Originally Posted by tec

Grand Junction has many IMAC and Pattern Pilots, we have talked about having a event there but it never happens. Why? Because the Denver pilots never travel outside of Denver! So the western slope guys have lost interest traveling to the eastern slope.

This is on the To-Do list. Colorado is a great location and we need to expand and include everyone. I remember someone came from GJ in 2016 to the LAMA event but have not seen him since. Eventually when I get a vehicle that is a bit more reliable I will be able to travel for a weekend contest that is 6-8 hours away.

Also for anyone looking for an event we are hosting our last event of the year in Pueblo, Colorado Oct 7th and 8th.

I rarely hear anything being mentioned about judging bias and everyone seems to have a fun time. Would like to get some Advanced and Unlimited pilots to give our 3 Advanced and 1 Unlimited pilots a bit of a challenge. Often times there is only 1 pilot in each of those classes.

Ive attached the flyer for anyone who is interested.

Originally Posted by n8dav8r

This is the one thing I feel like we have some control over, and can guarantee good scoring almost every time!

I agree, I think that a nice banquet/dinner is a great way to attract spectators and other non-IMAC pilots to experience our culture. Heck of a lot of fun for the pilots too! If 20 non-IMAC club members attend the Saturday evening festivities, I bet 1 or 2 or more would think about participating in future events. Great way for new pilots to become friends with their IMAC peers too.

I have a feeling some of these bonus ancillary items that aren't getting many votes, actually have a little more impact than what's being shown in the poll. Especially when they're combined with some of the other items such as a strong raffle, night fly demo or something, great pilot packets, giveaways, nice trophies/plaques, etc. Could be wrong though.

Anybody know anything about hosting an online judging school? Have seen a few threads mentioning them in the past.

Originally Posted by Carruthers43

i see you are in NJ... i would encourage you to show up to a northeast contest... i can't speak directly as i am not the RD but from what has happened in the past we can make exceptions and "bend" the norm a bit and allow you to fly a sequence land and change battery... it has happened and no one had any issues!

So one of the comments on here is judging issues and here you say its fine to just bend the rules??

If it happened, I would love to know the contest(s). Thanks

Thanks for the post Wayne! I can see how it would be difficult to judge the aerobatic box with it being 180deg. It leaves you with zero site picture of where the end of the box is..

Originally Posted by eheliflyer

Thanks for the post Wayne! I can see how it would be difficult to judge the aerobatic box with it being 180deg. It leaves you with zero site picture of where the end of the box is..

I'm glad that you see it.

This was what I was trying to explain in different posts regarding having line judges at the ends and rear of the "box" to definitively say that a pilot did/did not cross the lines. In effect, without that (line judges), how can we actually say that a pilot was not 1 foot within the line from the Judges position behind the pilot?

I am not saying that what we have is perfect at all..... It DOES have its drawbacks, especially with pilots who fly a seriously large box and with judges who do not penalize for it. In 2009, when the BOD was considering to TRIPLE the ACS, there was an outcry.... as a result it went to 15K instead of 30K which we were going to do (for Unlimited & a similar percentage increase for each class).

Until we have a clear method of applying the ACS, it will forever be a "sore-point."

Two great friends of mine suggested applying one point per maneuver deduction if the judge could not properly see/judge each (since the sequence is made up of 10 maneuvers)...... However, this adaptation was never implemented nor considered. I DO think that with the rules cycle which we are presently in, something concrete with BOTH the ACS and SOUND SCORE need to be addressed.
Wayne

Originally Posted by bbeedy

Anybody know anything about hosting an online judging school? Have seen a few threads mentioning them in the past.

There was an online judging school that was hosted this spring.

There has been a fair amount of talk of hosting another one in 2018.

Also the Education Committee has been publishing monthly articles titled "Redbook Review" where specific items are discussed further. These are all located on the IMAC website under Education. We are currently on a hiatus and will resume publishing articles soon.

There is also plans for updating and expanding the online training. This is also located on the IMAC website at the bottom of the downloads page. It is a 14 video series that goes through everything in a Judging school only highly condensed.

Originally Posted by wmat7039

I'm glad that you see it.

This was what I was trying to explain in different posts regarding having line judges at the ends and rear of the "box" to definitively say that a pilot did/did not cross the lines. In effect, without that (line judges), how can we actually say that a pilot was not 1 foot within the line from the Judges position behind the pilot?

I am not saying that what we have is perfect at all..... It DOES have its drawbacks, especially with pilots who fly a seriously large box and with judges who do not penalize for it. In 2009, when the BOD was considering to TRIPLE the ACS, there was an outcry.... as a result it went to 15K instead of 30K which we were going to do (for Unlimited & a similar percentage increase for each class).

Until we have a clear method of applying the ACS, it will forever be a "sore-point."

