Another judging question/opinions.

The old time question was so much fun that we'll try another-this time modern PA.
A while back I was judging and a flyer was doing horizontal 8's. He did his two 8's finished at the intersection, but then, alas, did another inside for a half 8 and an incorrect exit.
The other judge and I agreed on loss of pattern points for the incorrect exit and he awarded the minimum 10 points for the maneuver due to the incorrect exit, though the maneuver would normally have scored higher.
Minimum maneuver score(and loss of pattern points) for incorrect exit(after the illustrated end of the maneuver) or loss of pattern points and whatever the maneuver was worth in the judges mind(say 30)-what say ye?

10 points for the manuever, no loss of pattern points.

Control Line Precision Aerobatics. 11. Flight Pattern, ". . . .exiting a a maneuver in any way other than is illustrated in the maneuver section, . . . loss of pattern points."

And, Maneuver Assessment. 15.1.2. When a gross error (to be defined later) is committed, the score should reflect this. . ." I would think an exit which loses pattern points is a gross error. I would give maybe half the points I would have give otherwise.

So,loss of pattern points without question, and probably low score on the maneuver.

As usual, I anticipate correction by people who have read more of the rule book than I have.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-21-04 AT 06:04 PM (CDT)
 
I would score the maneuver as he flew it...ie 25 points or whatever. Remember that the maneuver has a starting and ENDING point. Once the model flys past the end point of the maneuver...it is done. Then the exit begins. This is where the error occured and loss of pattern points. There was no gross error during the maneuver. Why give the flyer only 10 points?...it seems he is paying the penalty twice.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-22-04 AT 09:10 AM (CDT)
 
All of the responses here show that the current rulebook is less than clear and a proposed change would be appropriate in the next rules change cycle that will start next year. As with any rules change, there will need to be some careful consideration on what is changed and how it is changed. The current rules regarding when pattern points are lost and when a maneuver is automatically downgraded to a 10 have evolved over time where the intent has probably been to clarify but in my humble opinion, the results have been less than desirable.

In the scenario described by Jim P in the first post, a flyer "did his two 8's finished at the intersection, but then, alas, did another inside for a half 8 and an incorrect exit."

There are two sections in the rule book that apply here. In Paragraph 11, "Not doing the correct number of consecutive maneuvers...will result in loss of patern points." In this scenario, the flyer did 2.5 eights. 2.5 eights is not the correct number of consecutive maneuvers. 2.5 is not equal to 2. Therefore, pattern points would be lost. Furthermore, even though the scoring for the maneuver ends at the last intersection, Paragraph 11 also states that "exiting a maneuver in any way other than illustrated in the maneuver section....will result in loss of pattern points. So in this case, pattern points will be definitely lost.

Now, if the two figure eights were not "fully completed" as described in Paragraph 11.2, then "the attempted/incomplete maneuver shall be awarded a minimum score of 10." In this scenario, the two horizontal eights were completed, but a serious error was made in the exit from the maneuver. My reading of the rules is that the figure eight should be scored as to how well it was flown and then with a serious deduction of points for the serious exit error. At least in this case, the flyer is not penalized twice for the single error as he would be if an incomplete maneuver were flown when pattern points would be lost AND the maneuver would automatically be scored as a 10.

It is with this point that I think the rules have gone to far in penalizing a flyer twice for making a single mistake.

This is where I like to tell a story.

There was a contest that I flew in Texas some time ago. At that time, the rules were not written with this double penalty for loosing pattern points and receiveing a minimum 10 point score. (This rule was incorporated sometime after the mid to late 70's) During an official flight, I ran short of fuel, the engine quit on the first inside loop of the four leaf clover. I whipped the model for two laps before landing. Another contestant went to the judges to tell them that I should loose pattern points as well as receive only a partial score for the incompleted maneuver. The Contest Director had observed this flight and ruled that the flight was to receive pattern points while getting the minimum 10 points for initiating that four leave clover with a recognizable entry. That Contest Director was George Aldrich who I think can be considered as an authority if not the definitive authority on the intent of how the rules were written.

