Looking at possible dates in early 2018 to stage a FULL IMAC judging clinic.... having pilots in an interactive class room session with a qualified instructor going through the criteria by Aresti group.. then going out to a local airpark and doing real time judging based on the classroom material.

Who's interested?

Jacques Telles

I would attend a FULL JUDGES school.
In my opinion having qualified judges is the backbone of an IMAC meet.
I have brought it up at our local club meeting and have approved sponsoring one in Lake Havasu.
Here or there you can count me in.

Originally Posted by jmack49

.
In my opinion having qualified judges is the backbone of an IMAC meet.

I used to think so as well... but now it seems that rules can be changed and approved by the BOD at local contests to make the flying convenient for individual pilots.....
So even after attending and teaching many schools, we would never know what rules we will fly to until we actually show up at a contest.
Sadly this has been approved by our current BOD

If it's in early 2018, I'm in.. Still stuck out here in the sand for another 6 weeks.

The IMAC BOD has no rulemaking authority. Nor is there anything that can be called IMAC rules. Any deviation from the actual body of the AMA rules of a sanctioned event requires that all contestants be notified in advance by the CD - this requirement is done to specifically counter what Curtis claims has happened - to prevent a CD from arbitrarily creating "favorable" rules. that's how it is supposed to be done anyway.

Yes... I know the semantics....they are the AMA Scale Aerobatic Regulations and AMA Contest Regulations
and Yes, the IMAC BOD has taken on the responsibility of choosing which rules to follow at AMA Scale Aerobatic Competitions.......

That's a big can of worms to deal with.

Or how about pulling a judge because one contestant thought that judge wasn't being fair to him and claimed the judge to not be competent. When in fact this particular judge has been to multiple clinics and is extremely qualified.

Gentlemen,

As a potential new IMAC competitor, I am very interested in attending a complete and well executed Judging School. I fly with several active IMAC competitors in Las Vegas who attend events throughout the Southwest region.

If this event does come to fruition I will attend and try to absorb as much knowledge as available. I am pretty good at ignoring drama and grumbling.

Again, as I am new to this sport I have a question about the region. Las Vegas has at least two suitable fields that could host an IMAC event. I know that they have in the past. Possibility of hosting a judging school here, or an event or two?

Thanks for all the information I have already gotten from this group.

Tim Beghtol

Tim
If you haven't already checked out the PDF rule book... go to http://www.mini-iac.org/portals/0/do...a9e4fbc566.pdf


We're close to zeroing in on an early 2018 judging clinic... I hope to have the details ready for general publication when we return from the El Centro contest this coming weekend. Will we see you there?


Jacques

Now that Judging School season seems to be upon us, I would like to put a few thoughts out there. At contests I hear many people say "I wish there was a judging school in my area". I think people need to realize that a judging school is not some magical thing, it's not like, once you go to one, now you know all the criteria.
When I do, or go to a training class for my job we stress, if you can remember one or two main things from this class, that is about all we can expect. How much will you remember from an 8 hour judging school the next time you are at a contest.

So, realize that going to a judging school does not automatically make you "qualified" to judge a round of contest aerobatics. The truth is, you don't have to be qualified in any way to do it. The person (poor sucker) that is tasked with building the judging matrix is likely the person that determines who is qualified. The class you judge at any given contest is likely determined by what class you compete in. It can also be determined on your perceived experience level, and / or if that person has experience with you in the judging chair.

Among other factors, the skill level for judging aerobatics can be broken down in to two areas. Understanding the criteria (knowing the rule book), and how quickly and efficiently you can apply this criteria in a real time situation. You can have a judge that has really studied the rule book, knows the criteria forwards and back, but cannot keep up applying this criteria in say an unlimited, or invitational flight. Or you could have a judge that does not fully understand the criteria (or never read, or does not continually reads the rule book, or worse yet makes up their own criteria), yet can keep up with applying this (incorrect) criteria. Either situation does a disservice to the pilot.

