ABCs of Judging Stunt

I liked that article.

I also read Dave Cook's on level flight.

I still dont see where it says that once level flight is established that that is the bottom height for the rest of the maneuvers. He says that was the original intent. He maybe right all the way. But I dont really think that is the way it is written.

I think it would be best if the height requirement was one specific height. Then there would be no questions about it. Make it 5' and that is the height for level flight and the bottoms of the other maneuvers. Pretty simple.

PS I also agree with Dixon....

>
>I still dont see where it says that once level flight is
>established that that is the bottom height for the rest of
>the maneuvers.

Doug,

You are right. There have been some influentual pesonalities that have campaigned the concept that the initial level flight laps establish the altitude for the bottoms of the remaining maneuvers.
The rulebook does not say that. There is nothing in the rulebook that says anything about how one maneuver should be judged based on how another maneuver is flown. To infer otherwise invites any number of problems. Each maneuver should be judged on the merits of how well it conforms to the rulebook for that maneuver. Nothing more, nothing less.

Normal level flight altitude is well defined as 4 to 6 feet. Bottoms of the maneuvers that are flown at the base of the hemisphere we fly in are also well defined as 4 to 6 feet. The real hot shots will get very close to 5 feet for all of this. What happens when the pilot flies his initial level flight laps at say 8 feet or varies between 6 and 9 feet? (This is not uncommon.) Does this give him license to fly his bottoms at 6 to 9 feet altitudes without penalty? If the answer to this is that the level flight laps will be scored down and the other meneuvers will also be scored down because they were not at the 4 to 6 foot specification, then the whole premise that the initial level flight laps determine the bottoms of the remaining maneuvers is meaningless. The interpretation that the initial level laps determines the bottoms for the rest of the maneuvers just does not make sense since the rulebook already clearly defines the bottoms of every maneuver.

This concept has entered the judges guide that has sometimes been used during the training sessions at the Nats. In all due respect to the author of that guide and to others who promote the idea, it is wrong.

>This concept has entered the judges guide that has sometimes
>been used during the training sessions at the Nats. In all
>due respect to the author of that guide and to others who
>promote the idea, it is wrong.

The first pullout of the manuever establishes the manuever height as long as it is between 4 and 6 feet.

How are these guys campaigning ideas that are not in the rulebook?

PS: I also agree with Dixon.

I also agree with Dixon.

As far as level flight establishing the height parameters for the entire pattern; IT'S NOT IN THERE. It's just not in the rulebook. Some years at the Nats we are told this during the pilots meeting, and some years we're not. It seems to me that this shouldn't be happening.

If a pilot takes off and flies level flight at 4' and then does inside loops at 5' and then outside loops at 4', etc, etc, he/she is still within the rulebook definition. He/she should not be penalized for this. Of course, if a pilot does the entire pattern at 5'; every single maneuver at exactly the same height, then yes, that would most likely be a better appearing pattern. But, there is no point award for overall patten appearance. It should be judged as it is written in the rulebook: in essence, each maneuver individually.

As for myself, I would like to see a point award (1-20, say) for an overall pattern appearance. But, that is not how the rules are written, so it shouldn't be judged that way.

OK, get off the "I agree with" or I will delete all of your responses. Enough! (and don't ask.) We will NOT get into that again.

"I agree with" Leonard! Oooops! Sorry,

Good Job LEN!!!
Scott(FIVE FOOT is in between four foot and six foot as level flight should be)Riese

>OK, get off the "I agree with" or I will delete all of your
>responses. Enough! (and don't ask.) We will NOT get into
>that again.

Nobody was getting into anything. As far as deleting posts, go ahead.

Just make sure you do it unilaterally and feel free to delete some of your own...

>As far as level flight establishing the height parameters
>for the entire pattern; IT'S NOT IN THERE. It's just not in
>the rulebook. Some years at the Nats we are told this during
>the pilots meeting, and some years we're not. It seems to me
>that this shouldn't be happening.

It's not, and Dave sent me an email about the reasoning (pretty much what he put in the article). The argument about "same angular dimension" meaning that 0 degrees is the legitimate height has enough problem by itself. "Angular dimensions" does not mean the same thing as "angular position". Never mind that 0 degrees depends on the height and posture of the pilot.

