"Clearest Presentation" or "Proper Gemotery" which to judge by.

[Dangerous Dan]

Kris are you trying to start a new deathmatch with this thread?

[JimC-MD]

How do the judging seminars work?

It would be interesting if the seminars were set up with three video cameras. One in the center that would track the airplane through the entire flight for the "judge's perspective". The two on the ends would track the plane at the two sides only. Then after the judges had scored several flights they could go to the clubhouse and review what the maneuvers actually looked like from various perspectives. I would think this would be a good teaching tool for perspective.......

Consistency is key. I saw similar arguments to this in competition with Martial Arts. Forms (Kata for those familiar with styles from Japan) competition was very subjective. Within the same umbrella organization there were groups of schools that performed techniques in varied ways. If you were being judged by someone that was indoctrinated in one variation of style and you were from another, you might as well take a boot to the head. In another instance you could do the same form and win........ Oh well. It was all fun.

I am going flying..........

[Jim Woodward]

Ya'll - the original AMA flying/aerobatics judging video still perfectly applies in so many areas. This video should not be overlooked as an invaluable training tool.
Jim W.

[BoneDoc]

Yawn....

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by OverTemp;210681 Kris, Seriously man... what's this?: [URL
	http://home.netcom.com/~demigod/id3.html[/url] And what's with "Demigod"? Just curious.

A LONG twisted story, full of intrigue, death (several times) and many many damning incidents that should never be revealed to the public at large.

After a rather bizarre incident that should not have been Humanly possible (location, time, etc etc etc need not be known) someone blurted out at me "what are you, the Hand of God" to which I glibly replied .. "No, actually, I'm just his tool." and the retort was. . "Oh, so you're some kind of DEMIgod. . " and I answered. "if you like, its' fine with me." and in a certain group of people (with names like Crazy, Bull, Killer, Ghost, etc.) the name stuck, for too long. I made the mistake of using it as my Username when I got my account with Netcom some 11 years ago. . the rest is boring.


Dangerous Dan. . NO, I am NOT trying to start a new DeathMatch. Paul agrees with me this time.

[KrisW]

THE LOGIC BEHIND THE RULES

I'd like to take afew moments to put forth my own conclusions for the way the rules are written, especialy concerning the current "Proper Geometry" requirement for IMAC aerobtic maneuvers.

I'll start with an example of straight lines. The simple end-end of the airspace straight and level line. At one end the relative angle to the viewer is 35 degrees off the nose, at the middle it is 90 degrees, and at the other end it is again 35 degrees. this is true no matter how high the plane is off the grond (within reason, the angles will be slightly different, but the principle is the same). No matter what the RELATIVE angle is, the planes heading and altitude remain constant.

I'd say we ALL agree that planes must do the "X" in a straight line, if that is what the maneuver calls for. Correct?

The same holds true for lines that are straight up and down. Unless they are exactly straight in front of us, and sufficently far out, they will NEVER appear to be exactly straight down, and there will always "appear" to be some sort of angle to them.

I'd say we ALL agree that planes should do vertical lines VERTICALLY. Correct?

Now, take a 45 degree line, and start it 5 feet off center, and carry it out of the aerobatic zone, about 1000 feet up and 1000 feet to one side. The angle of relative view CHANGES, just like the horzontal and vertical lines, but the angle is STILL 45 degrees. then, take the same exact 45 degree line and offset it 300 feet to one side. As it is begun it appears to be one angle, then appears to be exactly 45 degrees at soem point almost on center, then on the other side the perceived angle changes again.

Now, here is the LOGIC behind the rules stipulating that ALL those lines must be vlown on their GEOMETRIC heading and angle, and not on a corrected angle so as to "present" properly.

EVERY angle, or horizontal line, can conceivably pass through center. To change the angle as you are flying it is a DOWNGRADE. All lines must reflect a STRAIGHT line, not a curved one otherwise the maneuver does not contain a LINE, it contains a CURVE, rendering the maneuver no longer reflective of the Aresti.

Logic stipulates that if you cannot curve the lines as you fly, and they must be straight, and at some portion of the line it will cross center and render a non-offset view of the line, then in order to get scored on a 45 degree or horizontal line, they MUST be flow that way in ALL cases, and at ALL times.

Therefore, using LOGIC, the practice of "Clearest presentation" (AKA impressionism) is clearly WRONG, and to be done away with if any sort of consistent and properly graded performance is to be obtained.

NOW, let's examine the LOGIC of why LOOPS are exempt from this.

Loops are dynamic maneuvers, with no straight lines. They are curves, constantly changing and subject to angular distortion in THREE dimensioins, not Two, throughout their entire course. It is almost impossible to fly a round loop when you as the observor are flying the aircraft from a fixed point, since the differering angles will inhibit your ability to judge the true position of the plane in a constant arc. Therefore, since it is almost impossible to make a loop TRULY round, the criteria must be set to to what is humanly possible, which is reflected in the rule stipulating that Loops must APPEAR round.

