Another Perspective

LAST EDITED ON Apr-03-04 AT 01:06 PM (CDT)
 
It’s time to look at the upcoming F2B CL World Championship format in a different way.

Reference is made to the several on-going threads discussing the recent decision that has been made for the CL Aerobatics event (F2B) format at the World Championships (WC) that start this 4th of July in Muncie. I do not claim to know all of the details that led to the decisions nor do I want to justify the decisions that were made. I do have some insights as to the background leading to the F2B rules changes that will provide for a two-circle qualification process for the F2B event that supposedly will go into effect next year as well as the planning that has been going on this past year for the F2B event at this WC. I am also familiar with the events and decisions at both the Plenary meeting last Fall and the Plenary sessions several weeks ago where the decision was made that a two-circle qualification process will not be allowed at this 2004 WC. There is a lot of disinformation and misdirected emotion based on incorrect assumptions appearing on this Stuka Stunt Works Forum subject of the 2004 WC F2B format. I think it is time for all to step back and look at the realities of what has happened.

Igor Burger pretty well explained that the current rules are still in effect. The key here is Paragraph 4.2.8 of the F2B FAI rules:

"At World … Championships, … each competitor is entitled to two qualifying flights …. The 15 highest scoring individuals, on the basis of their highest single score in the qualifying flights … are entitled to three final flights."

Even if the Plenary Council would have endorsed the two-circle qualification process for this WC, it is still possible and perhaps even likely that there would have been a protest at this WC that the published rules of the CIAM were not adhered to and that some individual or individuals were somehow improperly prevented from being allowed to fly in the finals round. I do not think anybody would want to be on the FAI Jury at the WC to resolve that protest, when there would indeed be grounds to support the protest in that the published rules were not followed, even if there had been Plenary Council endorsements for deviation from the rules. It is because of this reasoning that we heard reports that those who voted felt compelled to not allow the two-circle format even though they agree that the proposed two-circle format is a good idea and good for the event. I am positive that Doc Jackson and Bill Lee presented the concept in the best possible way. It makes no difference if the proposed format for this WC had just been proposed (which it was not) or if it had been submitted to the CIAM more than six months ago and discussed by the F2B Working Group for more than the past two years (which it was). (Actually, a similar Plenary session last Fall was aware of the planned two-circle format and required the U.S. planners to have five judges on each of the two circles instead of the envisioned three as had been outlined in the F2B rules change working group proposal. No mention was made at that time that the two-circle format could not be used.) We have seen a "mild eruption" on the SSW because of this current decision. A protest of this matter at the WC would have been a disaster. The Plenary decision avoided this train wreck.

There is a misconception that has appeared here and during the discussion in France two weeks ago that there would be no "throw-away" flights in the two-circle qualification rounds. This is wrong. As has been explained by several posts in these SSW threads, each competitor would have flown two flights in front of one set of judges and two more flights in front of another set of judges. The total qualifying score for each competitor would have been determined by the sum of the single best flight from each set of judges. This is the key element of the two-circle format where each competitor would have more opportunity to demonstrate his abilities and the negative affect of variable weather conditions and the "luck of the draw" are significantly minimized when compared to the current single circle format. The chances that the truly best and most consistent pilots are selected for the finals round are significantly improved with a multi-circle format. In addition, just as we have been able to accomplish at our Nationals, an individual has a much more rewarding experience in that he has several days of competition and has four flights to demonstrate his skills before there is a down-select to a finals round. This is a significant improvement in return on the invested time, effort and resources an individual competitor must make to compete at this level.

