New Airspace Control Score Discussion
01-20-2007 | 01:04 AM
#26
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CO
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
What I think needs to happen is that someone in the IMAC BOD needs to define some criteria here ASAP. This criteria needs to be a topic at every IMAC judging seminar that is planned. I don't really think this is a flying close or far issue but proper utilization of the box. If a pilot starts flying say 250' out then everything should stay at that depth until a x-box manuver takes them out and then they need to keep that depth consistant until a manuever brings them back in. If your airplane's box depth fluctuates then you get the deduction. If you box is not equal right to left then another deduction. We clerly need this to be better defined and quickly.
Shawn
Shawn
01-20-2007 | 11:42 AM
#27
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: SBerkheimer
What I think needs to happen is that someone in the IMAC BOD needs to define some criteria here ASAP.
What I think needs to happen is that someone in the IMAC BOD needs to define some criteria here ASAP.
The aforementioned idea of using rollers in Unknowns only was not even seriously discussed, since as we know, a sequence just isn't a sequence without a roller in it. IMAC would dissolve and we would all take up Free-Floating yachts if rollers were removed from the Knowns.
So it is every judge for himself and the pilots will have to learn to cope with that. And I absolutely defy anyone out there to tell me that they will be able to actually parse this to 1 point increments. Just what IS the difference between a 7 and an 8?? It is whatever the judge thinks it is and there is not a damn thing a pilot con do about that. Talk about the potential for judging bias.
As a judge, I cannot even begin to tell you how I will handle this.
And Shawn, the idea of using the first line established as the base line and deducting from there. We already do that, it is called wind correction. So you are talking about deducting twice. Once for not properly wind correcting and then deducting again because the poor wind correction that made the pilot not "use" the box effectively. Double jeopardy based on a subjective rule. That will keep the folks signing up.
01-20-2007 | 12:53 PM
#28
My Feedback: (39)
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Everything we judge is subjective. We're human. Was that 10 degrees or 20 degrees? I think it was 15 degrees, so you get a score based on what I think.
So far, I'm liking Digger44's suggestion. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I'm going to deduct one point from the Airspace Control score for each maneuver that isn't placed where it's easy for me to judge. Just like all our maneuvers, the pilots starts with a 10, and deductions I see are subtracted from that.
Seems very consistent with IMAC judging concepts and is consistent for each pilot. Control the airplane so the maneuvers are easy for me to judge, you get a good score. I like it!!
So far, I'm liking Digger44's suggestion. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I'm going to deduct one point from the Airspace Control score for each maneuver that isn't placed where it's easy for me to judge. Just like all our maneuvers, the pilots starts with a 10, and deductions I see are subtracted from that.
Seems very consistent with IMAC judging concepts and is consistent for each pilot. Control the airplane so the maneuvers are easy for me to judge, you get a good score. I like it!!
01-20-2007 | 01:00 PM
#30
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: Dean Bird
Everything we judge is subjective. We're human. Was that 10 degrees or 20 degrees? I think it was 15 degrees, so you get a score based on what I think.
Everything we judge is subjective. We're human. Was that 10 degrees or 20 degrees? I think it was 15 degrees, so you get a score based on what I think.
So far, I'm liking Digger44's suggestion. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I'm going to deduct one point from the "presentation" score for each maneuver that isn't placed where it's easy for me to judge. Just like with all our maneuvers, the pilots starts with a 10, and deductions I see are subtracted from that.
Seems very consistent with IMAC judging concepts and is consistent for each pilot. Control the airplane so the maneuvers are easy for me to judge, you get a good score. I like it!!
01-20-2007 | 09:40 PM
#31
My Feedback: (39)
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: Phaedrus-MMVI
Will you still like it if you go to a contest, get low scores for flying the same way you have previously gotten high scores simply because those judges didn't like it??
Will you still like it if you go to a contest, get low scores for flying the same way you have previously gotten high scores simply because those judges didn't like it??
