Level Flight Scoring

I got talked into judging recently and a question came up on scoring level flight(either upright or inverted). What would a reasonble score for level flight where the plane stays between 4-6 feet but you can see some corrections?
My thinking is:
smooth, no detectable corrections, no visible change in height(less than 1 foot total variation) 35 plus
4-6 feet with visible variations but no visible corrections 30-35
4-6 feet with visible corrections 25-30
Outside 4-6 feet, 20-25
etc.

You are going to be a tough judge. Get outside the 4-6 foot range. Lots of guys were at the Nats. Ouch!

>You are going to be a tough judge. Get outside the 4-6 foot
>range. Lots of guys were at the Nats. Ouch!

I got a 40 on inverted flight at the Nats. Never got a 40 before.

ferocious: Going by your first set of criteria, (which you have as a 35+) I would score that a 39 or 40. I have given out plenty of 39s (can't recall a 40, but that doesn't mean I won't) for level or inverted flight. Leonard is correct; in that you must also watch for contestants flying too high or too low. Don't be hesitant in giving someone a high score if they have earned it. It can be quite frustrating as a contestant to get consistently low scores from a judge no matter how good you fly.

Like Brad, I also received a 40 from one judge on inverted flight at the Nats, and a 40 on one of my landings. Though the rest of my Nats was quite frustrating, those two scores brought a smile to my face.

I've been told before that I am a tough stunt judge. But I think we ought to go by the book and give realistic scores esp. since they are the basis of moving from one class to another. I have no problem giving high scores- in fact at the same meet I handed out some 38-39 scores for level flight and a few other maneuvers. The problem is not recoginizing a dynamite maneuver when you see it. I have a bigger problem in the middle ranges, 20-30 pts. as to what combination of mistakes should give what score.

I can't see giving over 30 to level flight that goes outside the 4-6 range. Missing the height, going outside 4-6ft, and making obvious corrections are really the only "mistakes" there are. Level flight with more than one mistake I really think ought to be under 30 pts.

Anyway, having point ranges for various errors in the judges guide might be a really good way to keep scores more consistent. When you watch the various skill classes at a meet it is pretty obvious what the various mistakes are- beginners are doing good just to complete recognizable maneuvers in the right sequence, Intermediate you start seeing some decent maneuvers, but usually they are too high with a lot of height variation and inconsistency between maneuvers, advanced the maneuvers start getting good shapes, the heights come down, expert everything looks pretty good and your mainly trying to pick out one or two point differences and catch an real bloopers. It is easy to get in a rut judging expert and not downgrade enough when they bobble a corner, open things up, soften a corner, or miss heights, etc.

Well, I would have to agree with you're scale of judging on level flight, my only problem is with the way people persieve each other.
It is impossible for someone who has never flown before to fly a few perfect laps, I dont think so, so should they recieve a perfect score?
Well,OF COURSE THEY SHOULD. I dont mean to rock the boat, but anyone may fly a perfect manuver, so why should they not get a perfect score? On the other hand, if I or any other expert completely
blows a manuver should we not get a low score (10-20)?
This is my first entry, and it may be a little blunt, but I am tired of points being given on the skill level of the flyer and not the manuver. I have want'ed to right something on judging for a few years,
I just did not know if it was appropriate. There have been many questions on the reliability of judges opinions, and the only way for
everything to be fair would be for computers to do the judging. We all know that will never happen,so know we must trust the compitance of the people we pick to judge. Should we have some prerequisite for anyone who is judging (especialy at a important event)....I really hate to address this, but I do think it is time!
I would have to say that 80% of all judges are volentires so how can you criticise them? This is a question that I have know answer for. I do know one thing, this is a hobby and it is supposed to be fun, and it seems as if some of us have lost track of that.

For a last note.....all of the people I have met over the years are my family, I treasure you like brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers and I wish the best for all of you!

I make it a point never to look at my scores during or after a contest. I immediately know what I did wrong. Worrying over a few points here or there is a sure trip to an early ulcer.

Relax and have fun. If you want frustration, take up golf.

One of my goals in CL Stunt, a goal not realized to date, is to gather up a few of my RC Pattern brethren and have them judge all classes of PA at a local contest. And--important point!--feature festival seating for all entrants; no separate classes where there is a huge clue as to what range each contestant has flown in over the past year or so.

Following the contest it would be no big deal to break all entrants into their skill classes and assign class winners.

I say this because I will admit to NOT being a skilled judge, nor am I often asked to judge. (Yes, Larry, the two points might well be related.) In such a situation one must take his reponsibilities most seriously and I tend to think the most important thing is not raw scores but a proper ranking of all fliers within a certain group. With that as the top priority it then comes down to historically what is the proper range for each group. Look, Advanced is 400- to 500-point territory; 30 points per will put the guy right at 480. So I tend to look at each Advanced flier's maneuvers as deviating from 28 to 30 points in the positive or negative direction.

Is that wrong? Yes, of course. Especially in the big picture view of things where we like to see advancement through the ranks rewarding those who deserve it. And there is the chance of completely missing a really solid maneuever, something I don't believe I have done. Example: Bob Smiley is now at the stage where he is fully capable of flying a near-Expert quality maneuver, even though it may be bracketed by a couple totally bogus figures; and I didn't miss his Good Stuff last time--the only time, actually--that I judged his flights in Arlington.

Said loudly: We have real good judges here in the NW. Truth. Said in a whisper: As I have sometimes maintained in public, by and large an easy way to pick up another 15-20 points is simply to enter the next highest class.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-25-03 AT 08:26 PM (CDT)
 
>One of my goals in CL Stunt, a goal not realized to date, is
>to gather up a few of my RC Pattern brethren and have them
>judge all classes of PA at a local contest. And--important
>point!--feature festival seating for all entrants; no
>separate classes where there is a huge clue as to what range
>each contestant has flown in over the past year or so.
>
>Following the contest it would be no big deal to break all
>entrants into their skill classes and assign class winners.
>

>Said loudly: We have real good judges here in the NW. Truth.
>Said in a whisper: As I have sometimes maintained in public,
>by and large an easy way to pick up another 15-20 points is
>simply to enter the next highest class.
>
>Dan Rutherford

Hey Danny,

For the last few years, we've used a format that has all fliers of all classes flying before the same judges. Of course, our lower entires allowed us to do so, but up to a point, and given the circles to fly on, a large contest would run faster with multiple circles, and class judges.

The guys here enjoy the mass flying though as it allows them to see exactly where they stand on that given day and conditions. I also believe we are seeing better judging, as the judges may not know the class of a flier. Too often, we who judge fall into the trap of assuming, a set mean level of scoring based on the class of the flier.
I'm as guilty as anyone.

At the Regionals, I had to keep kicking myself to get out of the habit. It's scary though to give a top dog a low score for a manuever, while giving a guy flying a 1/2A top scores. I'm glad you weren't having a BBQ, as I might have had to hide out.

Have to agree aboutthe 15 to 20 extra points. Moving up inclass is the easiest way to get them.

Back to the original post.

In the first question, first example, according to the rule book, The points should be quite high. I'd start at 40 points and work down.

I'm wondering why everything is spinning around?

John Miller

I have to agree whole heartily with this statement. I was told that no way could someone in Intermediate get as high a score as someone in Advanced. I still don't know why that is. Every maneuver starts at 40 points or whatever the top score is for that maneuver. Then each error committed is subtracted. How much per error???? Someone on here stated they use a lap counter and "click" each error and subtract that from the max per maneuver. That makes sense to me. Even I can do a few maneuvers in the 35 plus range. No enough, but some. Eventually a person in intermediate is going to get a series of very high scores. Isn't that how he/she advances to the next level, or do we just go there on our own, to get those "extra 25 " points????? I will get there by dint of my scores, not by just up and entering the next level at some future contest.

