
Paul: Aeronautical Engineer
Al: Airline Pilot
Ted: Airline Pilot
Bob: Magazine Editor/Video Producer
Les: Hobby Shop (owner)
(I would include Bob Gieseke, but not sure of his "profession")

Al and Ted share the same profession.
Paul is the only one that I know is an AE.
Billy, Paul, Bob, and Les are World Champions. Pretty diverse if you ask me.
All six, at least to me, would classify as experts in CLPA, and have/had different approches to the event to one degree or another.

CLPA, toy airplanes, I love it!
Bill <><

I do not know this as fact, but had heard that Bob G. was an air traffic controller

>Don't know if this pertains to the actual question,
>but........
>
>I fly with, and enjoy the company of, a bunch of guys with a
>great diversity of backgrounds.
>A few are actual engineers, machanical and automotive are a
>couple I know, and others who may or may not have even
>finished High School.
>A real estate agent, a retired fire fighter, etc., etc., and
>love them all. (well almost! )
>
>I know what I know, and I know it. If it is improtant, and
>I don't know it, I know who to ask. And I ask, work, ask,
>work, until I get something that works for me.
>I think the whole idea of a hobby is for the personal
>enjoyment of it.
>
>I will take as examples six of the most noted, and
>winningest, fliers of recent history (apologises to any left
>out, but I choose these six because I know what they do/did
>for a living pretty much): Billy Werwage, Paul Walker, Al
>Rabe, Ted Fancher, Bob Hunt, and Les McDonald.
>
>Billy: Professional Musician, horse trainer.
>Paul: Aeronautical Engineer
>Al: Airline Pilot
>Ted: Airline Pilot
>Bob: Magazine Editor/Video Producer
>Les: Hobby Shop (owner)
>(I would include Bob Gieseke, but not sure of his
>"profession")
>
>Al and Ted share the same profession.
>Paul is the only one that I know is an AE.
>Billy, Paul, Bob, and Les are World Champions. Pretty
>diverse if you ask me.
>All six, at least to me, would classify as experts in CLPA,
>and have/had different approches to the event to one degree
>or another.
>
>CLPA, toy airplanes, I love it!
>Bill <><

Bill,

Also, don't forget David Fitzgerald, five time Walker Cup Champ, multiple time repeat Junior and Senior National Champ, multiple time USA team member, graduate of San Jose State University's Aviation program including A & P Programs, Air Force Pilot, Air Line Pilot, Certified Flight Instructor and just about the best ##### pilot I ever flew with and I've been flying with hundreds if not a couple of thousand different pilots for pretty much my entire life.

Although it hasn't quite the panache of an aero engineering degree, a lifetime flying airplanes of various configurations certainly could qualify one to be "knowledgeable" if not "expert" about the way things act in the air.

Another thing worth remembering is that the things the learned learn from ... books ... aren't kept hermetically sealed in some secret mayonaise jar. If one has the interest, one can persue the information.

As to the value of stunt information obtained from beginners vice the aforementioned six or seven, I'd suspect the overall ratio of good to bad would be pretty predictable.

Ted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his
>friends.
>Japanese Proverb

>>My point is that I do not fly with anyone in Texas except for maybe Frank Williams who is even close to an aeronautical engineer. Pilot maybe, but not engineer.<<

You're lucky. In the Northwest, it seems, every third guy (or maybe second guy) is some sort of engineer. Probably because Boeing is here.

You see the same thing in St. Louis, McDonnell-Douglas and in the San Diego area, Ryan(what ever now) Northrop, etc. I think most got into aeronautical engineering fields as a result of building models as young men (boys) and the love of things aviation never stopped.

>"In fact, the coorelation between Real World experts and
>hobby experts is nearly ZERO (rare)."
>
>I apologize for being an elitist about the way I spell
>correlation, but you might look at the fraction of Nats
>stunt winners in the last couple of decades who are
>aeronautical engineers. It's somewhat greater than that of
>the general population.

Your correlation is correct, and was probably justified as a response to the earlier blanket statement. However, no offense intended, but it does not logically follow that the results you mention are because of professionial expertise.

You need to look at how many entries are aero engineers vs. winners. Even then, you cannot draw the conclusion that greater aero training or insight is the cause. Motivation may have an even greater effect. There may be a unique desire to achieve in a hobby what may be frustrating in their profession - to wrap their hands around an entire aircraft - from beginning to finish. That is something practically impossible in the aero industry as it exists today.

It may not mean that they are statistically better at it because of greater knowledge.

This is a good observation. In fact, just about every stunt contest I attend has at least one aero among the losers.