This is where the differeing rules come into play for Lines and Loops. Lines CAN be flown on angle, in a straight path, from any position in the airspace, and the relative viewing angle compensated for by training and good flying skills. Loops quite literally cannot. This is why the rules exempt Loops from perfection, and this is why the rules hold Lines, 45's, horizontal, and vertical, to the standard which we now have.

I had a lot to do at work today, but managed to find 5 minutes to put some brain cells to work on this "logic". I'm sure someone might find it . . . interesting.

[JeremyHolt]

Are you guys all serious.. or is this another april fools thread?

[paffy]

Kris - surprisingly, you're dead on with the lines. The true angle would have to gradually change as the plane moves away from center on the "apparent" 45 line. The flight would have to look just like a picture taken with a fisheye camera lens.

I have to disagree on the loops. Nothing humanly impossible or dynamic about them. The rules say they must appear round in connection with wind - thus they must be wind corrected. However, the wording could be (and obviously is) interpreted for compensation for visual distortion as well ...

P.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by JeremyHolt
	Are you guys all serious.. or is this another april fools thread?

I wish !!!!

At least I'm representing the side that 18 out of 25 people prefer

P.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	Kris - surprisingly, you're dead on with the lines. The true angle would have to gradually change as the plane moves away from center on the "apparent" 45 line. The flight would have to look just like a picture taken with a fisheye camera lens. I have to disagree on the loops. Nothing humanly impossible or dynamic about them. The rules say they must appear round in connection with wind - thus they must be wind corrected. However, the wording could be (and obviously is) interpreted for compensation for visual distortion as well ... P.

I'm not going to disagree with you Paul on the 2nd part of this, as it is obviously true as well, considering the wording of the rule itself. My "interpretation" of the logic is just somehting I am bringing forward for consideration, because it shows, I think, a bit of clarification for Pete Castines concerns over the different criteria for Loops.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	I wish !!!! At least I'm representing the side that 18 out of 25 people prefer P.

Actualy, you are also representing the side that 6 out of the 7 dissenters know is technically true, but do not want to admit.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by JeremyHolt
	Are you guys all serious.. or is this another april fools thread?

Actually, I do the smiley faces to make people THINK I have a sense of humor.. nothing is farther from the truth.

No. I'm very serious on this matter.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	I'm not going to disagree with you Paul on the 2nd part of this, as it is obviously true as well, considering the wording of the rule itself. My "interpretation" of the logic is just somehting I am bringing forward for consideration, because it shows, I think, a bit of clarification for Pete Castines concerns over the different criteria for Loops.

The wording structure is similar to the spin portion of the rulebook.

For spin, it says in one sentence "nose and wing must drop at the same time". Some see this as a reason to give ZERO if it doesn't happen. Yet the next sentence elaborates on the first, saying it's a reason for deduction and talking about specifics.

For loops, first sentence says "must appear round". The second sentence elaborates on WIND corrections to make the loop round. There's exactly NOTHING in there suggesting corrections for the viewing angle.

P.

[paffy]

The "clear presentation" camp should also consider that the wording about "the clearest figure should receive the highest score" or whatever it used to be, is currently removed from F&J guide.

The only mention of presentation of figured is appropriately in the Aircraft control score section.

I guess somebody with common sense updated the book without most people noticing !

P.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	THE LOGIC BEHIND THE RULES I'd like to take afew moments to put forth my own conclusions for the way the rules are written, especialy concerning the current "Proper Geometry" requirement for IMAC aerobtic maneuvers.

I'm sorry, I missed this in the rules. Can you please cite the Rule number and page number in the current edition of the AMA rules (2007-2008) for scale aerobatics??

I can start:

Rule 6.1(a) [page SCA-11] - The geometry of the figures
(including the shape, radii, angles, flight path,
direction of flight, heading and bank angle) must
comply with the prescribed criteria.

Now I am not sure how this fits into the "Proper Geometry" standard that Kris feels is to be used. All I know is that this is what the actual Rulebook has to say about geometry.

I know that Kris is all hot and bothered about this "clearest Presentation and Proper geometry" stuff, but I would really like to know where it is in the actual Rulebook. I am a bit new to this and would really appreciate the citation of the Rule Number and Page Number. I only ask this because I am a simple soul. I actually prefer to use the rules as written as opposed to making up my own criteria or manufacturing extensive arguments about things that do not exist in the rules.

Thanks.

Oh, and BTW, it is "geometry" not "gemotery". I thought it was a typo until I saw it spelled the same way more than once. All the letters are there, just not in the correct order.