01-21-2007 | 12:45 AM
#32
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CO
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: Dean Bird
I don't worry about a judges raw scores. I just worry about whether they get them in the right order. Winning a round is worth 1,000 pionts whether it was won with 9's or 5's. As long as the best pilot got the highest scores, the judge did their job.
I don't worry about a judges raw scores. I just worry about whether they get them in the right order. Winning a round is worth 1,000 pionts whether it was won with 9's or 5's. As long as the best pilot got the highest scores, the judge did their job.
There is a ton of truth here. In the end a judge can determine how to judge this however he wishes just as long as he stays consistant with his criteria for the entire round. In the end the better pilot always manages to get to the top. As much as I hate to admit it, the last 2 contests of the season Dean brought his " A " game and I not so much. He won the chamionship and I have to look at the second place plaque every friggin day!!! There's always next year..........Dean and I will be fighting over 5th in Unlimited.
Shawn
01-21-2007 | 07:53 AM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: gainesville,
TX
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
As long as the best pilot got the highest scores, the judge did their job.
I believe CONSISTENCE will be the key with this rule. How the rule is dicussed, and tought in boot camps, and judging schools will also be VERY important!!!
Maybe if pilots are afraid of a deduction they will just fly closer to the judges to make sure the plane can plainly be seen? Maybe that's what the rule if for
.To be honest with ya the only problem I can see that wouldn't be worked out, is to have a pilot with good eyes, fly out farther then the judge with bad eyes can see.
LOL......Shaun
01-21-2007 | 10:32 AM
#34
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Judging seminars start soon... I would like to see some consistency between the regions. The whole "well, the rules are ambiguous so I am going to judge it like this" aint gonna cut it in the long run. It will end up like the presentation score and die an agonizing death. I agree with what someone said earlier, if you judge it per manuever, you end up with double jeopardy. I interpret the rule as saying you need to judge it based in the way the entire pattern is flown. For instance, lets say you put that humpty this side of the far end of the box, and the next 3 manuevers are askew because the whole pattern would have flown better had the humpty been at the far end... the next three manuevers are now flown at the optimal position for judging based on the now skewed pattern - how do you downgrade that? Its going to be judges interpretation, and like Dean said, as long as the best pilot gets the best score it wont matter too much. I worry with this kind of rule, however, that there will be inconsistency from region to region based on how each region interprets it and teaches at thier judging seminar. Going to lead to some arguments at inter-region contests for sure - arguments are not good for membership, and if an ambiguous inconsistent rule cost you a contest... well....
01-21-2007 | 01:19 PM
#35
Senior Member
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: Desertrat
"...there will be inconsistency from region to region based on how each region interprets it and teaches at thier judging seminar. Going to lead to some arguments at inter-region contests for sure - arguments are not good for membership, and if an ambiguous inconsistent rule cost you a contest... well....
"...there will be inconsistency from region to region based on how each region interprets it and teaches at thier judging seminar. Going to lead to some arguments at inter-region contests for sure - arguments are not good for membership, and if an ambiguous inconsistent rule cost you a contest... well....
While it won't happen often, I'm sure there will be intances where contest results might have been changed by the presentaion (I'm mean airspace
) score.
01-22-2007 | 08:33 AM
#36
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: gainesville, TX
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Everyone,
There is some great discussion going on here. The intent of this thread was to get a better understanding of how to JUDGE the Airespace score. I don't want this thread to turn in to a debate on good rule vs bad rule. The fact is that at least for the next two years it is a rule.
There have been some good ideas! Keep them comming.
I like the 10 manuevers 10 points Idea.
Still unsure if flying directly in the sun should be a downgrade.
Some fields you can not avoid flying in the sun.
There is some great discussion going on here. The intent of this thread was to get a better understanding of how to JUDGE the Airespace score. I don't want this thread to turn in to a debate on good rule vs bad rule. The fact is that at least for the next two years it is a rule.
There have been some good ideas! Keep them comming.
I like the 10 manuevers 10 points Idea.
Still unsure if flying directly in the sun should be a downgrade.
