WIND

Peering through the New Green Rule Book, in the PA area, I am still puzzled about the wind.

There is no verbiage stating "all maneuvers should be performed DOWNWIND", just two drawings that reference the wind with little arrows.

I read a piece in an old magazine where the author (and, I believe, then current National Champ) advocated doing the maneuvers that you "were not as skilled at" DIRECTLY IN FRONT of the JUDGES! He allowed as to how it would confuse them.....

Common sense doesn't always dictate this stuff, I guess?

See ya

Might work in a light wind if you felt you were getting good scores for your previous maneuvers as it would be possible the judges would just write down a similar score for a maneuver they did not see. I guess all is fair in love and war.

>I read a piece in an
>old magazine where the author
>(and, I believe, then current
>National Champ) advocated doing the
>maneuvers that you "were not
>as skilled at" DIRECTLY IN
>FRONT of the JUDGES!
>He allowed as to how
>it would confuse them.....
>

Let's see, it's supposed to be round, and it looks like a 6:1 ellipse. 15 points...

Doesn't seem all *that* confusing!

>There is no verbiage stating "all
>maneuvers should be performed DOWNWIND",
>just two drawings that reference
>the wind with little arrows.

Actually, there are four maneuvers where the rulebook specifies how the maneuver is to be oriented with the wind.

The Reverse Wingovers start directly upwind.

Inverterd Flight: The rulebook shows that the maneuver starts at the beginning of the third lap after the inside loops directly down wind and ends at the same point at the end of the fourth lap.

The Overhead Eights are flown with their intersections flown in the direction of the wind.

The Four Leaf Clover is flown such that the exit of the maneuver is over the "top of the circle into the wind".

It is surprising how many people do not know this. Not performing the maneuvers with the proper orientation is grounds for loss of pattern points. (The beginning and end point for Inverted Flight scoring is the responsibility of the judge, not the flyer. The other three maneuvers above are the responsibility of the flyer to properly orient the maneuver with respect to the wind.)

I'm definitely one of the ones who DID NOT KNOW THAT!

What is the specific language in the rules about this? Is it new?

L.

The word / lore that I understand is that the little arrows were added sometime in the '60, WITHOUT a rule change, but as clarification.

The other thing that I have, apparently, been misunderstanding is that the MANEUVER ASSESSMENT was added (for clarification?) later, with primary input by Bob Baron, and that it was intended to be a GUIDE for aspiring judging sorts.... the "errors" sections following each maneuver discription are what to look for to be fully compliant with the rules?

See Ya

A contestant should not be penalized for putting a maneuver in the wrong place relative to the wind direction on a day when the wind is constantly changing direction (and has the judges running to all points around the perimeter).

I was kind of the opinion, too, that this was a help in understanding, not a mandate. One would normally start a maneuver down wind, so instead of saying north, south, etc., the rule book description was written as upwind and down wind, with the "into the wind" of the completion of the clover there for clarification as to direction, not specifics.

However, if the judges are being instructed to deduct, etc., this could be a different thing.

I remember at the FAI trials a couple of years ago Warren made the statement that it was up to the contestants to place the judges before the flight, and if they did their maneuvers in a different direction, he WOULD deduct points. He later, after being questioned, retracted that and rephrased as "it would probably lose points", or something like that.

Now, if you are supposed to do it down wind or you will lose points, and you are supposed to do it opposite the judges or you will lose points, isn't this a "Catch 22" situation?

Of course, I have another question that I raise here. I am always of the assumption that we must assume a perfect pattern and deduct points when we see errors. If the judge does not see errors, then how can he assume that the maneuver was anything less than perfect?

I was watching Matt at the Nats a couple of years and one of the judges was marking on his score sheet when Matt entered the hourglass. The judge never looked up until the plane was on its way down from the overhead portion. But the score was very similar to the others. I guess all of the errors he made on that maneuver were on the downward leg only.

When I am competing, I will always point to where I will be doing the mauvers, unless instructed not to(yes, this has happened). When I judge, I tell each flier to point where he will fly, and if he decides to change locations, point again. Now 1 level lap may not be enough time for me to get 180° away, but if the flier has pointed, I will try very hard to see what he does. If he chooses not to point, I do not try as hard.

