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

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	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.

Bill, have you ever heard of "Original thought"?? People have them, and they make their way to these forums. I stated that this was MY opinion/view of why the rules are laid out in the manner that they are. It is not an interpretation of the rules, per se, but an examination of WHY they are the way they are. Pauls input concerning my post was very good because it clarified some things, and brought forth other considerations that I had not examined. It was also CIVIL.

That entire post is an OPINION, was stated as such, and all you can do is ridicule it and hurl insults. Is this how a person in a position of "authority" as a Cherryman of an IMAC Committee carries himself?

Why do you take a discussion and turn it into a personal insult match? Do you have ANY basis for promoting "Clear Presentation" over Geometry, other than "it's too hard"? How about joining the discussion as a proponent of IMAC, instead of trying to promote division and rancor within it's ranks, and bragging about trying to disrupt the current rules structure and supplant it with your own (which has already proven to be a BAD way to judge)? That constitues a bad Conflict of Interest, IMO.

No wonder the Rules Committee is losing members. No wonder it's so hard to get an IMAC-Wide agreement on even the most fundamental considerations for Judging.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	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.

Well put, Paul, and well thought out. People should read that and they will get a better insight into how things work in the F&JG.

One point, however. Since looping maneuvers are the only Family that has the "Appears" word as part of their main Judging Criteria, it adds more weight to my interpretation of the Logic behind why we judge them this way. Not trying to promote one view or the other, but if a flyer CAN fly the loop perfectly round, why even present the caveat of "appearance" when perfection could be achieved? Wind correction is a given for all maneuvers, unless in a stalled environment. Clarifying the need for Wind Correction to make the Loop appear round, as a supporting statement for "Appearance", is kind of redundant and unnecessary if the maneuver is already required (like all maneuvers) to be wind corrected. Even Spins get the relief of "near stalled" in their judging criteria now.

So while I tend to agree with the "Opening statement, supporting statement" form you have noticed, in this case an obvious requirement is repeated. It would be like "all lines must APPEAR straight" which is never said. So, there is something a bit more important about appearance rather than Geometry, in this case, to the person writing, and reading, this criteria, and the reasoning behind it is presumably the shape and viewing angle change of looping maneuvers.

As I stated in my "Opinion" the difficulty of changing view angles throughout looping maneuvers was seen (JUST my opinion) as problematic, so it was addressed withthe opening criteria containing "appear". It's a viewpoint (pun intended), since it's not the Rule, of why it was written like that in the first place.

Kind of like the dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court, but hardly as serious of a matter.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	That entire post is an OPINION, was stated as such, W

An opinion based on a nonexistent judging criteria.

And as far as my particular tone when dealing with you Kris, it is the result of nearly 8 years of exchanges with you on a variety of forums. And please, you are the one who was banned for abusive posts on more than one occasion. So this appears to be the kettle calling the pot black.

And WRT to the Rules committee, I am not aware of any recent (past year or so) changes. We had some early changes early on, and a couple of new folks signed on for the next cycle, but other than that I am not aware of this alleged mass exodus that you refer to.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	Well put, Paul, and well thought out. People should read that and they will get a better insight into how things work in the F&JG. One point, however. Since looping maneuvers are the only Family that has the "Appears" word as part of their main Judging Criteria, it adds more weight to my interpretation of the Logic behind why we judge them this way. Not trying to promote one view or the other, but if a flyer CAN fly the loop perfectly round, why even present the caveat of "appearance" when perfection could be achieved? Wind correction is a given for all maneuvers, unless in a stalled environment. Clarifying the need for Wind Correction to make the Loop appear round, as a supporting statement for "Appearance", is kind of redundant and unnecessary if the maneuver is already required (like all maneuvers) to be wind corrected. Even Spins get the relief of "near stalled" in their judging criteria now. So while I tend to agree with the "Opening statement, supporting statement" form you have noticed, in this case an obvious requirement is repeated. It would be like "all lines must APPEAR straight" which is never said. So, there is something a bit more important about appearance rather than Geometry, in this case, to the person writing, and reading, this criteria, and the reasoning behind it is presumably the shape and viewing angle change of looping maneuvers. As I stated in my "Opinion" the difficulty of changing view angles throughout looping maneuvers was seen (JUST my opinion) as problematic, so it was addressed withthe opening criteria containing "appear". It's a viewpoint (pun intended), since it's not the Rule, of why it was written like that in the first place. Kind of like the dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court, but hardly as serious of a matter.

Does anybody know who wrote the original wording for the "appearance of loops" ? Maybe that person could tell us what the true intention was back then...

P.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	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.

Since the rules currently don't mention anything about "clearest Presentation", this discussion should be a moot point.

The rules say "proper geometry" and "smoothness". Nothing about "presentation"

The only thing that might be open to different interpretations is the "loop must appear round" gotcha... But even if you interpret that as a need to correct for judges visual distortion, it only applies to full loops, not partial loops.

So if you get to fly teardrop with 7/8 loop in it on center, it has to be proper geometry. If you add the additional 1/8 arc, you might start claiming that all of a sudden, it has to be flown totally different and give the "appearance" of a loop instead of being an actual loop.

P.

P.

[Vic3D]

OMG. This is worse than Statistics class.

Guys, when we fly IMAC we're pretty much trying to mimic what the full scale planes do. As far as I know, the full scale IAC planes do true 45 and 90 or whatever lines they have to do. They even have those things at the wingtips to have reference with the horizon when doing a line. They don't do the line at more or less than 45 degrees just so the judges SEE a 45 degree line. Why should we?

[paffy]

It's terrible, but 30% of poll respondents feel like the pilot is there for judges entertainment, instead of the other way around ....

The rules also say "vertical lines mus APPEAR perpendicular to horizon", so we should all start flying them crooked soon, so they actually appear vertical....