I agree totally that you should score by the pattern you fly, not by the class in which you are flying. If you do a good maneuver, it should score accordingly. If you do a poor maneuver, it should, also, score accordingly. However, the idea of clicking off for each error is erroneous. Doing a square eight, for instance has a lot more places and possibilities for making errors than a square loop, for instance. And an hourglass, well, you have four corners, four sides, and a top and a bottom. Does that mean that you have ten possible errors and a minimum of 30 points? You get the idea. On the square eight with 17 corners, 16 sides, plus tops and bottoms for each "loop"--make that eight more error points--we could get into negative numbers here quite quickly. And, remember, sides can be too long or short as well as angled or curved, hmmm, we might get three points off for just one side. Maybe we can deduct 120 on this one. But the original hypothesis here, inverted flight. If a person flew too high or two low, but held it perfectly level all the way, I don't think he should automatically be dumped below 20 points any more than a person who gets the bottom of a loop too high or too low is penalized in that way. Now a person who is bobbling up and down, up and down, all the way, that is a different story. Even one excursion "out of the box" shouldn't drop it that much.

We don't have points defined for errors and maybe some day someone will so define them in a way that we can all understand and agree. But for the moment we are still stuck with subjectivity.

The fact that Ferocious "volunteered" to judge a contest is GREAT.
I think the problem is that not enough judges (or contestants)read the rule book. inverted flight is supposed to be 2 laps smooth and stable; errors height not between 3.9 and 5.9 feet , vertical height varies more than 2 feet.
That leaves a lot of room to be smooth in.
Andrew Raney

Derek,

Glad to hear from you and agree with you on the some of the problems in judging stunt . We need to keep this event fun , but it is still competition , and need to be judged fairly , according to the flyers ability and not the skill class that he is flying in .

Will Davis

LAST EDITED ON Aug-26-03 AT 07:08 AM (CDT)
 
>However,
>the idea of clicking off for each error is erroneous.

I don't think it's as erroneous as you think Len. Mainly because there is a 10 point minimum score for each manuver. I would also use multiplers if I were to do this. I would have to think on this a little more, but for level laps you could subtract 5 points for every click and when judging some of the more difficult manuvers you could subtract 1 to .5 points per click.

I'm with Ty this seems like a logical way to help a judge score.

regards,
Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

btw some judges might get nintendo thumb clicking my hourglass!!!
But at least I'd get 10 points

IMHO, This is really a compound question. Level flight and Inverted flight are obviously two different manuvers. But there is no "level flight" There is Takeoff and level flight combined as one 40 pointer. A proper "rule book" takeoff is tough and then (by the book) you fly level to establish your bottoms and entry exit points for the following manuvers. It is harder to score a 40 on the Takeoff and level flight because there are so many components to the figure.

Inverted flight only has one component. Inverted, between 4-6 feet. Varying slightly (upwind / downwind) but keeping between 4-6 feet should be a 40 according to the book. Some guys can keep it on a rail and some guys fight to keep it between the stated altitudes. BUT, by the book, they are both 40 pointers. There are no bonus points for "on a rail" and conversley should be no deductions for wandering between 4-6 feet.

I actually mentioned this in one of my columns in SN. (If anyone out there is not a member of PAMPA then you should become one as of today) There is a good deal of information in the Judges guide section of the AMA rule book following the description of the figures. I think it would be a good idea for the competitors and certainly the judges to memorize this section.

Am giving this soap box a good swift kick to put it back under the bench. (I could go on for a while on this one)

AMA rulebook, CLPA "9.1. Scoring shall be based on the apearance of the model and THE DEGREE OF PERFECTION with which maneuvers are performed." On rails is more perfect than climb and dive within the 2-ft limit so it gets more points, at least when I judge.

Hey big Jim,

We will talk about this more in Dallas this weekend. Don't really want to start the Hullabollu that I did earlier!

Later, John:+

>AMA rulebook, CLPA "9.1. Scoring shall be based on the
>apearance of the model and THE DEGREE OF PERFECTION with
>which maneuvers are performed." On rails is more perfect
>than climb and dive within the 2-ft limit so it gets more
>points, at least when I judge.

Yeah, Jim. Me, too.

While you can certainly interpret the rule to mean wandering between the four and six foot level is as good as dead on four; five; or six feet with no variation, to do so defies common sense. Such an interpretation simply fails the logic test. The name of the maneuver is "level" flight.

The fact that "normal level flight" is defined as between four and six feet is one thing. To suggest that a lap that varies within those limits is as "level" as one that stays at precisely the same level--a level within the allowed range--for the whole lap is illogical. Certainly, wandering up and down but within the "limits" could justify a high score, but certainly never a perfect score inasmuch as the next guy/gal might well vary less than a foot...or not at all to the naked eye.

Such a distinction is especially important in AMA scoring in which the degree of perfection of inverted flight may equal in points the performance of a highly demanding maneuver such as the square eight or hourglass. When simple maneuvers can count as much as the tougher ones it makes sense that judges must be willing to view the simple maneuver with great criticality in order to well define the difference in performance between the good, the very good, and the near perfect.

Hi All, As the one who took Ferocious to task and also the one who recruited him to judge I feel compelled to reveal a debate which he and I have lived since I began my Stunt career in 1985. When "level" is flown in Phil's viewing and the pilot induces any I mean ANY discernabble handdle input to the system, Phil sees this as an "error" or demerit to be ddown graded. I disagree and will always do so! Others speak of a tolerance of from 4 to 6 feet... I am speaking in terms of inches! To me this results in excessive downgrading. Oh well and then there is the group of judges who see all maneuvers as being worth 25 to 28. This inflexible type of scoring no matter what the motivation and is non-judging. In the spring of 2002 "Big" Art came to Cleveland and conducted a judging clinic. It proved to be most helpful and taught me to view the maneuver as an entity unto itself. If judging a Beginner who presents a 35 pionter by God he deserves the points; and by the same token if an Expert really presents a clunker the Expert should be scored a clunker maneuver! As a judge learning his way I have found that going to the higher circle and trying to "score" the pattern as presented just to myself and then, if possible, comparing my "pretend" scores is a learning experience. No pilot can tryly criticise a judges' efforts until the pilot has tried the judging thing himself! It is truly a learning experience.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-03 AT 08:24 AM (CDT)
 
>While you can certainly interpret the rule to mean wandering
>between the four and six foot level is as good as dead on
>four; five; or six feet with no variation, to do so defies
>common sense. Such an interpretation simply fails the logic
>test. The name of the maneuver is "level" flight.

Good answer.

A little common sense in the enterpretation of the rulebook is always warranted.

As I see it, the rules allow you to fly in a box that is four feet base to 6 feet ceiling. An aircontroller will tell you to fly at 4 feet 6 inches. That is your level flight altitude and you are not to vary from it. In private aviation we are told to fly at a level plus or minus 500 feet depending on the direction of flight and are not to vary more than 50 feet from that altitude, correct? Same here, pick an altitude such as five feet and stay at five feet for 720 degrees. Staying within 4 to 6 feet is not level flight. The level flight must take place between 4 to 6 feet, but level, not varying up and down between these altitudes.

>IMHO, This is really a compound question. Level flight and
>Inverted flight are obviously two different manuvers. But
>there is no "level flight" There is Takeoff and level
>flight combined as one 40 pointer. A proper "rule book"
>takeoff is tough and then (by the book) you fly level to
>establish your bottoms and entry exit points for the
>following manuvers.

Incorrect and incorrect. Wandering doesn't get a 40. There is no "establiching height" mentioned anywhere
It is harder to score a 40 on the
>Takeoff and level flight because there are so many
>components to the figure.
>
>Inverted flight only has one component. Inverted, between
>4-6 feet. Varying slightly (upwind / downwind) but keeping
>between 4-6 feet should be a 40 according to the book. Some
>guys can keep it on a rail and some guys fight to keep it
>between the stated altitudes. BUT, by the book, they are
>both 40 pointers. There are no bonus points for "on a rail"
>and conversley should be no deductions for wandering between
>4-6 feet.