Under FAI rules of two years ago, there was no moving of the judges at all once you positioned them. If you had to fly in their faces, so be it. But flyers were told their scores would suffer. So, do you fly down wind, or opposite the judges? The choice is up to you.

Agreed, however, that in our system we can and should position the judges. But the way the wind was shifting that day, you could start a maneuver down wind and end up flying it upwind. The best choice that day seemed to position the judges cross wind since it was constantly switching 180 degrees.

(I have often wondered if one could get a huge fan and position it to the backs of the judges on those days when the wind is not cooperating.)

LAST EDITED ON May-22-02 AT 10:23 PM (CST)

Several posts have been made in this thread that I think deserve/require some additional comment. The following comments represent my opinion based on some experience on these matters, and are in no way to be considered as any kind of official AMA or official PAMPA interpretation of the rules.

Rich Peabody makes reference to an article that advocated not flying "maneuvers that you were not as skilled at directly in front of the judges". Since the rulebook only specifies the orientation with the wind for four maneuvers, the flyer has some leeway where to position the remaining maneuvers. At the Nationals and FAI training sessions I have been involved with and in the two clinics I have recently help run, this subject has come up. Instructions to the judges have been that they are not to give a good score if they do not see a good maneuver. That does not mean that they automatically give a particularly low score if they cannot see obvious errors. The judge must still extrapolate from his vantage point how well a maneuver was flown according to the rulebook requirement. If the judge cannot see how accurate a certain angle or shape was flown, he cannot award a particularly good score or particularly poor score. Some flyers may think it is very clever to "disguise" a poor maneuver by not flying it directly in front of the judges. My experience with competent judges is that such a "trick" by the flyer is normally rewarded with a lower score or at least a score no higher than if the maneuver would have been flown in front of the judges downwind. The attitude of the flyer should be to show what he or she can do to favorably impress the judges on how well he or she can fly. The attitude of a flyer that he or she is trying to hide something or make the judges work hard to figure out how to give a good score does not get any extra points. When I judge, such an attitude that may transcend from the center of the circle is not conducive to getting any extra points as a reward.

Then, if there is any wind at all, I cannot see how shifting the maneuvers so the judges cannot see shapes and angles could benefit the flyer. There is some biasing to the wind that some flyers do for various maneuvers, but such biasing is done to minimize the negative aspects of flying in the wind, and normally is not more than to have the "center" of the maneuver being more than a few degrees from the downwind direction. To do more so in any wind would only make the maneuver more difficult to fly.

Larry Cunningham asked about the specific language in the rules where the wind direction is defined. Rich (post #4) responded that the "little arrows" were added at some time. I do not have the background on how or when these arrows were added. What is significant is that now there are arrows in the rulebook.

Reverse Wingovers: There is a "wind arrow" showing where the wingovers start their climb relative to the wind.

Inverted Flight: There is a "wind arrow" to show when the maneuver starts and ends relative to the wind.

Overhead Eights: There is a "wind arrow" to show the direction of the intersections relative to the wind.

The Four Leaf Clover: There are words on the diagram that state the exit of the maneuver is "over top of circle into the wind". The only way this exit can be made is when the center of the Four Leaf Clover is directly downwind.

Now, this gets into the question about whether the "little arrows " are binding since there is no mention of the arrows or wind direction in the written maneuver description. Furthermore, the "Errors" section for each maneuver does not specifically say that not flying with proper orientation to the wind is an error. The fact remains that there is an indication of the wind direction in the drawings on each of the descriptions for these four maneuvers. There is nothing in the rules that says that the verbal description, or the errors section, or the drawing for each maneuver has precedence over the other. Therefore, it seems only logical that any item describing each specific maneuver applies to that maneuver, whether it is in the verbal description, the errors listing or the drawing. Another way to express this would be to determine what basis is there to ignore the arrows/wind direction indicators for these four maneuvers. To ignore these indicators would be arbitrary and could lead to suggesting that other aspects of the maneuver description could also be ignored. This question has been raised in the judges' training session at the Nats and this is the interpretation used.