Two great friends of mine suggested applying one point per maneuver deduction if the judge could not properly see/judge each (since the sequence is made up of 10 maneuvers)...... However, this adaptation was never implemented nor considered. I DO think that with the rules cycle which we are presently in, something concrete with BOTH the ACS and SOUND SCORE need to be addressed.
Wayne

I hope individuals who are smarter than I formalize the ACS and Sound a bit better.

I typically deduct a point from the acs if the figure is not flown where I can judge it well.

As for sound I use the way I was taught. First pilot gets a 8 if I thought he was quiet and a 7 if I thought he was normal 6 if extremely loud. From there I use that pilot as my standard for judging everyone else. I will only go down to a 4 if the pilot was being obnoxious as we really dont have any sound limitations at the fields I fly at. This way I am being fair and also not putting the CD in a situation to confront an individual for being loud in the middle of no where.

This is just my method and in other locations it probably wont work as well.

Originally Posted by Keith Cannon

I hope individuals who are smarter than I formalize the ACS and Sound a bit better.

I typically deduct a point from the acs if the figure is not flown where I can judge it well.

As for sound I use the way I was taught. First pilot gets a 8 if I thought he was quiet and a 7 if I thought he was normal 6 if extremely loud. From there I use that pilot as my standard for judging everyone else. I will only go down to a 4 if the pilot was being obnoxious as we really dont have any sound limitations at the fields I fly at. This way I am being fair and also not putting the CD in a situation to confront an individual for being loud in the middle of no where.

This is just my method and in other locations it probably wont work as well.

I understand why you do it this way, Keith..... The ONLY problem, is that Judges are not supposed to compare pilots from the first pilot..... They (judges) are supposed to judge from a standard of Very Quiet to Very Noisy...... NOT to compare pilots.
I know you already know the rule book...Here is exactly what it says pertaining to sound:
5.1: In-Flight Judging Criteria, Known and Unknown Sequences. Judges will evaluate each individual sequence flown in its entirety for overall sound presentation."
Wayne

Originally Posted by wmat7039

I understand why you do it this way, Keith..... The ONLY problem, is that Judges are not supposed to compare pilots from the first pilot..... They (judges) are supposed to judge from a standard of Very Quiet to Very Noisy...... NOT to compare pilots.
I know you already know the rule book...Here is exactly what it says pertaining to sound:
5.1: In-Flight Judging Criteria, Known and Unknown Sequences. Judges will evaluate each individual sequence flown in its entirety for overall sound presentation."
Wayne

This is what I mean about the arbitrary scoring culture. I think a lot of what is called out as bias, is just inconsistent scoring. If you spend a couple hours at a contest talking to people about how they score maneuvers, you will get a mishmash of standards. This happens even amongst the more experienced and those who have done judging schools. I notice this because I'm newer to IMAC so I ask around a lot.

I really don't think the people judging at the contests I attend are picking favorites. On the other hand, I have seen first hand how a pilot can fly differently to benefit from how a particular judge wants to see things, or is capable of seeing things.

Wayne,

First let me say that I always enjoy reading your commentary on IMAC related subjects as the wealth of knowledge you have is extremely helpful and you have a way of bringing things into context. By you questioning my method it caused me to dig a bit deeper into the rules.

In the part you highlighted it says we have to evaluate each individual sequence. I am reading this as Each sequence gets a sound score rather than each round and the sound from other sequences does not effect the score of the others (i.e. prop ripping on first sequence does not change sequence 2).

Here is the part that I find makes my technique incorrect. If I have missed something could you please elaborate a bit more?

From Section 6 Grading of Figures

As a judge, you are expected to grade only against one standard, and that is
perfection. The performance of the aircraft, the difficulty in performing a figure
(on the basis of your personal experience or perception), the weather condition or
the pilot’s name and reputation should not be considered in formulating your
grade.

In the part you highlighted it does contain

Each judged Known and Unknown sequence,
shall have one “figure” added to the end of the score sheet after
Academy of Model Aeronautics
Competition Regulations | Radio Control Scale Aerobatics 3
individually judged maneuvers

I still believe it could be within the rules to grade based on the sound of others as it is difficult to say what is "Very Quiet" and "Very Noisy"

Originally Posted by Keith Cannon

Wayne,

First let me say that I always enjoy reading your commentary on IMAC related subjects as the wealth of knowledge you have is extremely helpful and you have a way of bringing things into context. By you questioning my method it caused me to dig a bit deeper into the rules.

In the part you highlighted it says we have to evaluate each individual sequence. I am reading this as Each sequence gets a sound score rather than each round and the sound from other sequences does not effect the score of the others (i.e. prop ripping on first sequence does not change sequence 2).

Here is the part that I find makes my technique incorrect. If I have missed something could you please elaborate a bit more?

From Section 6 Grading of Figures


In the part you highlighted it does contain


I still believe it could be within the rules to grade based on the sound of others as it is difficult to say what is "Very Quiet" and "Very Noisy"

Hi Keith.... Thank you for your comment on replies that I make on-line. I try to delve into facts rather than mere emotions, as some do.

The way the sound rule is structured, EACH sequence gets the sound score and not each round. I am sure you are aware of that, so I was taken aback at the portion of your answer which referred to that..