Jim and Ted have already correctly pointed out the problem with wandering +- 2 feet. It certainly doesn't say that anywhere between 4 and 6 feet is "perfect" in the judges guide...

Additionally, I can find nothing anywhere that says the level flight altitude "establishes the bottom height" for the rest of the pattern. Could you give us a paragraph number?

If this is really true, then I think I will be climbing to 15 feet in level flight, take my hit in points on the takeoff for "too high", then fly all the other maneuvers at 15 feet, too, and can't be dinged for it. This is the inescapable end of this logic - if you try to dock points for all the subsequent maneuvers being at 15 feet, then you aren't using the "establishes level flight altitude" rule.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-26-03 AT 10:51 PM (CDT)
 
> A proper "rule book"
>takeoff is tough and then (by the book) you fly level to
>establish your bottoms and entry exit points for the
>following manuvers.
>
>
> There are no bonus points for "on a rail"
>and conversley should be no deductions for wandering between
>4-6 feet.
>

John,

You said that you did not want to start "the Hullabollu" that you did earlier, but the microphone has been turned on. Some comments are appropriate.

Nowhere in the rulebook is there any statement of reference that the level flight portion of the takeoff maneuver establishes the "bottoms and entry exit points for the following maneuvers". Each maneuver is defined in the rulebook as to where the bottoms are and where it is to be entered and exited. These descriptions for each maneuver after the takeoff have nothing to do with how high, or how low, or how well, or how poorly the takeoff and its level flight portion of the maneuver was performed. By your comment, one would think that if the level flight laps of the takeoff maneuver were precisely at 4 feet, the bottoms and entry/exit points (for those appropriate maneuvers) should be precisely 4 feet. Or if these level laps were at 8 feet, then would it be OK or is it required that the bottoms and entry/exit points must be at 8 feet? What happens if the level flight varies between say 3 and 9 feet? (I have often judged when advanced flyers do this and I have seen expert flyers do this.) How does this establish those subsequent bottoms and the entry/exit points for the following maneuvers?

Instead, let me suggest that a judge should follow the description in the rulebook for each maneuver and assess the bottoms and how close the pilot enters and exits each maneuver as described by the rulebook for each individual maneuver, regardless of how the level laps of the takeoff maneuver were performed.

The better pilots will consistently enter and exit the maneuvers at the prescribed altitudes. The really better pilots will consistently enter/exit at very close to the same altitude throughout the pattern, for example at something very close and always at 5 feet. They should be scored only on how well thay flew each maneuver according to the rulebook description. That same individual maneuver score has nothing to do whatsoever with the altitude maintained (even if he did it "perfectly") during the level laps of the takeoff maneuver. By your own discussion regarding level laps, it is perfectly acceptable for the pilot to enter/exit one manevuer at 4.5 feet and enter/exit another manuever at 6 feet to get equally high scores on each manevuer - at least there should be no deduction for flying different bottom altitudes or entry/exit altitudes in different maneuvers, keeping in mind that the prescribed altitudes need to be consistent during each individual maneuver.

There have been sevaral clinics and several guidelines written that speak of this concept where the initial level laps establish the bottoms and the entry/exit alttudes of successive maneuvers. I strongly think this is incorrect. It leads to too many complications regarding what is appropriate and not appropriate for the remainder of the flight. It is tantamount to having a different standard to judge bottom altitudes for every flight. Again, there is nothing in the rulebook that specifies this. Each maneuver should be judged on how well it conforms to the desctription in the rulebook - nothing more - nothing less.

John, you are correct that there are no bonus points for flying the level laps (upright and inverted) "on a rail". However, the pilot who does fly his level laps "on a rail", for example 4.5 feet, is flying more precisely than the pilot who does vary altitude between 4 and 6 feet. The pilot who flew a more precise maneuver should be scored higher than the pilot who was not as precise. The more precise pilot gets no bonus points, but the less precise pilot should not be scored as high. This is in accordance with the rules as explained by Jim Thomerson in his post #15 and further amplified by Ted Fancher and Brett Buck in their posts above.

Things to think about.

First, this is a great discussion. I happen to agree with Ted, Brett, Jim and Kieth. All of you have made very valid and correct observations. When I started this mess over a year ago, it was with the intent of getting these things out on the table instead of just being griped about around the pools, in motel rooms or over dinner. My purpose was to get the people who judge to think and also to make the entrants understand the difficulty of this process. The only things that aren't subjective in this process are the pull test and the 8 minute rule. We have all experienced what we considered to be great judging and then we have also had some experiences we didn't consider to be the best.

Pancho made a great point in post # 18. "each maneuver should be judged as an entity". Too many times, in my observation, a contestant will do the first few figures and be awarded a score. Then the subsequent figures are judged as either better or worse than those scores and usually within a very narrow range. IMHO this is both lazy and incorrect.

As far as my statement about "establishing level flight" You are all correct. It doesn't say that specificaly! However, in the illustrations for every figure (except the overhead eight) the little plane is at 1.5 meters and so my mind extrapolated that to mean that correct level flight is established on the takeoff and that is where the figures should be flown "bottoms and entry points". Deveation from this should be downgraded. Someone who flys level at 15 feet and then makes all his bottoms there is not going to score well with me.

If we assume that the score for each figure is 40 and then downgrade for errors: 13.4 Inverted flight, Errors: height is not 1.2-1.8 meters (3.9-5.9feet). Height varies more than 0.6 meter (2 feet). If you don't commit any errors, then why not 40?

Fast forward: 15.3.4. Inverted flight. "...award a high score if the ship simply motors around at 5 feet...emphasis from a scoring standpoint should be should be on how well altitude is maintained." I do reserve the 40s for the on the rail guy but 35-38 is not (IMHO)out of the question for the "wanderer" if he/she doesn't commit any errors according to 13.4.

I think it all boils down to a fairly simple thing. When I enter a contest, I hope the judges pay attention to my attempts with the same fervor they would if Billy, Ted or Bob were on the handle.

I'm glad this paricular point of the level laps setting the bottoms for the rest of the flight came up. It was brought up at a Nats pilot meeting a few years ago and is still festering. I've talked to quite a few judges(including myself) from local to the Nats and I feel this should be addressed. The phrase "by the book" keeps occurring to validate both/either side of the question. When I ask to be shown in the book, I find that it's not in black and white but rather "extapolataed". Aye, there's the rub! Best regards,

With rule book in hand, here is what "defining level flight" means to me. Get your rule book out; look at 13.3 Consecutive inside loops, for example. Loops start at normal level flight and bottoms are at normal level flight. Normal level flight is 3.9 - 5.9 ft. height.

Now, suppose Joe World Champ Many Times Over enters the loop at 4.3 feet. For me to give him 40 points, his bottoms have to appear to me to be at 4.3 feet.

Now look at 13.5 outside loops. JoeWCMTO enters the maneuver at 5.1 feet. If he wants my 40 points he has to put all loop bottoms at what appears to me to be 5.1 feet.

My point here is that each maneuver is judged independently. There is no carry-over from one to the other. Notice also the "appear to me" phrase. How many of you actually think you can tell the difference between an airplane flying at 4.3 feet, and an airplane flying at 5.1 feet, on the far side of the circle?

LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-03 AT 03:42 PM (CDT)
 
>Now, suppose Joe World Champ Many Times Over enters the loop
>at 4.3 feet. For me to give him 40 points, his bottoms have
>to appear to me to be at 4.3 feet.
>
>Now look at 13.5 outside loops. JoeWCMTO enters the
>maneuver at 5.1 feet. If he wants my 40 points he has to
>put all loop bottoms at what appears to me to be 5.1 feet.