When I submitted my first post on this thread, I anticipated that there would be some comment about the situation of light and/or shifting winds. Andy Lee (post #5) brought this subject up with a very good comment that "A contestant should not be penalized for putting a maneuver in the wrong place relative to the wind direction on a day when the wind is constantly changing direction?" Andy is exactly right. There are flying fields and wind conditions when the wind can be at the pilot's and judges' backs during a maneuver but the airplane is being blown into the center of the circle. (The Garden State Circle Burners are very aware of this at their field, as are any of the people who fly at Whittier Narrows here on the West Coast. These are two examples where such conditions are notorious.) When those conditions are encountered, the judges generally should assume that the pilot is flying the airplane relative to where the pilot thinks or senses the direction of the wind and is orienting the maneuver accordingly. The General Information provisions of the rulebook provide for such allowances by the judges. (If the judges sense that the pilot is using these conditions only to "hide" deficiencies/errors is another subject and would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.)

Rich Peabody had another comment in his post #4 regarding the maneuver assessment Section 15 of the rulebook. This section is useful in describing many aspects of the PA pattern and it is intended to be used as a guide to how the pattern should be flown. As far as I am aware, there is no conflict between what Section 15 states and what the Flight Maneuvers and Scoring Section 13 contains. Section 13 states specific requirements that define each maneuver and what constitute errors for each maneuver. Disregarding the biases that were written into the Section 15 on Maneuver Assessment, the important thing to remember is that the operative word throughout this section regarding each specific maneuver (Section 15.3) is "should". The words regarding how to score or deduct points are not in terms of "must" or "will" or the other similar yet specific terms used in Section 13.

Indeed, Section 15 is a useful guide and should be carefully studied by any conscientious judge to develop his or her own frame of reference to judge each maneuver of the pattern. Likewise, any serious competitor in the PA event should also study the guide.

Leonard brings up several items in his post #7. I agree somewhat that the wind direction elements were added to help in understanding. But I think the arrows go further in providing a standard so that the judges can have some reasonable and consistent basis to accurately assess these maneuvers from one flight to the next, particularly since any other perspective for these four maneuver (excluding inverted flight) make it very difficult to "see" how well the maneuver is flown and then to properly/fairly assess a score. I think it is particularly important to define exactly where the inverted flight maneuver starts and stops because this is where the "normal level flight" altitude is judged. (The preceding and succeeding two laps for the inverted flight maneuver are not required to be at "normal level flight" altitude -- I do not intend to start another uproar on this one.) I hope I explained a reasonable rational for using the wind arrows as part of the maneuver requirement in a preceding paragraph above.

Leonard made several comments about the FAI Team Trials. The FAI rules are different in that they specifically state that the judges are not to move during the course of one flight. The judges can be asked to move to a new position before the beginning of the flight, but are not to move afterward. (The only reason to support this is that the judges already have a demanding task when they judge at the World Championships where they are required to judge as many as 60 flights a day for 3 days. Constantly moving around the circle could become a serious burden on the already overburdened judges. There is a major rewrite of the FAI rules that would correct at least part of this problem pending consideration and approval, but that is a whole other subject.) I think at the team trials, the judges are essentially told the same thing as at the Nats. A good score cannot be given if a good maneuver is not seen. Likewise, a particularly poor score cannot be given if significant errors are not seen. The judge has to use his best ability to assess what he or she saw and then record a score accordingly. This does not mean that points will automatically be lost, but it means that a high score may not necessarily be awarded.

In his #9 post, Leonard again makes reference to the FAI Team Trials. The FAI rules require the judges to remain in one place during each flight. (I have even heard that at least one judge at a recent World Championships would not even move as requested by pilots at the beginning of their respective flights. This was wrong but was allowed. But this is another subject also.) One could argue, and I would support the argument, that the judges at our FAI Team Trials should move relative to wind shifts during a flight. We are looking for the best flyers to represent the U.S., not necessarily the flyers who had the best luck that day regarding wind shifts. The judges should position themselves throughout the flight to best observe and fairly assess/score each flight. Hopefully, the FAI rules changes will be in place prior to the next World Championships and some of these problems will go away.