Some fields you can not avoid flying in the sun.
01-22-2007 | 08:43 AM
#37
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: gainesville, TX
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
I started a poll here to get a feel for how everyone feels:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5304393/tm.htm
Please vote!
Thanks
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5304393/tm.htm
Please vote!
Thanks
01-22-2007 | 10:52 AM
#38
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: dntmn
Still unsure if flying directly in the sun should be a downgrade.
Some fields you can not avoid flying in the sun.
Still unsure if flying directly in the sun should be a downgrade.
Some fields you can not avoid flying in the sun.
This is why I originally wanted a simple 0-5-10 scoring:
0 for flying all over the place, behind mountains, over the horizon and so far away you cannot see the plane.
5 for flying a normal sequence within the ordinary portions of the airspace. Basically, it looked pretty much like what I expected.
10 for demonstrating a superior use of the airspace flying nice a tight without rushing the figures and maintaining my ability to properly see and judge them. Basically this would be the score for the pilot that actually stayed inside the actual box.
Once again, I cannot fathom a methodology that allows scores to be parsed to 1 point increments.
01-23-2007 | 09:31 AM
#39
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: gainesville, TX
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Here is some more food for thought.
Most Contests I have been two there are two flight lines. This usually isn't a problem and most of the time if the pilots get close one or both call avoidance. Typically one plane is a little deeper in the box. I have noticed that sometimes the other pilot is a bad match. Meaning that they fly their sequence the same distance from the flightline in the same generial airspace as I am. When this happens I will use a cross box manuever or the next sequence to place myself deeper into the box or closer to the flightline. Also If the pilot flying at the same time is flying a small footprint then I will fly slightly longer lines to keep myself clear of them.
An example would be a hammer on the left You notice that another plane is directly above you, if you pull an upline you might hit them. So you hold your line and wait for them to start their manuever say it is a humpty. You fly past them placing yourself further to the left then complete your hammer. The hammer is flown farly far to the left would this be an airspace control downgrade? With the new Airspace control Score pilots may be flying closer in a smaller box, this makes less airspace for the two pilots and increaces the chances of midair. So If a pilot purposly flies a larger or deeper sequence for safety reasons to avoid the other pilot currently flying would and should they be downgraded on the presentation score.
Most Contests I have been two there are two flight lines. This usually isn't a problem and most of the time if the pilots get close one or both call avoidance. Typically one plane is a little deeper in the box. I have noticed that sometimes the other pilot is a bad match. Meaning that they fly their sequence the same distance from the flightline in the same generial airspace as I am. When this happens I will use a cross box manuever or the next sequence to place myself deeper into the box or closer to the flightline. Also If the pilot flying at the same time is flying a small footprint then I will fly slightly longer lines to keep myself clear of them.
An example would be a hammer on the left You notice that another plane is directly above you, if you pull an upline you might hit them. So you hold your line and wait for them to start their manuever say it is a humpty. You fly past them placing yourself further to the left then complete your hammer. The hammer is flown farly far to the left would this be an airspace control downgrade? With the new Airspace control Score pilots may be flying closer in a smaller box, this makes less airspace for the two pilots and increaces the chances of midair. So If a pilot purposly flies a larger or deeper sequence for safety reasons to avoid the other pilot currently flying would and should they be downgraded on the presentation score.
01-23-2007 | 04:02 PM
#40
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CO
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Very good point! This is something I do as well but for this topic I hadn't thought of it. For me this just re-enforces my opinion that some if not most CDs will just let the rule slide like the sound rule.
Lets face it, how would you like to be the CD when guys start feeling that they have been judges unfairly? Let's face it this thing has a way of snowballing. First one guy is complaining about his scores the a few others start looking at their score sheets and compairing. The next thing you know the CD is having to deal with 3 guys in his face.
shawn
Lets face it, how would you like to be the CD when guys start feeling that they have been judges unfairly? Let's face it this thing has a way of snowballing. First one guy is complaining about his scores the a few others start looking at their score sheets and compairing. The next thing you know the CD is having to deal with 3 guys in his face.
shawn
01-23-2007 | 05:15 PM
#41
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Las Vegas,
NV
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
This is really an interesting discussion. There's another item that seems to be apparent here too. If an obvious zero occurs, whether mechanical or hard, you can still get points for actually completing the zeroed manuver where the judges can easily identify the zero. If ya blow it, blow it where the judges can see it and at least score something..