My belief is that this is the correct interpretation. The first pullout of the manuever would define all of the pullouts in the subsequent manuevers (granted, the first pullout is within the required 4-6 feet) but for only that manuever.

I believe what they said at the Nationals in 2002 was wrong. Even though they did announce the rule before hand and it seemed to have no real effect.

Yep they ran the 02 nats that way. You set your level flight and this was the exit point for the rest of your pattern, as long as it was in between the 4-6 feet.

There were a few ruffled feathers.

They are seperate maneuvers.

John:
In the last issue of Stunt News you wrote:

Take level flight. The book says “…flight between four and six feet” It also says no decution if it stays between these parameters. Why isn’t this a 40 point level flight if the guys stays between four and six feet feet? Have any of you seen a 40 point score? Why not Now? I would give a guy that wandered a little a 38 and save the 40 for the guy that flew it on a rail, but 26 to 28 for the guy that wandered is just wrong. I do 20 pointer and 40 pointers in every flight I compete but my scores are 26-32for everything. Does anyone read the rulebook and the judge’s guide?

In response # 14 you backed this up.

Inverted flight only has one component. Inverted, between 4-6 feet. Varying slightly (upwind / downwind) but keeping between 4-6 feet should be a 40 according to the book. Some guys can keep it on a rail and some guys fight to keep it between the stated altitudes. BUT, by the book, they are both 40 pointers. There are no bonus points for "on a rail" and conversley should be no deductions for wandering between 4-6 feet.

In response 21 you say you agree with all the others that say you are wrong and then say it was your way of getting it out on the table.

First, this is a great discussion. I happen to agree with Ted, Brett, Jim and Kieth. All of you have made very valid and correct observations. When I started this mess over a year ago, it was with the intent of getting these things out on the table instead of just being griped about around the pools, in motel rooms or over dinner. My purpose was to get the people who judge to think and also to make the entrants understand the difficulty of this process. The only things that aren't subjective in this process are the pull test and the 8 minute rule. We have all experienced what we considered to be great judging and then we have also had some experiences we didn't consider to be the best.

I’m fairly new at this but trying real hard to get myself ready for competition. I read your article in Stunt News and took it to heart because I consider myself a sport flyer right now. Then I read stuff from other flyers that dispute everything you have written. I’m confused now on what to do and if I should or should not worry about weight and ridged controls. I was going to invest money in a ball link system but you said 3/32 is good if supported, so I put 3/32 in my new Impact instead of the ball link system. Now I’m wondering if I should fly dead level or relax during level flight. I want to believe you because you say you fly 40’s every time you fly and the other guys say they come few and far between. You really got me confused here buddy.

I’m confused now on what to do
>and if I should or should not worry about weight and ridged
>controls. I was going to invest money in a ball link system
>but you said 3/32 is good if supported, so I put 3/32 in my
>new Impact instead of the ball link system. Now I’m
>wondering if I should fly dead level or relax during level
>flight. I want to believe you because you say you fly 40’s
>every time you fly and the other guys say they come few and
>far between. You really got me confused here buddy.
>
>Don
>

Don, perhaps I could try to clarify something here that, perhaps, others have skipped over. Each maneuver in the rule book has size, shape, placement, and location.

The location for a loop, for instance, is tops at 45 degrees, plus or minus a variance of a foot and bottoms at normal level flight of 5 feet, plus or minus one foot. Placement can be anywhere in the circle, but they must be one on top of another, not right, left, up, or down. If the first one has a bottom of 4 feet, then the second one must have a bottom at 4 feet or an error can be assessed. Shape is perfectly round. Not oval, not "lumpy" (borrowed from another flyer), no flat spots, no sudden turns. Each of these would add additional errors. Size would be the size to fit the location. You can theoretically move the bottoms up and the tops up and get the size correct. You would miss the location. Or you can get the bottoms correct and the tops wrong and the size would be wrong as well. Now, let's move this discussion back into level flight.

Location is anywhere from 4 to 6 feet in elevation. That is the point of contention. Above this would be an error. Below this would be an error. But it would be no greater error than if you missed the bottoms or tops of your loops. Placement, aye, there's the rub. The rule book defines the start and end of the maneuver, so that is simple engough, but if you start it at 4 feet, then you need to place the second portion precisely over the first. You can't have one lap at 4 feet and another at 6 feet and expect to garner 40 points. Shape, well, that is simle enough. It is "level" flight. Level means level. Just like a loop would have points deducted for being "lumpy" (there's that word, again) so would "Level flight". We can't be wandering up and down, jumping up and down, doing all sorts of crazy gyrations, and expece to call it "level flight" just because we stayed in the small box of 4 to 6 feet. And, then, of course, there is size. In this case there is no size. It is a thin thread. But, just as a loop can be larger and smaller, and downgraded as such, if this thread gets wider and narrower, then the size is incorrect. It is "level flight" period, just as a loop is a "round loop", not oval, and a square loop is "square", not a rectangle, trapezoidal, or rhombic.

Perhaps this could clarifiy the discussion (or confuse issues), but also is my reason for stating earlier about the toughness of the criteria first offered. Being outside the box of 4 to 6 feet is an error, but if everything everything else is correct (it probably won't be, but "if), it should not be downgraded to 20 points, any more than the loop maneuvers should be downgraded if their bottoms (and/or tops) are outside the "box".

LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-03 AT 10:14 PM (CDT)
 
>>However,
>>the idea of clicking off for each error is erroneous.
>
>
>I don't think it's as erroneous as you think Len. Mainly
>because there is a 10 point minimum score for each manuver.
>I would also use multiplers if I were to do this. I would
>have to think on this a little more, but for level laps you
>could subtract 5 points for every click and when judging
>some of the more difficult manuvers you could subtract 1 to
>.5 points per click.
>
>I'm with Ty this seems like a logical way to help a judge
>score.
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship
>
>btw some judges might get nintendo thumb clicking my
>hourglass!!!
>But at least I'd get 10 points

Rick, I think you'll find that you don't have time to read the counter, re-set it to zero, calculate a score and enter it, before the next maneuver has been started. But give it a try and see if you can, consistently. Report back! Steve

LAST EDITED ON Aug-28-03 AT 00:01 AM (CDT)
 
at least I'd get 10 points
>
>Rick, I think you'll find that you don't have time to read
>the counter, re-set it to zero, calculate a score and enter
>it, before the next maneuver has been started. But give it a
>try and see if you can, consistently. Report back! Steve

Steve,
It'll be a long time before I'm ready to judge. I don't believe that this is as difficult as it sounds mainly because you wouldn't have to calculate anything until after the flight. You simply read the counter, click to zero, and write down the number of clicks. If you can't do that in two laps then you're probably at the fast combat circle

Hey Don, hang in there. Confusion is positive! If you are confused, you realize that you don't know everything, and can thus improve your understanding. I'm with John in that one does not have to have the latest in cutting-edge technology to have a good-flying airplane which gives many happy hours. My last airplane has a pushrod made out of coathanger wire and 3/32 music wire. Its controls are quite rigid. It is also heavier than I wanted it to be, but still flys pretty well. If I were at the Team Trials, my airplane probably would have a different pushrod and be lighter. But I'm not ever going to be at the team trials and my present airplane will fly better than I can fly it, so I'm a happy camper.

>Steve,
>It'll be a long time before I'm ready to judge. I don't
>believe that this is as difficult as it sounds mainly
>because you wouldn't have to calculate anything until after
>the flight. You simply read the counter, click to zero, and
>write down the number of clicks. If you can't do that in two
>laps then you're probably at the fast combat circle
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Catdaddy,

You can't take someone such as Steve Helmick lightly. You've been warned...