As a matter of interest, I think one of the better changes being proposed in the new FAI rules proposal is to eliminate the K-factor scoring and allow the judges to score each maneuver from 0 to 10 in 0.1-point (as in one-tenth point) increments (which essentially allows for a 100 point spread for each maneuver). I think there was an improvement with the FAI rules when they did away with the individual K-factors for each element of each maneuver (as in a separate K-factor for each loop of the consecutive loops and for each eight of the consecutive eights). Then, there was an even more definite improvement in the FAI scoring system when 0.5-point increments were adopted for scoring 0 to 10 for each maneuver. I really think the elimination of the K factor and using 0.1-point increments will be good if adopted. Maybe, if these new FAI rules are adopted, there would be more incentive to hold contests here in the U.S using FAI rules. (No BOM, no Appearance Points, no Pattern Points.)

Does the (frequently performed by an Intermediate flyer) act of beginning the wingover, and quite frequently the overhead 8's, downwind constitute an attempt? Or a zero?

What about biasing maneuvers? I seems to me that about half of the top flyers bias maneuvers, and I believe that, if performed correctly, it improves their presentation......

See Ya

Good Question, I was reading the whole thread, ready to ask the same quetion till I saw yours. I think biasing is fine at the home field, but at a contest, I tend to put everything as downwind as I am capable. I'm always afraid that biasing will take away from the pattern's over-all flow to the judges view. I've watched a lot of patterns flown with errors (including lots in mine! But I'm working on it!) and I see a tendency for the judging to be better on a patterns that flows together, and thats what I try for. I guess the judges get a more confident feeling about someones abilities from someone whose level flight is static between stunts, and entries and exits are equal, with similar amounts of inertia on the turns and so on that they score better. On an aside, I've heard that a dead on wingover at the begiining will help the over-all flight score, and it may be subltle, but I also think this is true.
EricV

Sheesh!

I thought wine show judging was difficult!! Bring on the next bracket of big reds!

>Sheesh!
>
>I thought wine show judging was
>difficult!! Bring on the
>next bracket of big reds!
>
>
> Geoff

Hey, man. This is really important stuff. I think Bush gets a briefing on the state of the stunt every morning right after his security briefing.

Couple of comments, nonetheless.

Keith made a good point about wishing the FAI could make some changes and I share his hopes. One of the difficult things about the WCs as they stand now is that the days are insufferably long. One circle with over a hundred contestants and you end up with a mere two qualifying rounds taking the better part of three sun-up to sun-down days. That the judges might get tired of chasing around the circle is understandable. That is not to say that is a good reason. This is an administrative problem that should be addressed by a restructuring of the WC format to more closely approximate the way we handle our nats. Another problem for another day.

Biasing: I am a firm advocate of biasing in order to produce the very best maneuvers of which a pilot is capable. I think it is a BIG mistake to practice with bias and then try to fly contests straight downwind. the difference in aircraft performance in the two instance can be dramatic and I can almost guarantee you'll not give your best performance to the judges if you do this.

Biasing is not a problem ruleswise. The two laps between maneuvers is addressed as "nominal" which allows for minor variations in the starting point. I think you'll find that only a handful of the top flyers (if that many) don't bias their maneuvers in pretty much any sort of wind.

Overall, I think somebody mentioned in an earlier thread the desireability from the flyer's point of view of concentrating your attention on the flying aspects and letting the judges do the judging thing. I think their is a huge tendency to try to "outthink" the rulebook when the energy thus expended can be put to better use to simply fly better.

AAAAMMMMEEEENNNN Ted!!! Three cheers and a big BUD from the front row pew.
Bigiron

Ted,

I've heard you tell me and others many times to not worry about the judges, worry about my flying. I certainly believe in this. My job, as a pilot, it to fly the pattern to the best of my ability. The judges job is to judge that ability (ouch). Seems I have enough to worry about just getting my plane the fly the way I want it to. I just solder, sir.

>Does the (frequently performed by an
>Intermediate flyer) act of beginning
>the wingover, and quite frequently
>the overhead 8's, downwind constitute
>an attempt? Or a
>zero?

The skill level of the flyer has no bearing on the application of the rules. The same rules apply to the Intermediate, Advanced and Expert skill classes. The Beginner class has its own separate rules that apply.

I think the rule that applies to the question about improperly beginning a wingover or the overhead eights from any position other than the upwind position is found in Paragraph 11 of the rulebook. " ...entering or exiting a maneuver in any way other than is illustrated in the maneuver section ... will result in a loss of pattern points." Then in Paragraph 11.2: "The model enters the starting point of any maneuver but that maneuver is not fully completed. The attempted/incomplete maneuver shall be awarded a minimum score of 10."