This is a very interesting thread. I can empathize with those feeling "unqualified" so therefore "invalid" in some cases. The problem is allot of folks will impress there expertise as the single solution. At the same time allot of "beginners" will only listen to an "expert". Case in point; I used to fly Wakefield (that's the FAI large rubber event, highly competitive) I even managed a Nats win once. Another member of our club was telling me about a problem he was having triming a model so I tried to explain some things to him. He politely ignored me. At the next club meeting he approached me and said that another member had told him I was a National champion then he said something that floored me, he said, "Wow, if I'd known that I would have listened to you!"

I am an engineer, titled, paid and practicing but without benefit of a degree, but with many years of experience in the ME field both hands on and otherwise. The company I work for recognizes me as an ME, but the SAE doesn't. Which opinion counts the most? SAE dosen't pay my wages, so I guess the answer should be easy. I am a specialist in valve train design, a fairly complex area of engine design. As a hobbiest I've done this airplane thing all my life, FF, RC and CL. I was an aircraft mechanic in the USAF and took a number of courses toward A&E certification. I have competed since I was 12, and the list of wins over the years gives validity to what I say. But I'll tell you this, more times then not I feel that what I have to say is ignored by most because they don't recognize me as a "Stunt Expert".

So what does all this mean, in the long run I don't think it means anything even though it might smart for a while when it happens. I know what I've accomplished and in the end that's all that matters isn't it? Brad's scoring analysis may mean nothing to the others and even be discounted as "gibberish", but he will have the satisfaction in the end and guys, for most of us that's all we're gonna' get.

The question is-"Who are the experts?". Like I told my son many years ago- it's people who "shoot the numbers." No talk, no brag, they just win. All the time. So if I'm looking to find expert advise, opinion, I go to those who continually excell- degrees or no.
Speaking of Einstein, does anyone recall Barney Fife's reply to the statement that Einstein had no high school diploma? Best regards, dg- Smasher of SSW Threads

Does all the above posts and gibberish mean that now we are going to have to tell the judges what kind of degree we have to get pattern or pretty points??? HMMM A BS gets bonus points over a GED, and a masters gets more ... . We need a rules proposal.

Bigiron, you IZ the expert.

I should know, I'm an expert on experts.

What these other guys are talking about, I have no idea or really care. I just know there are people I listen to when I'm trying to learn about certain things, and other things I just totally ignore.

Big Iron, based on this thread and others and from what I've seen and heard at many contests, no doubt all of us have at least a degree in "BS". LOL:P

Yeah Ty, I are a MASTER of BS. Any arguments??

Makes sense to me... But then I CERTAINLY am not an engineer, Einstein, or even a very good CL pilot. And my planes always come out too heavy. Now if we could just statistically correlate airplane weight to brains...

>So what does all this mean, in the long run I don't think it
>means anything even though it might smart for a while when
>it happens. I know what I've accomplished and in the end
>that's all that matters isn't it? Brad's scoring analysis
>may mean nothing to the others and even be discounted as
>"gibberish", but he will have the satisfaction in the end
>and guys, for most of us that's all we're gonna' get.
>
>Randy Ryan <><
>AMA 8500
>SAM 36
>BO all my own M's

Amen Randy,

You know this hobby of Stunt Flying is a lot like Lord Byron's description of Sexual Intercourse:

The position is ridiculous, the pleasure is momentary, and the expense is damnable!

I am an expert and proud of it. Bet you can't guess where I acquired my expert rating and correlated degree. grin

After reading all the preceeding threads about experts, it got me to thinking back when I started flying the RC(ugh) airplanes. I was use to starting engines by hand. I learned to fly and soloed so I could fly on my own. Then I was talked into being an instrutor with the new students. Here I am, had become the socalled engine expert, because I could get almost every engine running and adjusted in short time. I was helping a new student and was starting his engine. I put my finger over the venturi(carburator) to choke it. He asked me why I did that. So I told him it was to get fuel up to the engine. He then said and pointed out that the engine was on muffler pressure. Of course said so. He said put finger over the end of the muffler and crank the engine. It works even on cowled in engines. I do not call myself an expert after that. There is so much to be learned while I am still having fun. Later, DOC

I for one will never be an expert.

I have experience, I have had success, but will never know it all to be an expert. An expert implies that you don't need to know or learn anymore. There are things that I am real good at, but I am not an expert.

I have a technical degree (math Physics), I work in a technical discipline (EE). I have parents, worked in structures, control systems, worked as an A&P, aerodynamic performance and wind tunnel studies on wind turbines. Much of that experience is relevant to modeling, but it isn't the final answer. Many times the guy with busted knuckles and no education has more of the "proper" experience.