I used that experience as a precedent in similar situations whenever I judged at a contest until the time that the rules were changed where any situation that a maneuver is not completed, pattern points will automatically be lost. I would like to see this provision in the rules changed so that one mistake or the situation where the wind blows a model out of a maneuver will no longer automatically result in a 55 point deduction in a flight score. The wording will be structured around the idea that if a maneuver, flown in proper sequence is initiated with a "recognizable entry" but not completed, the flight will be eligible for pattern points. There will need to be a few other adjustments throughout the rulebook to remove what would be inconsistencies with this kind of wording, but this can be done.

In my opinion, and evidently that of George Aldrich, the pattern points are awarded as a bonus for presenting to the judges a consistent order/sequence of maneuvers from one flight to the next. I think that when the rule was introduced that each maneuver had to be completed in the manner described in the rulebook to be eligible for pattern points in addition to the automatic point deduction, that the rules-makers went unnecessarily too far.

There, I had my rant.

(And I did not get into the mess that is being made in the other thread on the OTS pattern points. Just read the current PAMPA OTS rules and the question there is answered.)

So, to the AMA Aerobatics Rules Committee, I will be submitting a proposal next year to change this situation.

Thanks Keith for your very lucid and well organized thoughts.

Again, in equity, I favor the loss of pattern points but awarding earned maneuver points, less a serious error whack for the situation in question.

An observation is that in most local or regional contests, 3 attempts for two official, with the high score of the two used to determine final position, the double loss of points(55 points in our example) is less significant than a contest where all scores are totaled to determine final standing(ie: you have another chance to do it right, if you err again, you deserve your fate).

Agreed, Keith. I believe that was the original intent of the "pattern points" (that each maneuver be flown or attempted and in its proper order so the judges know what to look for) although it is not written that way now.

I would encourage you to go for that correction, and you would be a very good one to make sure it is worded properly and all areas covered.

Mr. T,

Very well put. Now adding a bit to the mix. What happens if a flyer forgets ...say the triangles. Completes the rest of the pattern and then realizes he forgot the triangles and does them after the Cloverleaf. Pattern points obviously lost but score for the triangles? 0,10 or the 38 he would have gotten if they had been in the right place?

Jim, Good thread! It is surprising to me the different opinions of guys who have been judging for years. Seems if everything goes "According to Hoyle" then we get consistent scoring (at least consistent from that individual) but when a "bump in the road" comes along then it can get off the charts. As Keith pointed out the primary focus should be on the "intent" of the rule. There is some ambiguity because it is just as hard to write a rule which encompasses the intent as it is to prove "intent" in a court of law.

Common sense probably has something to do with it but that isn't as common as it used to be.

F2B rules: No points for the manoeuvre and no pattern points.
UK BMFA rules: Same
AMA rules; I would say same again but am open to correction on the manoeuvre score.
Remember that FAI/BMFA rules don't have any hand signals and the schedule has to be flown EXACTLY as described, or else...

>F2B rules: No points for the manoeuvre and no pattern
>points.

Where and when are pattern points used in F2B?

I was once at a pub in Castle Donington, near Derby. A pretty lady said, "You Yanks spell funny." I asked for an example. "Maneuver," she said. Blimey.

the rule book plainly says that if you do a maneuver out of sequence you lose pattern points. No other penalty. If the judges recognize that a maneuver was skipped and can recognize it when it is flown it should be scored normally.

You would lose pattern points. The judges might downgrade your scores for flying the pattern too loose (meaning too large or a poor fit). Either could lose you the contest. Sorry, I had a college business letter writing class...one misspelled word got you an F for the letter.

2.5 horizontal 8's...sounds like me flying. Or 1.5 laps inverted between wingovers. Looking forward to the revised rulz (sic).
Steve

PS: I'm wondering what maneuver Howard was attempting in that Pub in/at Castle Donington.