Let us look back a bit on what caused all of this to happen. IMAC was going merrily along its way and was growing back in 2003-2004. Around that time, an AMA member (but NOT an IMAC member) took "umbrage" to the fact that our aircraft were getting bigger and noisier! So... He sent in a RCP to the AMA which would have placed a SERIOUS restriction on all planes flying our discipline since it had an unrealistic dB level which had to be met.

As a result of that issue, the BOD at that time, headed by Tom Wheeler and subsequently Wally Pitts (Presidents), had to scramble to get new Scale Aerobatics rules modified. In that scramble, several great things happened that were instrumental in streamlining how the AMA's Scale Aerobatics rules are arrived at. Initially, our rules were administered by the Pattern RC Aerobatics Contest Board. Subsequently, the AMA formed our own Scale Aerobatics Contest Board and all rules proposals are channeled through the SACB.

Another by-product, was that in 2005, a new SOUND RULE came into effect where actual measurements were taken at contests the evening prior to the event, and pilots who could not meet the required dB levels, were NOT allowed to compete. This measurement was taken with a dB meter and logged for submitting with the other documents for the AMA/IMAC.

In addition, Wally instituted a Sound Task Force, which did an in-depth study of sound for IMAC and all the pertaining findings were published by IMAC. These documents are still available for the technically minded individuals who would like to see them. Out of these researches, it became apparent that ground sound tests and actual dB levels at the box perimeters were vastly different. George Hicks from Gulfstream did the majority of the technical research/charts.

To cut this already L O N G epistle down, the ground sound test was curtailed after a few years and a Sound rule evolved from 0-5-10 sound scoring to our now present 0-10.

Now.... Back to your original research. In all the Judging Schools, Regionally, Nationally and Internationally that I was involved in.... ALL had the same method of teaching how to judge sound. I would agree with you that your research which ventured past the actual Sound Score rules may have answered the question more explicitly, and I commend you for that.

What is MOST IMPORTANT, is that we do not have deviations from the intent of the rule, since this could cause "havoc" down the line.

And lastly..... When we sit in the chair as judges... we KNOW when a plane is loud. That is what we really need to curtail, as it not only affects the longevity of a flying field, but it also affects the tolerance levels of the neighbors.
Wayne

Sorry if my post hinted at a sound score per round. I am well aware that each SEQUENCE gets its own sound score, I was just highlighting my interpretation of that portion of the rule in that it states that each sequence should be scored individually.

Thank you for the long write up, I always enjoy reading them. I will take a look into the Sound Task Force pdf as I am always hungry for more information on my favorite hobby, IMAC.

Now just heard back from DA engines will be back tomorrow so this weekend I will burn some gas!

Wayne, great to have you involved in this thread! Appreciate your input!

Getting back to the poll, when I put this up, I included "What field the contest will be held at" which is by far getting the most votes. However, I really didn't mean it to be construed as "location" which I believe it is due to the accompanying comments in the thread. I really meant, "field desirability or field amenities." I purposefully didn't put "Location" in the poll as that one was so obvious that it would get all the votes.

Therefore, if I am correct, the real #1 factor in the poll would be what is coming in 2nd - Fairness or bias in judging at the contest. Fairness / bias being assumed or real, perception is reality. What ideas can we come up with to combat this perception - again whether assumed or real. If SoCal thinks the AZ pilots are totally bias, they will not be inclined to come to the AZ contests according to this poll. Vice versa.

Also, another topic I'd like to see discussed is in the contest schedule. There's talk that contests have "run over" other contests in the past causing low attendance and hard feelings. As an example, if a Southern GA contest gets scheduled within a week or two of a Northern FL contest, the GA pilots will attend the GA contest and the FL pilots will attend the FL contest. There is little attendance across state lines at that point. Agree? Disagree?

It saddens me to see the division (and maybe even animosity) I believe has developed in my personal discussions within our region. But then again, maybe all is just fine too. Just trying to create healthy discussion. If this is not the case, please let me know and I'll shut up.

On the positive side, the conversations I've had show that the region really does have a desire to come back together for all of our benefit. FUN! That's why we do this!! Clearly it's not for the girls and money! LOL

I hope others are finding this thread helpful. I think I am!

Thoughts??

I went with other because there needs to be consistancy from one contest to another and here is my main reason why.


Just this season I went to one contest and needed a caller. Asking around I found a couple guys to call for me and we were able to tweak the flight order to work it out. Next contest I already had callers lined up and they would not tweak the order so I could use the callers I lined up. So I located yet another caller. Next contest once again they allowed us to tweak the order and I used my caller. Contest after that they refused to tweak the order telling me callers don't matter I should know the sequence anyway.


That being said there is a pace callers call at and it varies from person to person. You also need to trust the person calling is going to get the unknown correct which can only be done by having a consistant caller. Having the same caller will also help him/her to learn your tendancies and they can remind you to correct some things before you fly them.


Mike