We all need to check ourselves when we think we are the expert, because if we think we are, we may not be anymore.

You are only an expert when you others come looking for you for help.

By the way, this theres are TOY AIRPLANES, let's not take it so seriously.

I think City Smasher has hit on something. We are all diverse. Many flyers have no AE experience and MOST don’t want to know why the airplane fly’s (sport).
I come from a family that handed down their experience with control line modeling to all of us kids. I’ve done the same with my son.
AE people have some advantage when designing new planes. ALL of these people that I’ve had the pleasure to know, have helped ANYONE that needs some help.
I think the term “EXPERT” is miss leading. Some of the best coaches are not expert flyers or builders. Expert is a “class” that we fly in. Expert in the work place is..Well I don’t know. I guess it’s someone with a masters, has published papers and or books.
ANYWAY experts keep up the good work. Great question.

This got buried above, so I just want to give it its own "space".
Comments??
Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Oct-21-04 AT 11:42 AM (CDT)

Don't know if this pertains to the actual question, but........
I fly with, and enjoy the company of, a bunch of guys with a great diversity of backgrounds.
A few are actual engineers, machanical and automotive are a couple I know, and others who may or may not have even finished High School.
A real estate agent, a retired fire fighter, etc., etc., and love them all. (well almost! )

I know what I know, and I know it. If it is improtant, and I don't know it, I know who to ask. And I ask, work, ask, work, until I get something that works for me.
I think the whole idea of a hobby is for the personal enjoyment of it.

I will take as examples six of the most noted, and winningest, fliers of recent history (apologises to any left out, but I choose these six because I know what they do/did for a living pretty much): Billy Werwage, Paul Walker, Al Rabe, Ted Fancher, Bob Hunt, and Les McDonald.

Billy: Professional Musician, horse trainer.
Paul: Aeronautical Engineer
Al: Airline Pilot
Ted: Airline Pilot
Bob: Magazine Editor/Video Producer
Les: Hobby Shop (owner)
(I would include Bob Gieseke, but not sure of his "profession")

Al and Ted share the same profession.
Paul is the only one that I know is an AE.
Billy, Paul, Bob, and Les are World Champions. Pretty diverse if you ask me.
All six, at least to me, would classify as experts in CLPA, and have/had different approches to the event to one degree or another.

CLPA, toy airplanes, I love it!
Bill <><

messed me up - was carefully trying to update myself on the thread, and this one gave me an Alzheimer's attack ...

Anyway, I also replied to the other one - I had heard that Bob G. was an air traffic controller.

>messed me up - was carefully trying to update myself on the
>thread, and this one gave me an Alzheimer's attack ...
>
>Anyway, I also replied to the other one - I had heard that
>Bob G. was an air traffic controller.

Weather man.

Aerologist: a man whom can look at a girl and tell weather.

Now I suppose you'll say that you don't need a weather man to tell which way the wind blows.

A wet finger held aloft will do that, but the weather man can tell you when and where it's coming from. Well, Usually. TV Weather person: The only person that can be 100% wrong, 360 days a year and still get paid. Just be nice appearing on TV. What a job.

Bob holds a dispatchers certificate, I believe. He was a flight dispatcher for Braniff. They are the guys that make the flight plans and fuel loads, making the pilots look good.
Chris...

The correct answer to the main question, as stated in the subject line, is simple. An expert is someone who lives more than thirty miles away. (A prophet is without honor in his own land.) The advent of the internet and relatively high speed transportatin may have increased the minimum radius of official "expertdom," but probably not by much.

Godzilla asks:
>Who are the experts?

Experts are people with experience.
One hopes they have profited from their experience.

>It seems lately that there is an emphasis on the need to be
>an "expert" on a subject to have a valid opinion.

I guess you're right that I, personally, tend to value the opinion
of a man speaking from within his area of expertise (experience!)
over that of a man speaking outside of his area(s) of expertise.

I guess that someone can become expert in many ways, but the ways
I value involve a lot of study, thought, and practice
(not necessarily in a college or library or workshop).
I respect the time and effort they've put into mastering their field.
20 or more years on the same problem is a huge investment, after all.

Similarly, I also try to respect the interest of people who
might be interested in an area I know well.

In this fashion, I can learn from others and vice versa.
It's actually fun; I recommend it to everyone.

I expect to learn things from people who know more about a subject than I know. It pleases me even more to learn something from someone who knows less about the subject than I do. Makes me feel like a true intellectual. Of course the most satisfying is that rare occasion when I discover something for myself.