01-23-2007 | 06:29 PM
#42
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: John Murdoch
This is really an interesting discussion. There's another item that seems to be apparent here too. If an obvious zero occurs, whether mechanical or hard, you can still get points for actually completing the zeroed manuver where the judges can easily identify the zero. If ya blow it, blow it where the judges can see it and at least score something..
This is really an interesting discussion. There's another item that seems to be apparent here too. If an obvious zero occurs, whether mechanical or hard, you can still get points for actually completing the zeroed manuver where the judges can easily identify the zero. If ya blow it, blow it where the judges can see it and at least score something..
This is why Dean's 1 point per "properly placed figure" is not a good idea in my mind. It is missing the forest for the trees. This new score is ALL about the forest and NOT at all about the trees. As stupid as it sounds, I think you will know a 10 when you see it, as well as a zero. It is the in between that will be hard to know, and that is why I opposed the incremental scores. 0-5-10 is easy to do and is consistent with the objective of the rule. That objective is to try to coerce pilots to fly tighter, smaller sequences and THAT is what a judge should be focused on.
Reward the pilot who flies it tight, punish the pilot who is all over the sky (and over the horizon).
01-23-2007 | 07:06 PM
#43
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Las Vegas,
NV
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: Phaedrus-MMVI
Huh?? I think you have missed something.
Huh?? I think you have missed something.
It is very clear that it's the location of the mauneuver is to be considered, not the manuever, which scored or not, itself.
01-23-2007 | 07:08 PM
#44
Senior Member
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: dntmn
"...You notice that another plane is directly above you, if you pull an upline you might hit them. So you hold your line and wait for them to start their manuever say it is a humpty. You fly past them placing yourself further to the left then complete your hammer. The hammer is flown farly far to the left would this be an airspace control downgrade?..."
"...You notice that another plane is directly above you, if you pull an upline you might hit them. So you hold your line and wait for them to start their manuever say it is a humpty. You fly past them placing yourself further to the left then complete your hammer. The hammer is flown farly far to the left would this be an airspace control downgrade?..."
01-23-2007 | 07:59 PM
#45
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
ORIGINAL: John Murdoch
Really Bill, I've missed nothing. A pilot who scores ten sequential zeros is still capable of receiving a total score of more than zero should the maneuvers be completed "by the pilot that exhibits a significant ability to control the location of the aircraft inside the airspace, relative to the judges, which results in a tight footprint and has the aircraft such that it can be optimally judged at all times."
It is very clear that it's the location of the mauneuver is to be considered, not the manuever, which scored or not, itself.
ORIGINAL: Phaedrus-MMVI
Huh?? I think you have missed something.
Huh?? I think you have missed something.
It is very clear that it's the location of the mauneuver is to be considered, not the manuever, which scored or not, itself.
Let me add, that while the idea is to assess the location of figures relative to being able to be judged, this is NOT an individual figure score. Again think forest and trees.
01-23-2007 | 08:13 PM
#46
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Shouldn't something still be spelled out a little better than it currently stands. I mean the one point per manuever thing is just a means to an end, which could be a defined way to combine the overall flight performance with the airspace control. How else would you score for example, a perfect flight with the exception of one manuever that went way too high and the roll at the top could not be seen clearly. Surely not a 10, what about a 5 or a 0. Where would you score this flight? How else would you decide what the score should be? Well maybe that flight space control was a "7", but how would you determine that?
01-23-2007 | 08:31 PM
#47
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
That is the problem with the rule as written, it lacks clearly defined criteria for scoring. It is left up to each individual judge on what to do.