It has been mentioned in the discussion of the two-circle qualification process, that pilots would have been "seeded" to "balance" the assignment of better pilots between the two circles. Such a seeding process would not have been used at this WC. Nor does the proposed F2B rules change provide for such a process. It is also misunderstood that it could become more difficult to qualify depending on what group of competitors an individual is assigned to. First of all, a seeding process would be impossible to administer as well as it being totally unnecessary. With a random assignment of each individual competitor among the two circles for the qualification rounds, it is possible that one circle would have a higher proportion of the number-one fliers from the top competing countries than the other circle. (The assignment would have been random with the constraint that no more than two competitors from a single country would be assigned to either of the two groups of competitors during the qualification rounds.) Even if there is such an imbalance, the probability of any one competitor qualifying for the finals does not change. Each competitor still demonstrates his abilities the same number of times in front of each set of judges. It will make no difference in the opportunity of any one individual competitor to qualify for the finals regardless of how many of the top competitors are on any one circle. Yes, it is still possible that because of weather and the luck of the draw, that certain scenarios can be conjured up where one individual might have fallen into an advantageous situation or another individual might have experienced a disadvantageous situation. However, these possibilities are significantly reduced over the current single circle format where only one flight is used to select those who move into the finals round which is one of the main reasons to justify a multi-circle qualification process. (A three-circle or even a four-circle format would be even better, but that is beyond the scope of this article.)

There are some that have written in this SSW Forum that the decision to not allow the two-circle format was based, at least in part, to even the score on the Americans who have chosen not to relax the BOM rules for our Nationals that start right after the WC this Summer. I think it is fair to say that this was not any kind of factor or consideration that was used during the Plenary meeting to reach the decision to not allow the two-circle format. (See the second paragraph above.) To suggest that the Plenary decision was made for this reason only goes to show the negative bias that some have regarding our own BOM rules for our own Nationals.

There is a broad misunderstanding that two-circle qualification process will provide an easier workload on the judges. With the two-circle format proposed (which is also that in the revised F2B rules) there is twice the number of judges but there is twice the number of flights. The same time to complete the qualification rounds will be required and the workload on any individual judge is the same in either case. The daily judge workload can be reduced in either case by adding another day of qualifying which can and will be done in the current format. To suggest that the judges benefit from the two-circle format because they have a reduced workload and that the Plenary decision makers should somehow be made to suffer with the judges because of their decision is misleading.

There have been comments about carrying on various "antics" on the circles at the L-Pad now that only one circle will be used as an "official circle" at any time. Though it is recognized that most of these comments have been meant to be "tongue-in-cheek", there needs to be some sensitivity here about the perceptions drawn from the written words that appear on this or any forum, particularly by those from other countries who are planning to attend and/or participate this WC. Essentially, though all generally view unfavorably the decision to allow only one circle during the qualifications, there nevertheless is some rationale for reaching that decision. When considering the alternative, the decision made is perhaps best given the likelihood of a protest against the non-rulebook procedures. There will be restrictions and controls on how the circles on the L-Pad will be used throughout the WC period. Only the WC F2B competitors will be able to use the circles there. To suggest any other activities on the L-Pad even in jest as some form of protest for the Plenary decision is counterproductive and can be misunderstood by many who might not understand the nuances involved. To use the excuse for an unpopular decision to not attend the WC is also shortsighted. There will still be a lengthy qualification process. There will still be a selection of the top pilots for the finals round, and there will still be the finals flyoff. Actually, little will be changed in the whole process as far as somebody who wants to observe the entire procedure. It is just that there will only be one official circle in operation for a long period instead of two circles in operation for the same long period during the qualification process. For anyone interested in CL Aerobatics, the opportunity to observe this process and to see the best of the best from around the world should not be missed.

Sorry for sounding like I am preaching, but there have been a number of posts in the last several days that are misleading, incorrect, or based on wrong information. There is no question that an opportunity to demonstrate a truly superior format for the WC F2B event has been squandered. An experienced team has been assembled to run this WC F2B event. Warren Tiahrt is a true professional in how he runs our major stunt events and he will so demonstrate this year as the F2B Event Director. However, given the protests that could have been made with the non-rulebook two-circle procedure, the current format is probably the best outcome of this whole issue. We should not loose sight that Warren and his team will make the most of it.