However, you could come back at him with a terrific labor-saving technique which also eliminates the drudgery of tabulating scores: The pattern is 16 maneuvers at 40 points each for 640, plus appearance points. Drag your butt and that little clicker thing to the judging position and start punching the demerits button. At the end of the flight subtract the total on your clicker from whatever 640 and appearance points equals. Hello! There is the score almost immediately. And very little arguing about scores of individual maneuvers; no paper trail. Gotta love it...

>Catdaddy,
>
>You can't take someone such as Steve Helmick lightly. You've
>been warned...
>
>However, you could come back at him with a terrific
>labor-saving technique which also eliminates the drudgery of
>tabulating scores: The pattern is 16 maneuvers at 40 points
>each for 640, plus appearance points. Drag your butt and
>that little clicker thing to the judging position and start
>punching the demerits button. At the end of the flight
>subtract the total on your clicker from whatever 640 and
>appearance points equals. Hello! There is the score almost
>immediately. And very little arguing about scores of
>individual maneuvers; no paper trail. Gotta love it...
>
>Dan Rutherford
>

Dan,
I think you're on to something

>>Catdaddy,
>>
>>You can't take someone such as Steve Helmick lightly. You've
>>been warned...
>>
>>However, you could come back at him with a terrific
>>labor-saving technique which also eliminates the drudgery of
>>tabulating scores: The pattern is 16 maneuvers at 40 points
>>each for 640, plus appearance points. Drag your butt and
>>that little clicker thing to the judging position and start
>>punching the demerits button. At the end of the flight
>>subtract the total on your clicker from whatever 640 and
>>appearance points equals. Hello! There is the score almost
>>immediately. And very little arguing about scores of
>>individual maneuvers; no paper trail. Gotta love it...
>>
>>Dan Rutherford

>>
>
>Dan,
>I think you're on to something
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

My, my. Got our Response-O-Meter set on full-kill today, don't we?

Of course I am onto something! Haven't you been told I am a brilliant fellow?

The trick is to try this idea out, preferably at a real big contest and in the Expert PA event. You go first. Please...

>
>My, my. Got our Response-O-Meter set on full-kill today,
>don't we?
>
>Of course I am onto something! Haven't you been told I am a
>brilliant fellow?
>>
>Dan Rutherford

Sorry I meant to say...
Dan,
I think your ON something!

Sorry my Response-o-Meter is on the fritz today

For a relative unkown like me to judge and score an expert PA event in such a manner would indeed be interesting, but for someone of your stature to attempt the click and tally method would be down right BAD BOY STUNT! GO for it!!!

G)(*&&^%&*( editors. I just accidentally highlighted the whole post and deleted it.

Lots of interesting discussion here, but not much on the original question. Are the scoring ranges I mentioned reasonable? How about for 0ther more difficult maneuvers?

How about loops, they are pretty simple-
smooth round 45 deg. loops all in the same spot, at 5 ft, no visible correction 35+
Loops at 5 ft, but with varying size(inside the range) some visbile corrections 30-35
Loops outside the 2 ft limit, consistently too high, some variation in position or height, more than 1or2 visible corrections 25-30
Multiple errors- 20-25
etc.

Yes your scoring ranges are reasonable.

Alot of talk about a level flight making this alot more difficult than it really is.

Pick a height between 4-6 feet. Glue your plane to that point for two laps and you will get a 40. ANY movement away from that point ANY movement WHAT SO EVER will be a deduction in score. That is how it is scored like it or not that is how it is done.

As Ted said a little commen sense helps.

Lets look at the 4-6 feet thing. I remember someone piping up at the 02 Nats and saying that if they were to fly their Inside loops one at 4 feet and one at 6 feet and one at 5 feet they should still get a 40 if all else was perfect. It does say within 4-6 feet yes. 4-6 feet is area you have to work with. If you do loop one at 4 feet then you better do loops 2 and 3 there also to get maximum points on that portion of the maneuver. First of all it does say in the rulebook that you are to place multiple loops squares etc on top of each other to get max points. So wandering between 4-6 feet isnt going to get you max points. 4-6 feet in the book is just an area we have to work inside of but once you pick a point you are to stay on that point through the entire maneuver.

Maybe a rules proposal on the next cycle to say 5' with no variations will clean out all this mess once and for all.

Judging....a hard thing for sure. I keep hearing how an int. could do a 40 pointer at any time. Thing is I havent seen it, ever. I have watched alot of int flights over the years. The way I see it the int class is where you are learing to compete with the full pattern in contest setup. Once you can do so without crashing often Adv is the place for you. Dont mess around in int get to advacned where you can really learn how to fly the pattern. I hear lower class flyers thinking they are being trapped into a score range. I would like to see contest spilt it up into advaced and expert on one circle and int beg on another then randomly draw the order all the fliers mixed up together could be very interesting for each circle. This would help the judges to keep and open mind, maybe. Thing is we practice the pattern as a whole. Our pattern increases as a whole. Yes some manuvers will get better faster than others but not by much maybe a point or three. I also hear about lower class flyers saying they scored better on certain maneuvers than was written down. Beleive me this happens at all levels. Thing is you have to take it because what they see is different that what you see. Problem is when you look on your sheets and on the Square Eight one judge sees a 37 and one sees a 28. This is what I have from my Nats sheets. How can this happen? I also know a flier who has one manuever in his pattern that is by far the worst manuever in his pattern. Yet when you look across his Nats score sheets it is not his worst scored maneuver. How can this happen? What do they learn in the judges meeting? I also know of a judge who says he will score all over the board. I have many score sheets from this judge. My low scores from this judge for that last two years are all on the same man. and my highs are all on the same man. This is the case for other fliers who have many sheets from this judge. Is he really scoring all over the board or higher on the "perceived" easier ones and lower on the "perceived" harder ones. I know of one of the "perceived" easy ones I have real problems with. I cant figure it out to well. Yet it scores well, from all of the judges, when I know it shouldnt and one of the harder ones, by far, that I can fly well as most out there just gets mediocre scores. Judging....a hard task for sure. I find it to be every bit as hard if not harder than flying pattern itself.

I will be judging OTS and classic this weekend. I am already nervous about it. I just want to be fair all the way across the board. No one seems to able to tell me how to do that. Believe I iwll be trying my best. I always give the benifit to the flier.

Here's something that seveal experts sat down and wrote about for the Cholla Chopper news letter Hanger Talk.

Keep in mind that becoming a good judge is a lot like flying a good pattern. It takes practice to acquire the skills of judging and a few times a year of being a judge to maintain these skills.

AMA Rulebook On Judging Guidelines:

(Para 9.00) Judges and Scoring: There is no substitute for experienced judges. When experienced judges are not available, the Contest Director should arrange for practice judging. No judge should start the day "cold." Usually there are contestants available who are willing to fly a pattern for practice judging. If this practice procedure is followed, judges must not discuss the flier's pattern or divulge the potential score of the flier in any manner. If possible, judges should not alternate or be substituted during the entire period in which any given age classification is being judged. If the event is divided into age classifications but with a prize for most points regardless of age, all ages should fly before the same judges if possible. Seldom do judges score alike; thus it may place some contestants at a disadvantage if all do not fly before the same judges. Wherever possible, each judge shall have an assistant whose duty it shall be to mark score sheets as the judge calls out the scores. In this way, the judge need never remove his eyes from the model.

Para 9.1: Scoring shall be based on the appearance of the model and the degree of perfection with which maneuvers are performed. The contestants' flight point score for competition purposes shall be the Average of the scores given by no less than two (2) judges. Flight points used shall be those accumulated during the better of the two (2) official flights permitted.

Now that we know what the rules asked for, here is a baseline for all maneuvers. All maneuvers are scored between 10 and 40 points except for Pattern and Appearance points. This is because an attempt must be given 10 points.