If the wingover and/or the overhead eights are not flown as "illustrated in the maneuver section" then pattern points will be lost. Since the maneuver section illustrates the orientation of these two maneuvers relative to the wind, I think it is clear that pattern points would be lost if either of these two maneuvers are started from any location other than the upwind point of the circle.

Now to the question if initiating either of these maneuvers from the downwind portion of the circle should constitute an attempt or should be a zero. This borders on the area of the subjective nature of judging the PA event and is probably one of the reasons that judges get paid such big bucks for what they do. In my opinion, the intent of Paragraph 11.2 is that if any maneuver was initiated in any manner that could be recognized as the beginning of that maneuver, regardless where it is started or how poorly the maneuver is executed, then at least 10 points should be recorded for that maneuver. In fact, if the maneuver is completed in a manner that is recognizable as that maneuver, then a score greater than 10 should be given. In my opinion, the initiation of the wingovers or the overhead eights from the downwind side of the circle represents a monumental error and points will be deducted from the maximum 40 point score accordingly. So the completed maneuver would get at least the 10-point minimum, possibly more depending on how well the judge can determine the rest of the maneuver is performed. However, pattern points will be lost if the entry is not in accordance with the maneuver description.

(The rules were changed several years ago to include the words in Paragraph 11 about loosing pattern points if any maneuver is not flown and completed as illustrated in the rulebook. I think it is unfortunate that the rules were changed in this way. I know for a fact that the person who basically designed the current pattern did not intend for the rulebook to be changed in this way. If anybody is interested, I will tell the story why I believe this to be so. Indeed, the rules were considered by some to be vague, so a change was made. But the wording could have been changed just as easily to clarify that a flight would still be eligible for pattern points even if a maneuver was only attempted or improperly flown. A pilot will already be penalized by a low score for a poorly or improperly executed maneuver. Loosing pattern points then further penalizes the pilot. The pattern point bonus is to award the pilot with performing the maneuvers in a consistent order which is to make the job of judging somewhat easier by knowing what each maneuver is supposed to be. This is off topic, but I think it is interesting and could be the basis for further discussion and a possible rules change proposal.)

>What about biasing maneuvers? I
>seems to me that about
>half of the top flyers
>bias maneuvers, and I believe
>that, if performed correctly, it
>improves their presentation......
>
>See Ya
>
>peabody

I am not sure what the question is. I am assuming the question is in regard to biasing various maneuvers such that their centers are not precisely in the downwind point of the circle. I think the correct response is that there is nothing in the rulebook that even suggests that "biasing maneuvers" is not allowed or is in anyway an error.

Other than the four maneuvers previously discussed in this thread (inverted flight, wingovers, overhead eights, and the four leaf clover) the rule book does not specify or illustrate how each maneuver is to be oriented with respect to the wind. Some pilots will bias the position of other maneuvers relative to the wind more than other pilots. There is nothing in the rulebook that would require any loss of points for doing so. It should be pointed out only one judge could possibly be in the position that is directly upwind from the center of the circle. Any judge who is not precisely on the opposite side of the circle, as in exactly centered from where a particular maneuver is flown, will observe that maneuver from a "biased" position. Essentially, almost every judge will view almost every maneuver throughout every flight from a biased position. In other words, any judge will not likely be in the optimum position to view every maneuver. Furthermore, since the judge is on the outside of the circle, he or she cannot see the exact shape of the flight path on the surface of the hemisphere. It is incumbent upon the judge to extrapolate in his mind what he sees and compare that to what would be a rulebook execution for each maneuver based on his location relative to where the maneuver is flown.

I do not see that any purpose would be served by penalizing a pilot if he or she starts the wingovers a "few degrees" off of dead upwind or if the intersections of the overhead eights are a few degrees from the downwind direction. (But once the heading is established during the path through the first overhead eight intersection, that same heading must be maintained for each of the succeeding intersections of that maneuver.) The judges (except for possibly one) will not be in line to accurately determine if the flight path at the intersections is exactly in line with the prevailing wind. (Another subject: A judge can fairly accurately determine if the airplane achieves the same heading for all the intersections of the overhead eight, even if that heading is not exactly aligned with the wind direction or if the judge is not exactly lined up with that heading. As I said, that is another subject and outside the scope of, though pertinent to, this response.)