>I expect to learn things from people who know more about a
>subject than I know. It pleases me even more to learn
>something from someone who knows less about the subject than
>I do. Makes me feel like a true intellectual. Of course the
>most satisfying is that rare occasion when I discover
>something for myself.
>
>Jim

Well stated! Some people cannot enjoy this hobby because they have to take themselves along.

Here's a quote from Will Rogers that applies:

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading.
The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the
electric fence and find out for themselves.

This has been a great thread. But alas, I have enjoyed about all I can stand.

Another thought...

Back in the '70's I had a number of chances to spend an evening with Al Rabe when he had layovers here in Minneapolis. Those may have been the longest periods of "listen, don't talk" in my life but I sure learned a lot! Thanks again Al!
Expertise comes in many forms but it mean's little if it is not shared. One of the great aspects of this hobby is the willingness of people to share whatever level of expertise they have. I flew in many Nats in the 60's and early 70's. Never any threat to the top flyers, some of my best memories are the kindnesses of the real "pro's" to an obvious amateur. I remember Bill Werwage walking up after I flew one year and telling me he had watched my flight then patiently giving me a tip on hand and arm position. I doubt he remembers but I sure do.
We're all "experts" to someone. If we pass what we know on constructively, this sport just might survive a few more years!

>>I expect to learn things from people who know more about a subject than I know.<<

This is why, when at a contest, when Paul talks it resembles the old EF Hutton comercials. Everyone stops to listen.

Randy,

No kidding at all there. When Ted and Paul are standing next to each other at the Nats and discussing the wind penetration of varaious engine airplane combinations I do the EF Hutton comercial thing too!

There is a simple formula:

DEGREE OF EXPERTISE IS THE DISTANCE FROM THOSE WHO SAW YOU DO SOMETHING MULTIPLIED BY THE TIME SINCE THEY SAW YOU DO IT.

Therefore, if you've moved frequently and you're 60-ish, you should be an expert at many things.

This formula also applies to politics!

One of the best definitions of an expert I ever heard was 'Someone who has convinced you they are'.
There are a lot of reputed 'Experts' writing about redefining work. Look at their bios, and the only work they have ever done was purly acedemic study, without ever having done anything outside of a gym to work up a sweat.
Most of the true Experts I have run into in life usually have spent a lot of time learning their field. Some of them are very good, when they stay within their field, others try to take a small pool of knowledge about one area and act like they know everything about everything. Two of the self appointed engine experts in my club who have spent the last 15 or 20 years using only one brand constantly tell people, including me, that the brand of engine I use don't run, are garbage, etc. In the meantime, I usually get 4 or 5 flight a day with them. Then another engine expert shows up using one.
Most of the true experts I've met in a number of fields will admit that they are still learning, and are often taught new things by people without the sme background.

Well said.

Good Grief!! How can one respond to a question which has had 76 answers? Many have been off subject, but as I remember, the initial question is something like "what makes one an 'expert'?"
An "expert" can be anyone with enough good advice that will help others. And that's about it.

Let's not get sidetracked with diplomas. I'll not list mine here. However, whenever a question comes up that I feel qualified to offer an opinion, I will do so. I don't list my qualifications in a footnote.

I appreciate the technical data here and wherever it is found, as long as it will help me.

>Let's not get sidetracked with diplomas. I'll not list mine
>here. However, whenever a question comes up that I feel
>qualified to offer an opinion, I will do so. I don't list
>my qualifications in a footnote.

I do believe that was the original intent.

Everyone should be given a chance to express themselves.

>Everyone should be given a chance to express themselves.

OK, but I'm not necessarily going to listen to everyone.
Depends on what I'm looking for.
If I'm looking for experience (i.e., I want hints about what has
worked or failed in the past), then I'm going to listen to someone
_I believe_ is an expert.

The "I believe" part is key.
We each define, for ourselves, who we think are experts.
Joe-somebody can't come along and claim to be an expert and
get a lot of attention. But when someone we believe is expert
pipes up, we listen.

Of course, we also listen to people who are interesting
(e.g., interesting ideas, interesting humor, interesting conversation).

As I understand it, not being expert on the subject, logicians point out "ad hominum" reasoning as an error in logical thinking. This is accepting or rejecting something based on who said it. Unfortunately, we often do not have the time, interest, ability, etc. to find out something otherwise. So we go with the word of someone we expect to know. Just keep in the back of your mind the fact that you are making an error in logical reasoning:P The best expert will occasionally tell you wrong.