10 Pts: Attempt. The model must make some move indicating intent to fly the figure next due in the pattern. Forgetting a figure and flying level past its spot in the schedule is not an attempt. An Attempted Maneuver is also defined as an incomplete maneuver. Example: Completing only one inside loop of the required three. Remember, the maneuver being flown must be completed. If three inside loops are required, all three loops must be completed for that maneuver to receive more than 10 points. Once completed, the judge can then score the entire maneuver (in this case Three Inside Loops) based on the quality of the three loops combined using the point ranges described below.

11 to 19 Pts: Very sloppy, the only way the judge recognizes the figure is by its order in the sequence.

20 to 24 Pts: Just recognizable, it's beginning to take shape and someone who doesn't know the pattern can recognize the maneuver being flown.

25 to 29 Pts: Recognizable with all elements defined for the maneuver. That is, the judge can recognize the right number of loops, corners, straight sides, paths, etc.

30 Pts: Good solid maneuver. Elements are flown well, and start to approach the rulebook description.

31 to 35 Pts: Getting above solid. Begins to become crisp and clean. Heights, shapes, intersections, retraced paths, bottoms, and other difficult aspects show few and small errors.

36 to 39 Pts: Really stands out, you find yourself looking for errors instead of looking at errors.

40 Pts: Absolutely without a doubt not one mistake or error. If you do not see and error, award the maneuver 40 points.

Some rather important points are being made in this article. Those of you who are flying in Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced and have wondered what goes through a judges mind when assigning value to each maneuver you fly, this should give you a very good idea of what is involved. If you have one of your old score sheets, compare your maneuver scores you received with the point ranges stated above. It may give you a frame of reference you did not have before. Scoring also includes appearance and pattern points. Subjects for later.

The plan is to continue this subject (Judging the Pattern) over the next few issues of ‘Hanger Talk’. In the next Issue we will start reviewing the scoring for each maneuver discussing only three maneuvers with each issue.

Until next time, fly well and fly safe.

Larry, this is one of the best descriptions and guides I have ever seen. Kudos to your bunch.

From Larry Foster's post: "Now that we know what the rules asked for, here is a baseline for all maneuvers. All maneuvers are scored between 10 and 40 points except for Pattern and Appearance points. This is because an attempt must be given 10 points."

Except the landing, which is 0-40 points. Otherwise, a good job of describing the judging criteria. Not sure why or how, but a number usually comes into my mind, and I write it down without second guessing myself. I also try not to say "ooops" loud enough for the other judge to hear. Sometimes it's not easy. The toughest thing for me is trying to be in the correct location, too gimpy. Fliers need to remember that they can direct the judges by pointing at the spot they intend to fly the trick, and giving them an extra lap of level flight to get opposite. Having an extra 6 solid laps in the tank can help when the wind is shiftier than a politician at election time, but it means you gotta start quick and hustle to the handle. Having a rear NVA that burps for 4 laps isn't gonna help when the stopwatch is ticking down toward 8 minutes. Steve

I would interpret this one literally. If it stays within 4 - 6 feet it scores 40. If it strays outside 4 -6 feet it scores 0. As written the rule doesn't give you any other choice.

>I would interpret this one literally. If it stays within 4 -
>6 feet it scores 40. If it strays outside 4 -6 feet it
>scores 0. As written the rule doesn't give you any other
>choice.

It doesn't work that way, Dave. 4-6 feet is a correct location, but it still must be the proper maneuver, that is, "level flight". It is a thread that you fly. Fly it at 4 feet, fly it at 6 feet, fly it anywhere inbetween. But fly it level--two laps, one on top of anotyher.

And flying above or below, just as irregular flight, bumpiness, whatever, are errors, not zeros.

By your definition a perfect loop flow with a bottom of 7 feet or the top more than a foot above or below 45 degrees would also be a zero. It is still a very recognizable maneuver with a minor error. No more. No less.

>
>And flying above or below, just as irregular flight,
>bumpiness, whatever, are errors, not zeros.
>
>
What bugs me about this is a pilot can get bumps from a gust of wind.
Why is that his error?

That's what separates the really good fliers from the guys like me!

Best, Hoovie

>>
>>And flying above or below, just as irregular flight,
>>bumpiness, whatever, are errors, not zeros.
>>
>>
>What bugs me about this is a pilot can get bumps from a gust
>of wind.
>Why is that his error?
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Because it is not level flight. Weather conditions are not to be taken into account. The judges judge the flight path of the airplane. Whether it is the wind grabbing the plane at the top of the hourglass or the plane just balloons into the wind on landing, it makes no difference. "Aw, Judge, that was just the wind." Doesn't matter. Error!

LAST EDITED ON Sep-01-03 AT 10:35 PM (CDT)
 
>Because it is not level flight. Weather conditions are not
>to be taken into account. The judges judge the flight path
>of the airplane. Whether it is the wind grabbing the plane
>at the top of the hourglass or the plane just balloons into
>the wind on landing, it makes no difference. "Aw, Judge,
>that was just the wind." Doesn't matter. Error!

It won't be an error if I'm judging. To make it one is just plain wrong. Ballooning into the wind on landing is the pilots fault, a gust of wind that bobbles a plane in level flight is not and is easy to recognize. Judges that subtract for this are being way to critical.
I don't care what anyone says it's just not right and it definetly is NOT an error, for it to be an error the pilot has to do something wrong.

>It won't be an error if I'm judging. To make it one is just
>plain wrong. Ballooning into the wind on landing is the
>pilots fault, a gust of wind that bobbles a plane in level
>flight is not and is easy to recognize. Judges that subtract
>for this are being way to critical.
>I don't care what anyone says it's just not right and it
>definetly is NOT an error, for it to be an error the pilot
>has to do something wrong.
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Rick: Personally I would like to agree with you, but what we want isn't what the rules are. Everyone gets the advantage or disadvantage of the wind. The only why that it is fair across the board is if the rules are followed consistently. This is what allows us to have national competition. If you fly competition enough it well always go full circle.

AMA Para 9.1: Scoring shall be based on the appearance of the model and the degree of perfection with which maneuvers are performed.

Larry

>>It won't be an error if I'm judging. To make it one is just
>>plain wrong. Ballooning into the wind on landing is the
>>pilots fault, a gust of wind that bobbles a plane in level
>>flight is not and is easy to recognize. Judges that subtract
>>for this are being way to critical.
>>I don't care what anyone says it's just not right and it
>>definetly is NOT an error, for it to be an error the pilot
>>has to do something wrong.
>>
>>regards,
>>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship
>
>
>Rick: Personally I would like to agree with you, but what we
>want isn't what the rules are. Everyone gets the advantage
>or disadvantage of the wind. The only why that it is fair
>across the board is if the rules are followed consistently.
>This is what allows us to have national competition. If you
>fly competition enough it well always go full circle.
>
> AMA Para 9.1: Scoring shall be based on the appearance of
>the model and the degree of perfection with which maneuvers
>are performed.
>
>Larry

Absolutely. And, if on a dead calm day you fly so accurately that you fly through your own turbulence and it bobbles the plane, then that should be judged as an error, even though you were doing everything right. There is no difference between that and, say, getting blown out of the clover and then saying to the judges, "it wasn't my fault."

>
>Absolutely. And, if on a dead calm day you fly so
>accurately that you fly through your own turbulence and it
>bobbles the plane, then that should be judged as an error,
>even though you were doing everything right. There is no
>difference between that and, say, getting blown out of the
>clover and then saying to the judges, "it wasn't my fault."

Yes there is a difference Len and I'm sorry you can't see it.

Larry, please show me the rule that states judges are to judge any effects the weather has on level flight as a pilot error and should subtract from the score accordingly.

We are talking about level flight which is a completely seperate manuever from the hourglass, or the clover, or any other manuever that Len wants to compare it to.

Each manuever is to be judged seperately!!!