If the question is different than what I assumed, please explain.

I have a question for you, Keith, and maybe we should start a thread on "judging" to try to get some answers to specific questions. But you brought up a reminder of an "incident" that happened a few years ago.

Just as Matt was flying through the intersection of the last loop on the clover he had a sudden and violent flame out on the engine. (We later determined it was a failed plug.)

But here is the scenario: He flew accurately through the final intersection on the clover when the engine quit. There was not enough momentum to carry the plane over the top into the wind, so he quickly backed up and brought the plane around to the left maybe somewhere towards the top of the upper left loop. He brought the plane around, whipped it the required two laps, and landed. One judge gave him a minimum 10 points on the clover. One gave him about 25. Both awarded pattern points.

I asked about this afterwards and my question then, as now, was for clarification only. Awarding or not awarding the points on that flight was not going to affect his position in the standings (there was another flight, after all.)

One judge deducted points because he had inaccurately completed the maneuver (missed the top of the circle in exiting). The other judge gave him 10 points only as an "attempt" since he did not exit the maneuver in the "prescribed" fashion over the top and into the wind. So, obviously, it was a "split decision".

Now, my question. Since you reference this as one of the prescribed maneuvers that must exit in reference to the wind, and since it is to be completed at the top of the circle, how much does one demand this for completion and how much does one simply deduct points for inaccuracy?

My feeling is that points should be deducted for inaccuracy, but, of course, we will have difference of opinions from many judges.

If a person does a wingover as prescribed, but instead of hitting the 90 degree point overhead he "leans" the wingover at 80 degrees, he still scores points from probably every judge around. How far can the "lean" go and still score? At 45 degrees we will probably lose judges. At 40, at 30, well, at some point we will lose them all.

In the clover, we are supposed to exit into the wind, over the top (my words) at the 90 degree point overhead. But if we were to exit at 80 degrees, it would be a complete maneuver but with an error so noted. Without having seen the execution, how do you think you would score what I described? It was a full four leaf clover with full power through the final intersection. The engine quit and he did not bring the plane cleanly over the 90 degree point, but, obviously cleared the 45 degree point clean and probably made it as far as 70 or 80 when he "leaned" it over. Since he did not make it to the exact top, did he lose the maneuver, or should he just lose points?

(Oh, don't you just love these quizzes?) Your turn.

Keith,

I thought you answered that question in another thread. I recall the answer to be that the manuver was scored for points, but since it was not exited exactly as prescribed by the rules, then loss of pattern points applied. I forget what rules number you quoted 11 something I believe?

Hello,

I have the impression that some features of the maneuvres are best judged from another location than upwind. e.g. the 45 degree elevation can much easier be judged from the side (e.g. 90 degrees on the wind direction) The bottoms and intersections can best be judged by someone standing downwind, when the model is passing nearby.
So why are we not positioning the judges round the circle, each 120 degrees seperated (3 judges) or 72 degrees (5 judges). This would also garantee isolation from the other judges hence no possibility to influence one another.
It is up to the individual judge to give a score for the features he CAN observe. The other features are supposed to be dealt with by the other judges.

A disadvantage: Judging will be a lonely task!!

(I know, creative people should be stoppped...)

Regards,
Paul

P.S. Stuntnews for ever!!!

Paul:

The late Bob Baron proposed stationing someone at the side to determine 45's. It adds a huge amount of work to a CD / ED, especially on "local contest" days...... it's tough to find two experienced judges, adding a third increases that task more than arithmatically, I would imagine. There would be additional work for the tabulators, too, as I would imagine that either a raw score would be added to the total, or, worse, a multiplier used?

I would wager that the guys that fly the best shapes would still come out on top.... they are the ones that fly closest to 45 anyhow, in most cases. Our flight routine performs maneuvers that are named for shapes....