Thanks, Kieth- we needed that! This whole discussion on the complexities of a rules change has given an insight into the competitive flyer's domain- made PAMPA's reason for being created more clearly appreciated. Best regards,

Well written Keith.When you get down to the bottom line,whether we like them or not,the rules are the rules.There is certainly no reason to set the WC's up for an almost automatic protest.
Dale Barry

Keith,

And I suspect that for those competitors and organizers that stick around, the AMA Nationals will provide ample opportunity to see a well organized, fair and far superior contest.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-04 AT 12:13 PM (CDT)
 
Keith,
Thanks for your well written and reasoned article. It addresses all the questions I had about the sitiuation.

One point you mentioned reminded me to reread the other thread and especially my own posts on the subject. I found, quite to my embarrasment, that the way I structured my comments would lead those to believe I wouldn't attend the Qualifications because of the latest ruling. I actually changed my arrival date for personal reasons regarding the family and travel, and my own practice schedule. I want the others out there receiving the information to know the intent was to help ease the room shortage. One Signature Inn room is opening up at Muncie from the 3rd to the 7th.

>There is a broad misunderstanding that two-circle
>qualification process will provide an easier workload on the
>judges. With the two-circle format proposed (which is also
>that in the revised F2B rules) there is twice the number of
>judges but there is twice the number of flights. The same
>time to complete the qualification rounds will be required
>and the workload on any individual judge is the same in
>either case. The daily judge workload can be reduced in
>either case by adding another day of qualifying which can
>and will be done in the current format.

Well. that's true as far as it goes. What this doesn't include is the point that the EFFECT of judge's fatigue on the results WOULD be reduced.

A given quality flight may get a 1000 at 8 Monday, a 1100 at 5 pm Monday and a ???? 24 hours later late Tuesday. That's 36 HOURs between flights, and the absolute scores are compared DIRECTLY to decide the qualifying.

With shorter rounds, the change in fatigue level over the length of the round is reduced. 12-14 hours, as it would have been, is still too long. Of course, this is, oops, was, a compromise with the FAI for Muncie. The right answer, as everyone knows already, is to limit the round length to about 4-6 hours max, and use however many circles and rounds it take to accomplish this.

>
> Well. that's true as far as it goes. What this doesn't
>include is the point that the EFFECT of judge's fatigue on
>the results WOULD be reduced.
>
> With shorter rounds, the change in fatigue level over the
>length of the round is reduced. 12-14 hours, as it would
>have been, is still too long. Of course, this is, oops, was,
> a compromise with the FAI for Muncie. The right answer,
>as everyone knows already, is to limit the round length to
>about 4-6 hours max, and use however many circles and rounds
>it take to accomplish this.
>
> Brett

Brett,

I have no arguement with what you say regarding shorter rounds. However, the two-circle format that was proposed for this WC would have had the exact same daily workload on an indvidual judge that the now required one-circle format will have. In either case, the daily workload can be reduced by extending the days allowed for the qualification round. Indeed, the format that Warren had planned for the two-circle qualifications had an extra day planned. And he is now planning for that same extra day for the current single circle qualification. It will take 4 days for the qualifying. Half of the pilots will fly each day. It will take two days to the pilots to fly their first flight and two days for their second flight.

With the two circle format, each pilot would have had twice the number of flights. The individual judges, in either case, will see the same number of flights on each day.

To imply that the two-circle format that was planned for this WC reduced the judge workload is misleading.

There are other formats that could have been proposed, just as we have used such at our Nationals over the years, but that is beside the point here. The format that was being proposed has been proven at our Nats to provide the individual competitor a real opportunity to demonstrate his skills during the qualification process. It would have worked at the WC. And it will work when the new rules are in effect. But there are reasons the decision was made to discard the proposed format for this WC.

I also agree that if the decision would have been up to the F2B competitors, the vast majority would have agreed to this process. However, there is a minority that would likely see this as an opportunity submit a protest that the written rules were not being followed and some individuals did not had a fair opportunity to qualify, irrespective of any Plenary endorsement. I think there could have been a simple solution in that the Plenary could have stated that any protest on this matter would be decided that the two circle format was a special circumstance to be used during this WC and that the two-circle format offered a legitimate opportunity for all to qualify. Then, a more reasoned decision could be made to accept, adjust, or revert to the old method before the next rules are published. There would not have been any disaster if some firm decisions would have been made this past month.