>Larry, please show me the rule that states judges are to
>judge any effects the weather has on level flight as a pilot
>error and should subtract from the score accordingly.
>
>We are talking about level flight which is a completely
>seperate manuever from the hourglass, or the clover, or any
>other manuever that Len wants to compare it to.
>
>Each manuever is to be judged seperately!!!
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

In the current AMA rulebook, Paragraph 14.6 states:

"The fact that weather conditions change throughout the day (wind, rain, temperture) is not reason to change scoring to compensate."

Level flight is level flight, not flight that varies between 4 and 6 feet, or flight that wavers any discernable amount during those laps that are judged for level flight, upright or inverted, wind or no wind.

Granted, it is more difficult to maintain level flight in windy conditions than in calm. But some pilots can maintain level flight better than other pilots in the same windy conditions. The pilot who maintains closer to level flight regardless of wind conditions will be judged higher than the pilot who does not do as good of a job. A 40 point level flight maneuver represents perfection. I have seen and judged and awarded 40 points for level flight in windy conditions when pilots maintain level flight. And I mean LEVEL flight where the model gives no apparent change in altitude for those two laps.

A judge cannot make allowances for errors that might be induced because of wind. If a judge gives a perfect score for a maneuver because the judge assumed visible errors might have been caused by the wind, how will that judge score another pilot who performs the same maneuver in the same wind conditions but performs the maneuver noticeably better? If that judge makes allowances for scores because of assumed errors caused by the wind, at which point or what scale does that judge use to determine when wind becomes a factor for discernable errors? Any deviation from the rulebook description of any specific maneuver is an error, regardless of the wind conditions. That is the reason for Paragraph 14.6 quoted above.

>A judge cannot make allowances for errors that might be
>induced because of wind. If a judge gives a perfect score
>for a maneuver because the judge assumed visible errors
>might have been caused by the wind, how will that judge
>score another pilot who performs the same maneuver in the
>same wind conditions but performs the maneuver noticeably
>better? If that judge makes allowances for scores because
>of assumed errors caused by the wind, at which point or what
>scale does that judge use to determine when wind becomes a
>factor for discernable errors? Any deviation from the
>rulebook description of any specific maneuver is an error,
>regardless of the wind conditions. That is the reason for
>Paragraph 14.6 quoted above.
>
>

Larry thanks for pointing out the paragraph 14.6.

Sorry Keith but that's a paragraph that is far to rigid.

If all things are equal between two pilots flying level and one has the misfortune of a bobble obviously caused by a gust of wind I'm not going to deduct from his score. I would give both pilots 40 points. Call me an anarchist, the stunt world will crumble, chaos will result
because paragraph 14.6 was blatantly ignored.

We should be judging on pilot skill not LUCK.

>>A judge cannot make allowances for errors that might be
>>induced because of wind. If a judge gives a perfect score
>>for a maneuver because the judge assumed visible errors
>>might have been caused by the wind, how will that judge
>>score another pilot who performs the same maneuver in the
>>same wind conditions but performs the maneuver noticeably
>>better? If that judge makes allowances for scores because
>>of assumed errors caused by the wind, at which point or what
>>scale does that judge use to determine when wind becomes a
>>factor for discernable errors? Any deviation from the
>>rulebook description of any specific maneuver is an error,
>>regardless of the wind conditions. That is the reason for
>>Paragraph 14.6 quoted above.
>>
>>
>
>Larry thanks for pointing out the paragraph 14.6.
>
>Sorry Keith but that's a paragraph that is far to rigid.
>
>If all things are equal between two pilots flying level and
>one has the misfortune of a bobble obviously caused by a
>gust of wind I'm not going to deduct from his score. I would
>give both pilots 40 points. Call me an anarchist, the stunt
>world will crumble, chaos will result
>because paragraph 14.6 was blatantly ignored.
>
>We should be judging on pilot skill not LUCK.
>
>regards,
>Rick "catdaddy" Blankenship

Sorry, Rick, as a judge you cannot ignore the rules, and luck does play a factor. One flyer gest almost perfect wind conditions and another gets heavy gusts. It is unfortunate, but it happens. One flyer escapes the rain and another is forced to fly in the rain or not fly at all. Again, it is unfortunate, but it happens. It is the judges responsibility to follow the rule book and not interpret it as he feels it should have been written.

40 points, huh? Even with a bobble caused by the "wind"! ("Yes, sir, judge, that was a 40 pointer. The only bobbles were all caused by the wind. And when I did that hourglass, that was wind related, too. And did you see how the wind affected my loops? I was flying perfectly round, but...")

>Larry, please show me the rule that states judges are to
>judge any effects the weather has on level flight as a pilot
>error and should subtract from the score accordingly.

AMA Para 9.1: Scoring shall be based on the appearance of the model and the degree of perfection with which maneuvers are performed.

14.6. Weather Conditions Affecting Scoring.
The fact that weather conditions change throughout
the day (wind, rain, temperature) is not reason to
change scoring to compensate.

15.3.4. Inverted Flight. This is dull to watch,
but can get interesting for the pilot on a windy day.
Expect the plane the climb going into the wind and
drop going downwind. As this is a finesse maneuver
in wind, be alert to watch for sudden corrections as
the plane enters upwind or downwind flight. Other
than that, give the devil his due and award a high
score if the ship simply motors around at five (5) feet.
Rocking of the wings may not be real pleasant to
look at, but the emphasis from a scoring standpoint
should be on how well altitude is maintained. Score
only laps three (3) and four (4) of the minimum six
(6) laps allowed.

Rick, these all go hand in hand. Hope it helps.

This also should be good info for John "award a high
score if the ship simply motors around at five (5) feet."

When a judge places himself above the law, and does not follow the rules, it is commonly called cheating.

Phil Cartier & Derek Barry judged my 2 profile flights at The Western PA Stunt Championships the day Phil was talked into judging.
When I look over my score sheets both judges were with in a couple of points on most of the maneuvers.
On my inverted level flights Cartier scored 35 & 30. Barry 37 & 31. Both very close to each other. The wind picked up on the second flight, score showing it. I think they both did a great job judging that day. I finished down the pack & out of the money in this event . I had fun.

I wasn't looking for a compliment Pat, but thanks. Judging is fun, but harder than flying. I was satisfied with how we did, just looking for some other input.

Don't feel bad about not placing. Just look at the score variations. You could easily have gotten 40 more points if those danged judges had just slid their scores up a point or two!!! I'll make no bones about it- I would not be at all surprised if I gave two identical flights scores that were 20 pts apart or more. It is impossible to give exact scores and all too easy to drift a point or so away from where you should be.

I really need to respond on my thoughts to Keith and Rick's comments.

Keith stated:

"If a judge gives a perfect score for a maneuver because the judge assumed visible errors might have been caused by the wind, how will that judge score another pilot who performs the same maneuver in the same wind conditions but performs the maneuver noticeably better? If that judge makes allowances for scores because of assumed errors caused by the wind, at which point or what scale does that judge use to determine when wind becomes a factor for discernable errors?"

Rick stated :

"If all things are equal between two pilots flying level and one has the misfortune of a bobble obviously caused by a gust of wind I'm not going to deduct from his score. I would give both pilots 40 points. ....We should be judging on pilot skill not LUCK."

I would like to know how a judge is to determine if an error was caused by the wind. Some pilots can minimize the affect of wind bubbles better than others. Those pilots should get credit for doing so, but cannot in Rick’s system since he has already given a perfect score for a less than perfect presentation of a maneuver. Is there a different standard for every maneuver as to when weather is allowed as a factor and when weather is not? For example, when it really gets windy, many flyers will fly much larger maneuvers, will sometimes fly much softer corners and in general, fly a pattern that is far from the rule book requirements 15.1.4.