See Ya

>I have the impression that some
>features of the maneuvres are
>best judged from another location
>than upwind. e.g. the 45
>degree elevation can much easier
>be judged from the side
>(e.g. 90 degrees on the
>wind direction) The bottoms and
>intersections can best be judged
>by someone standing downwind, when
>the model is passing nearby.
>
>So why are we not positioning
>the judges round the circle,
>each 120 degrees seperated (3
>judges) or 72 degrees (5
>judges). This would also garantee
>isolation from the other judges
>hence no possibility to influence
>one another.
>It is up to the individual
>judge to give a score
>for the features he CAN
>observe. The other features are
>supposed to be dealt with
>by the other judges.

This has been discussed before in other forums. I would be interested to hear from anybody who has actually run a contest by positioning any judge at any location other than upwind of the circle. (This discussion is based on a constant wind direction. Judges will shift relative to wind direction changes is assumed.)

During training flights for the judges at the Nationals and the FAI Team Trials, we have positioned a judge at the crosswind location of the circle (where the judge would be facing into the circle, 90-degrees to the wind). The purpose of doing this is to be able to tell the other judges how close the maneuvers were flown to the 45-degree elevation requirements. The experience we have had with this is that the crosswind judge cannot see any of the shapes of any maneuver except for the takeoff, level flight and landing. Furthermore, even when the judge is at the crosswind location, he or she would generally not be in the optimum position to see the top elevation of every 45-degree maneuver due to the fact that the top of these maneuvers will not normally be precisely centered on the downwind point of the circle. The reason for this is that almost of the loops of any round maneuver will be biased from the downwind location. Even in the square maneuvers, there is only an instant where the cross wind judge would see the true angle (actually only a near true angle) of the lines? elevation, and that is difficult to discern. I know of only a few people who have actually tried this (myself included) and to my knowledge, they have a problem with actually determining how close the tops of the maneuvers are to the 45-degree elevation, even when using a large 45-degree placard to measure the line elevation at the top of a maneuver. (There is a similar problem with seeing how close the pilot gets to the "38-degree" elevation of the start and the horizontal intersection of the four leaf clover.) The crosswind judge is not in a position to properly assess ANY portion of the overhead eight.

So if there is a crosswind judge, should he score every maneuver, even though he is not in any kind of an optimum position to see the shape of any maneuver and really is not in a position to accurately determine how well the 45-degree elevations are flown? If he were to mark only on elevations, how would his mark or score be factored into the overall total score for the flight? Having a crosswind judge would not improve the accuracy of how a pattern is judged.

Maybe I am missing something here, but I do not think any judge could see or assess the bottoms any better on the downwind side as from the upwind side. And I do not think any judge could see or assess the intersections as well from the downwind side as from the upwind side, particularly the intersections of the vertical eights and the horizontal intersection of the four leaf clover. A judge from the downwind side cannot possibly see the overall shape and size of the maneuvers as well as a judge from the upwind side of the circle. Having a downwind judge would not improve the accuracy of how a pattern is judged.

An experienced judge, or a properly trained judge, can be fairly accurate in determining the size of a maneuver that is flown within the 45-degree elevations that define most of the maneuvers of the pattern even if the maneuvers are skewed or biased from the dead downwind direction. The best location to do this is from the upwind side of the circle. There is a way to do this, but to describe the method here is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Relative to the comment about guaranteeing judge isolation: Judges do not need to be isolated to assure there is no inappropriate communication between them. In my experience, there is no communication between the judges regarding how any flight is being scored, even with seven judges standing side-by-side. Furthermore, when a flight is being scored, there is not time to have any kind of dialogue between judges.

Rich Peabody's comments in his post #21 above are appropriate. (I do agree with Rich on occassion.) I could add that if another judge is recruited to view the pattern from the crosswind location, his or her effort would be best utilized by being placed on the upwind side of the circle with the other judge or judges, and use the additional score to average with the others.

And Rich is entirely correct that the pilots who fly the best shapes and sizes will still normally come out on top, regardless where the judges are located, so why should the judges be located at any location other than where they can best view the entire pattern.

I know that Bob Baron proposed a method that would use separate judges for intersections, heights and shapes. He wrote an article on this in the July 1982 issue of Flying Models. Each of these three judges were to be placed "to best see his portion of the competitive pattern". Each judge scored each maneuver from 0 to 10, then the scores were combined using different K factors for each maneuver. It is a comparatively complex system and according to the article had been used during a contest in 1979. I do not know if there was any further development of this idea. It does give something for those who are interested to explore further.