But assuming that level flight altitude is "Established" by the takeoff leads to so many conflicts with the rest of the maneuver descriptions that it's just impossible to use, even you explicitly said it in the rules. Suppose I only get to 2 feet in my takeoff. Do I do the rest of the maneuvers at 2 feet and get good scores, despite the fact that the descriptions say 4 to 6? What about if I climb to 10 feet, take my 15 point hit on the takeoff, and thus give myself a free ride to do the rest of the maneuvers at 10 feet, too, making it much easier? If I realize my mistake, and do all the maneuver bottoms at 5 feet +-1/4", do I get dinged anyway because my takeoff was bad and thus I am not flying the bottoms at the "established" height? More to the point, does one maneuver score (takeoff) effect or propogate into the rest of the manevuers? Should it?

I'm definitely going to write a counter-argument letter to SN. If the "takeoff establishes level flight" was the intent, it certainly has only tenuous and circuitous logic to say it actually made it into the rules. As far as I can tell, the wording as written is perfectly clear on where the maneuver bottoms are supposed to be, therefore the "intent" doesn't matter ("in cases where the wording is clear, there should be no question as to following the rule as written"). If someone want to change the wording to follow the "intent" Dave describes as their desire, then I think they will have to also explain how the conflicts I described above will be resolved.

Dave is a great guy, and I really like him, and respect his opinion. But I think that he's really off base on this particular topic.

OK great. At least I am not alone in my findings. I thought some of you would echo my feelings on the subject of level flight and the maneuvers.

Now what did you all think of Dee's article about the ABC judging? I really liked it. Brad be ready I am going to try it on you next time we fly.

I see judges from time to time who will say "Wow those rounds were Great!" Then mark 33. Will if he said they were Great and marked A it would be alot higher on the scale. I think it is a very interesting concept for sure.

What do you all think?

Well, I for one absolutely agree with Dee. What we have done over the years as judges (myself included) is to believe that manuvers as described in the book are impossible to do perfectly. This may or may not be so. As a result, we have certainly compressed the scoring to such a degree that anything between 500-525 is considered outstanding and almost unbeatable. Well what happened to the other 100+ points? Why isn't a 610 or even a 625 possible? Has anyone seen these scores ever?

This thread is about scoring/judging and not about the rule book so let's try to stay on track and give Dee's article some thought.

I hope I don't step on toes by stating my experiences here. But they may be the same as others have experienced and lead to something contsructive in the way of a solution. Well respected, knowledgeable individuals in the stunt judging world have told me things that are not anything more than their opinions/intrpretations of how things are done. Because of the elevated position they hold, their word is taken as gospel by others. Judges have told me they interpretations they are using come from the judging seminars at the Nats. They come from the judging guide

Be that as it may, and all other things being considered, whether one's six and the other a half dozen: I still agree with Dixon.

I would mayhaps concur with Dave if he was indicating that "level flight" established "bottoms" when flying over irregular terrain......one of the circles at Brodak's is akimbo, for example. But at a relatively flat area such as the "L" pad at Muncie, I would argue that 4-6 feet is what should be flown. Warren and Gary put poles out to aid in judging level, clearly marked at 4'-6' during judges training and they are usually in place on Wednesday and Thursday, too.

Dave uses "establishes" in determining 45 degrees, too, arguing that line lengths vary and that there is no "side judge". I kinda go along with that....

See Ya

Doug, and all other highly respected respondents to this topic...

I feel that the rulebook tolerance range implies that the CENTER of that range is the ultimate goal, and that 5' (insert metric equivalent here) should be the guage. IF a flier settles in at the end of the takeoff and climb at another height, then he is telling judges that THAT is his BASELINE height --

-- it IS within the 4-6' range...

-- he levels off THERE, which the book recognizes as "normal level flight" height...

-- subsequent maneuver descriptions are based on "normal level flight" height...

-- and, as many have mentioned, perfection means perfection. In this case, the BEST hit the same bottoms, 42º's, 45º's. 90º's, etc., AND level flight height bottoms...

So... where there is "drift" of the baseline "normal" height, there should be a lower score awarded...

NOWHERE else in the maneuver descriptions is "normal level flight" altitude defined except at the level-off from the takeoff climb (which IS defined as the altitude exactly one lap after release for takeoff).

John A. and all other sporty types, please note: We judge -- and fly for judges -- against a standard of perfection. Not knocking any other way to enjoy the stunt pattern, by any means, just that when we fly before judges (or when we judge, for that matter) the PERFECT figure is the only one worth 40 points. Where there is fudge room, fudging hurts our possible score...