15.1.4.Size and shape are the most important parts of a maneuver. Without proper shape, there simply is no maneuver. Clearly the most difficult aspect of a pattern to execute is proper shape, pro-viding
it is done the proper size. The pattern is extremely difficult to fly at 45 degrees. As the pattern is flown larger, it becomes easier. A 60 degree maneuver, for example, is much easier than a 45 degree maneuver. To score them closely grossly dis-torts the event. When the pattern is opened up, every-thing becomes easier, i.e., shapes and pullouts get less critical, more time is available to make correc-tions, the plane slows down less, etc. Consequently, it is vital that scoring reflect a significant difference between a rule book 45 degree pattern and large pat-tern, and not merely a point or two per maneuver, even though shape may be correct.

Evidently Rick will give them high scores, because, you know, the wind made them do that. Meanwhile, another pilot will be able to present a pattern much closer to the rulebook in the same wind conditions. Yet it seems that Rick’s system will award both pilots equally. It sounds like Rick would have given everybody a perfect score at the Nats Semifinals last July if they at least could fly some sort of a maneuver for each portion of the entire pattern, because, you know, the wind was really bad. His system simply falls apart as soon as a better pilot flies in the wind than the pilot who preceded him.

Larry

> Evidently Rick will give them high scores, because, you
>know, the wind made them do that. Meanwhile, another pilot
>will be able to present a pattern much closer to the
>rulebook in the same wind conditions. Yet it seems that
>Rick’s system will award both pilots equally. It sounds
>like Rick would have given everybody a perfect score at the
>Nats Semifinals last July if they at least could fly some
>sort of a maneuver for each portion of the entire pattern,
>because, you know, the wind was really bad. His system
>simply falls apart as soon as a better pilot flies in the
>wind than the pilot who preceded him.
>
>
>
>Larry

Let me try this one more time.
The subject of this thread is level flight, yet several people seem to think it is about the entire pattern. I've already stated and I will state one more time as far as level flight goes, if all things are the same between two level flight manuvers and one pilot gets a bobble from an obvious gust of wind I would not penalize for the bobble.

I'm not talking about everyone flying in the same hurricane level winds. I'm not talking about some whinner complaining about how it was the wind that blew him out of the hourglass. I'm talking about an obvious, unfortunate, gust of wind that even P Walker couldn't anticipate and fight through. It does happen.

I wasn't at the NATS this past year, but I bet that if it was as bad as everyone says there wern't ANY on the rail level laps by anyone.
Maybe there were, but I find it hard to believe that winds that were slaming planes into the ground wern't also producing bobbles for everyone. Would I give everyone a perfect 40? NO this is totally different than an isolated untimely obvious gust of wind. Everyone was flying in the same conditions. True some are getting more, and or higher gusts, but it is basically a windy day and all scores should be based on how each pilots skill handled the wind. It may be hard for some of you to understand the difference, but to me there is a difference SORRY! Maybe it's a right brain, left brain thing.

Someone said by ignoring the rules it's the same as cheating.
Sometimes the rules don't make sense, or are just to rigid for certain situations. There are those of us that no matter what, will not color outside the lines and then there are people like me. If you want to call me a cheater knock yourself out.

BTW I would have been very impressed by anyone who flew in winds that kept others grounded at the most competitive contest in stunt.

Rick, sorry I got a little carried away but if you give allowances to one rule then that says it’s OK to do so threw out the pattern, or most would interpret so.

As for cheating I believe that comment was not right and unfair.

Setting aside the discussion Rick an I have been having I thought this would be a good time to post a couple sections of Judging rules. Give note that this is the general section and not each maneuver. It is also important that a Judge briefs the rules prior to a contest. I know this is long but if you are truly concerned about proper judging then read it threw.

This was taken from the AMA website

14.3. What To Watch In The Air.
14.3.1.Judge should observe the trace in the air that the airplane makes.
14.3.2.Judge should not pay attention to exhaust or smoke that airplane leaves behind it.
14.3.3.Judge should not observe the pilot during the flight.
14.3.4.The design of the airplane, paint scheme, or appearance in flight should not affect the scores of the judges.
14.4. Use of Sighting Devices. The use of sighting devices is not recommended unless firmly affixed to the earth (tree, flag pole, etc.).
14.6. Weather Conditions Affecting Scoring.
The fact that weather conditions change throughout the day (wind, rain, temperature) is not reason to change scoring to compensate.

14.7. Communication of Judges.
14.7.1. It is permissible for judges to talk among themselves during actual competition provided
the conversation is not of a nature to influence subsequent scoring of a flier or fliers; this would include discussing scores given and points about the patterns.
14.7.2.Judges may converse with competitors during the course of the competition as long as judging topics are not discussed or criticism of a pattern is not discussed. Competitors should respect the task of the judge to objectively judge patterns without having to consider personal bias, friendship, etc.
14.7.3.Judges should not look at the score-board during the course of the competition.

15. Maneuver Assessment.
15.1. General Philosophy.
15.1.1.When no apparent flaws can be detect-ed in a maneuver, score it 40, not one (1) or two (2) points above average as is so frequently done.
15.1.2.When a gross error (to be defined later) is committed, the score should reflect this, i.e., depending on the number of errors, the score should be in the 20s to teens. This suggestion is to minimize excessive bunching of the scores.
15.1.3.Judges should continually discipline themselves to divest themselves of the plane or the flier and concentrate on the flight pattern.
15.1.4.Size and shape are the most important parts of a maneuver. Without proper shape, there simply is no maneuver. Clearly the most difficult aspect of a pattern to execute is proper shape, pro-viding
it is done the proper size. The pattern is extremely difficult to fly at 45 degrees. As the pattern is flown larger, it becomes easier. A 60 degree maneuver, for example, is much easier than a 45
degree maneuver. To score them closely grossly dis-torts the event. When the pattern is opened up, every-thing becomes easier, i.e., shapes and pullouts get less critical, more time is available to make correc-tions, the plane slows down less, etc. Consequently, it is vital that scoring reflect a significant difference
between a rule book 45 degree pattern and large pat-tern, and not merely a point or two per maneuver, even though shape may be correct.
15.1.5.Errors are different in significance. A pullout that is perfectly flat, but low, reflects a timing error of perhaps a hundredth of a second. This is a minor error. A pullout at five (5) feet, with a bobble, climb, or dive reflects a more serious error that takes considerably more finesse to correct. The scoring
should reflect this. If, for example, the first pullout is low on a square, but the second one is at five (5) feet, then clearly the second maneuver has not been placed on top of first one. This is a more serious error than just low flying. Placing the second maneuver directly on top of the first one, even with a low bottom,
should be scored higher. Another example is the intersection of an eight. If the plane is flown to an intersection point, rather than concentrating on the maneuver as an entity, the shape can be distorted significantly. A distorted eight with a good intersection is a poor maneuver and the scoring should reflect
this.
15.1.6.Bottoms are four (4) to six (6) feet, i.e., as long as pullouts are consistent and within this range, scoring should be the same. Low pullouts should be downgraded the same as high pullouts.
15.2.The above are general statements. The actual assigning of scores to a particular maneuver is best learned directly from an experienced judge such as at a clinic. Next, each maneuver will be discussed
in detail to establish definite criteria as to what to look for and the relative importance of various aspects of the maneuver. Each maneuver has fairly classic errors associated with it. If a judge is primed to look for them, it can make his task more systematic and, hopefully, more consistent

Larry,
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
I appreciate it.

I just looked up cheating in the dictionary, and the meaning is stronger than I thought. An attempt at dishonisty is implied. My apologies, as catdaddy does not have a dishonest bone in his body. I do think, however, that not playing according to the rules is unfair, even if the intention is to be fair.

Jim,
Apology accepted. I know no malice was intended.
You need to email Len cause something is up with your login.
I tried to email you privately but you're not showing up as even having a profile.