What does all this have to do with judging schools? A judging school cannot teach you to apply the correct criteria in a timely and efficient manner. This comes with getting experience in the judging chair. How do you build efficiency, and staying ahead of the plane you are judging? It is just like anything you are learning, as you do it, it gets to be more automatic, and you can pay more attention to other details. It does no good to get more efficient if you are not applying the correct criteria.

The first step to all of this is to learn, understand, and absorb the criteria. You also need to continually review this criteria.
Just going to a judging school? Nope. That won't do it.
A judging school is for reinforcing your understanding of the criteria. Confirm your thought process is correct, get questions answered, hear other questions get answered that you didn't even think to ask, and maybe see a few friends you haven't seen in a while. That's what a judging school is for.

The rule book (AMA Competition Regulations 2017-2018) is available for download and study on the IMAC web sight ( along with other really good education material).
How many judges sitting in the chair have read it recently (or at all)? If you are flying in a contest, would you want the judges judging your flight to have read that book recently to understand the criteria?
It goes both ways. That flight you are scoring, that pilot is hoping you have studied the rule book for his flight.

The sad news is that the worst part of flying IMAC is that human people have to judge it. We have built in weaknesses that take a lot of discipline to overcome. We can only minimize these weaknesses by trying our best to judge to the standard given to us in the rule book.

Before and after going to your judging school, study up, continue to study. Understand the criteria. Ask questions, listen and learn. When you are in the judging chair. Apply the criteria you understand, nothing more. Don't make up or apply fuzzy criteria you don't understand. If you learn something new, apply it the next time you judge, not in that round. Be independent, don't worry what the other judge is doing. (Except maybe on zeros *) You apply the criteria you understand to the best of your ability, that's all that can be asked of you. Be proud that you are a competent judge and can always explain your downgrades and zeros* given.

* Zeros (hell the post is already this long I might as well go from short story to full novel)
I get very frustrated when I hear someone at a contest say something like "I almost zero'd that spin/snap. Ty Lyman at the national judging schools puts it pretty simply. A spin or snap is simply a pass/fail. If it does not meet the criteria (fail) it's a zero (if you doubt your observation or not sure of the criteria, benefit to the pilot, score the quality). If it does (pass) then simply judge the quality. Good stuff.
It is equally frustrating hearing some of the other comments I've heard when a zero is given to a pilot on a snap or spin. "I didn't see a break" "I never saw it stall" "there was no autorotation".
I've been accused of being a "hard judge". It is nothing more than getting more efficient at seeing the obvious downgrades, so I can see and think about the less obvious downgrades.

The truth is I probably give less zeros in a round than most judges. (Easy or hard judges).
Likely the reason is my thought process on zeros is different from most other judges I've spoken with on the subject. My thought process is having the attitude to find a way to score a maneuver, rather than finding a way to zero a maneuver. If you think about that, it's a huge difference.
My job is in insurance claims. I have to base a decision to cover or not cover a claim on policy (rule book) wording. Instead of finding a way to deny a claim ( a zero) I am tasked to find a way to cover (give a score) the claim. There is specific policy claim denial wording (rule book criteria) that if the claim meets that wording, it is denied (given a zero). Understand that if the claim is denied, I have to send a letter with the EXACT policy wording as to why it was denied (zero'd).

So, there ya go. I will only give a zero on a snap or spin (and some other maneuvers), if I can quote the rule book as to why it got a zero. If I can't quote (or at least paraphrase) the rule book wording that it did not meet the criteria, then I score the quality.
I believe this is a big change from the way most people give zeros, but it lives right into the phrase that we as judges constantly quote. "Benefit to the pilot".
Bill

Bill
Excellent inputs!


Jacques

Great comments gentlemen, thank you.

Flyracer, I have to work all weekend otherwise I would be coming over with Gene. He and I have been friends and flying buddies for years so he has been the major influence on me to get my but in gear....

Thanks again, all.

Tim Beghtol

Well said, Thank you Bill!

Originally Posted by lazyboyflyer

Well said, Thank you Bill!

+1 Thank you Bill.