I'm open to other ways of viewing this... I've learned more by listening than by talking...

Lou,

Yes we are all trying to hit the very same bottom every time. That is the ultimate goal for that portion of each maneuver. However, The discription for each maneuver gives the normal level flight (4'-6') as the height at witch the bottom is to be placed. So that being said if I fly my level flight at 4'6" and the bottom of my squares at 5'6" if all else is perfect then it is a perfect score for both according to the book. It never really says that you have to use the altitude of the first maneuver as the bottom height for the rest of the pattern. If it were so then it wouldnt give you the option in each discription. It says normal level flight that is refering to height at which normal level flight can be flown NOT the maneuver of Take Off and Level Flight. It does not say that the Height set by the flier during Take Off and Level flight maneuver is the bottom height for the rest of the pattern.

The fact that this can be confused is just another reason why the whole thing needs to be simplified. I have always thought the book was written in a way it can be very easily confused. It reads like a buch of lawyer talk. I know alot of hard work went into it and I am greatful for that but this simple difference of views comes from the many ways the book can be read and that tells us it is just to confusing. It should be very straightforward simple and to the point.

If the Normal Level Flight height were one specific number then you would have exactly what you are saying you are reading. Like 5' is the height for all maneuvers and portions of maneuvers that are to be flown at normal level flight. Any deviation from this height is cause for deduction. Pretty simple and right to the point. It is not that way at this time and no maneuver has any lasting effect from the one before. The maneuvers are to be scored as their own seperate entity.

>I feel that the rulebook tolerance range implies that the
>CENTER of that range is the ultimate goal, and that 5'
>(insert metric equivalent here) should be the guage. IF a
>flier settles in at the end of the takeoff and climb at
>another height, then he is telling judges that THAT is his
>BASELINE height --

I dont really think you can go off what it implies. It wouold be best to always go right off what it says and nothing more or less. This would be the best way to get consistant judging everywhere. Because reading that rulebook anyone can come up with many different things it MIGHT imply.

>
> -- it IS within the 4-6' range...
>
> -- he levels off THERE, which the book recognizes as
>"normal level flight" height...
>
> -- subsequent maneuver descriptions are based on
>"normal level flight" height...

Yes and Normal Level Flight as discribed in 11.1 pg 51-52 as a range between 3.9 and 5.9 feet. Each maneuver must have its Normal Level Flight portion fall in this area. It does NOT say that each maneuvers Normal Level Flight portion is determined by the Take Off and Level Flight maneuver. It just doesnt say that.

>
> -- and, as many have mentioned, perfection means
>perfection. In this case, the BEST hit the same bottoms,
>42º's, 45º's. 90º's, etc., AND level flight height
>bottoms...
>
>So... where there is "drift" of the baseline "normal"
>height, there should be a lower score awarded...

Yep during that specific maneuver.

>
>NOWHERE else in the maneuver descriptions is "normal level
>flight" altitude defined except at the level-off from the
>takeoff climb (which IS defined as the altitude exactly one
>lap after release for takeoff).

Normal Level Flight is discribed in the 11.1 paragraph and is the reference throughout the discriptions.

>
>John A. and all other sporty types, please note: We judge --
>and fly for judges -- against a standard of perfection. Not
>knocking any other way to enjoy the stunt pattern, by any
>means, just that when we fly before judges (or when we
>judge, for that matter) the PERFECT figure is the only one
>worth 40 points. Where there is fudge room, fudging hurts
>our possible score...
>
>I'm open to other ways of viewing this... I've learned more
>by listening than by talking...

However, I do see the part in 11.1 where it says to use reference points for judging. It never clearly states that Take Off and Level Flight is the standard to be used for the entire pattern. It does say that you should use a reference point and the flier should fly APPROXIMATELY the same point in those portions of the pattern. However I go back to the fact that it never clearly states FLAT OUT that Take Off and Level Flight set the bottom height for the whole pattern. If this were to be the way it was to be flown it would seem to me that it would be written that way very clearly. I dont think it is fair to teach other judges or judge people based on what one might think it implies or what one's opinion is. It just isnt going to be a consistant way to teach or judge. That is not a hot at anyone but just my thoughts on it.

If I can remember this when the next cycle comes around I will try to write a proposal that just cleans the wording up a bit and get this part real CLEAR once and for all.