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	Does anybody know who wrote the original wording for the "appearance of loops" ? Maybe that person could tell us what the true intention was back then... P.

It's a long story. Much of what we have now is the result of work done by Ben Perreau back in 00 and 1 which resulted in the 02-04 rule book. Ben essentially took the then current IAC Redbook and re-worked it into our rules by making changes he thought were necessary, mostly due to the fact that we use wind correction and IAC does not. There were some minor tweaks done for the next rules cycle (05-06) and then some more substantial changes that resulted in the current rule set.

The real root of this is how our rules were based on IAC and their non-wind-corrected criteria. But even then, IAC requires loops to appear round to the judges. IMAC does use wind correction and this leads to many of the issues that get raised, like this one, which really stems from the judging of 45 lines offset from the center area. The Redbook has a nice discussion of this as it applies to flying 45's into or with the wind and how that effects their appearance to the judges. IAC is required to fly the actual true line all the time (with the loop exception). This is because the pilot is in the plane and is being judged on how closely he/she can fly that perfect line.

We are not in the planes and therefore the pilot and the judges have the same perspective on the plane (close enough). So it seems to me that the best criteria is one that recognizes that fact. This is why I would like to see the reference to the 45 line criteria changed. We actually meant to do it for this cycle, but it was one of those things that slipped through the cracks. We did get the loop criteria back into the rules, since those were dropped in Ben's version (re-work of the IAC Redbook).

In summary, what you see now in our rules is the result of trying to adopt a wind-corrected modification of the IAC rules with at least two revisions as we discovered the contradictions that arose from trying to do this.

[Dangerous Dan]

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

I thought it was another deathmatch thread....LOL

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	Since the rules currently don't mention anything about "clearest Presentation", this discussion should be a moot point. The rules say "proper geometry" and "smoothness". P.

Actually there is only one reference to "smoothness"

Rule 6.1 (c) - c) The smoothness of the performance.

"Proper geometry" does not appear in the rules. Rule 6.1 (a) states:

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.

And this is only 1 of the three places "geometry" is mentioned (Rule 9.1 and in the Freestyle criteria are the other 2).

[Shawn Berkheimer]

Vic, that answer is quite easy. IAC judges get more training that our judges. At just about any given contest the CD must get contestant judging and some of the guys that offer to sit in the chair have not even attended a judging seminar. A good CD will usually only sit judges what have been to one but at times they have no other choice but to accept the help that is being offered. The past couple of years I have seen an improvement by CDs requiring pre regestration and on the form thay ask if you are willing to judge and have attended a seminar. This allows them to put together a judging matrix along with the flight matrix. The CD may even wish to put together a scribe matrix.

You can see how easy it would for an uneducated judge to preceive a true 45 degree line as less and hit you with a downgrade. The rulebook states that there is a 1 point deduction for every 10 degrees off the flight path is. In reality you can fly anything from a 36 degree to 54 degree line without a deduction so this really is not as tragic as Kris makes it out to be.

Shawn

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	It's a long story. Much of what we have now is the result of work done by Ben Perreau back in 00 and 1 which resulted in the 02-04 rule book. Ben essentially took the then current IAC Redbook and re-worked it into our rules by making changes he thought were necessary, mostly due to the fact that we use wind correction and IAC does not. There were some minor tweaks done for the next rules cycle (05-06) and then some more substantial changes that resulted in the current rule set. The real root of this is how our rules were based on IAC and their non-wind-corrected criteria. But even then, IAC requires loops to appear round to the judges. IMAC does use wind correction and this leads to many of the issues that get raised, like this one, which really stems from the judging of 45 lines offset from the center area. The Redbook has a nice discussion of this as it applies to flying 45's into or with the wind and how that effects their appearance to the judges. IAC is required to fly the actual true line all the time (with the loop exception). This is because the pilot is in the plane and is being judged on how closely he/she can fly that perfect line. We are not in the planes and therefore the pilot and the judges have the same perspective on the plane (close enough). So it seems to me that the best criteria is one that recognizes that fact. This is why I would like to see the reference to the 45 line criteria changed. We actually meant to do it for this cycle, but it was one of those things that slipped through the cracks. We did get the loop criteria back into the rules, since those were dropped in Ben's version (re-work of the IAC Redbook). In summary, what you see now in our rules is the result of trying to adopt a wind-corrected modification of the IAC rules with at least two revisions as we discovered the contradictions that arose from trying to do this.

I think this should be approached as two independent problems.

Wind correction (which in my opinion is what the rules are trying to do and you are confirming it)

Correction for visual distortion (which in my opinion the rules aren't trying to do)

By wind correcting the loop, IMAC removed the discrepancy that IAC seems to have between lines (not wind corrected) and loops (wind corrected). I see absolutely no need for correction for visual distortion, probably just as Ben. Unfortunately, his wording "must appear to the judge" opens that option. He used the same phrase for vertical lines too .....

P.

[Boulder]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	It's terrible, but 30% of poll respondents feel like the pilot is there for judges entertainment, instead of the other way around .... The rules also say "vertical lines mus APPEAR perpendicular to horizon", so we should all start flying them crooked soon, so they actually appear vertical....

I was going to just read and giggle at this thread, but I have an observation.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me a "true" vertical line will appear vertical no matter which end of the box it is, unless, of course, you are flying so far out that the curvature of the earth comes into play.

[Judge]

Actually the deductions are now defined as 0.5 points per 5 degrees.

This was done to avoid arguments about where half points come from.

[Shawn Berkheimer]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Actually the deductions are now defined as 0.5 points per 5 degrees. This was done to avoid arguments about where half points come from.

I guess that is new for '07? I suppose it's time for a refresher.

Shawn