I have made comments on a couple of proposed schemes since I think they amount to double jeopardy to the pilot. But in the end there is nothing in the rules to guide a judge, or to allow a pilot to practice and anticipate how this score will be applied.
It really is a 100% impression score of the judge. I just encourage judges to try to be consistent, fair, and to give the pilot the benefit of the doubt. Again, this is why I pushed hard (and without success) for a 0-5-10 score. Think of it as Poor-Average-Superb score. Those are 3 boxes that would be very easy to put a pilot into. Personally, I will use this type of system. To do otherwise is just applying false precision to a score that by its very nature cannot be precisely quantified.
I have made comments on a couple of proposed schemes since I think they amount to double jeopardy to the pilot. But in the end there is nothing in the rules to guide a judge, or to allow a pilot to practice and anticipate how this score will be applied.
It really is a 100% impression score of the judge. I just encourage judges to try to be consistent, fair, and to give the pilot the benefit of the doubt. Again, this is why I pushed hard (and without success) for a 0-5-10 score. Think of it as Poor-Average-Superb score. Those are 3 boxes that would be very easy to put a pilot into. Personally, I will use this type of system. To do otherwise is just applying false precision to a score that by its very nature cannot be precisely quantified.
01-24-2007 | 01:18 AM
#48
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CO
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Man I am really on the fence here. I like Dean's idea of breaking it down to the 10 manuevers. IMO this makes it more accurate to score the flight rather than try to reflect upon the flight after the fact. After sitting through 20 sequences things like this get pretty flakey. I like Bill's suggestion of a 0-5-10 score even better.
I will have to dis-agree with Bill on this double jepordy thing because it is going to happen, like it or not. An example for this is going to be a sportsman pilot that ends a turn around manuever 250' out. His next manuever is at the other end of the box and he is drifting in the whole way. Now because he does not realize this, he pulls vertical but is 15 degrees in. He is going to get hit on the presentation score and for the individual manuever score. Or worst yet, someone flys past the dead line, zero for the manuever and a big hit in presentation. See what I mean?
Shawn
I will have to dis-agree with Bill on this double jepordy thing because it is going to happen, like it or not. An example for this is going to be a sportsman pilot that ends a turn around manuever 250' out. His next manuever is at the other end of the box and he is drifting in the whole way. Now because he does not realize this, he pulls vertical but is 15 degrees in. He is going to get hit on the presentation score and for the individual manuever score. Or worst yet, someone flys past the dead line, zero for the manuever and a big hit in presentation. See what I mean?
Shawn
01-24-2007 | 01:23 AM
#49
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Yes. Which is why I think it is a terrible rule. Also, it is interesting that people are defaulting to calling this the presentation score. This is another example of a well intended rule that has unintended negative consequences. If you cannot define the downgrades you should not write it as a rule.
But we have to live with it, so the trick is try to make it work without gumming up the works too badly.
But we have to live with it, so the trick is try to make it work without gumming up the works too badly.
01-24-2007 | 03:24 PM
#50
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: gainesville, TX
RE: New Airspace Control Score Discussion
Roy Barrow gave me permision to Quite this e-mail.
Daniel,
Normally (and in the future) I would recommend directing any/all questions to the current board and the outstanding committees that are in place to handle such questions/concerns. However, at risk of stepping on the current leadership's collective toes, and since I was very involved in the developing the ACS, I will attempt to give you an answer from my personal perspective.
There is no doubt the ACS will be debated at length and this is a good thing. The sole purpose of the ACS is to reduce the footprint of our sequences. The biggest problem people are going to have is understanding that there is no across the board way to arrive at an ACS...so the search for how to judge this or how to judge that is rather pointless.
The ACS is a score arrived at via a judge's personal criteria of a pilot's use of the airspace. As long as a judge uses the same personal criteria for judging all pilots in a given round, there is no issue. As a judge gains experience judging the use of airspace, his personal criteria and scoring method will evolve. Again, this is as it should be...as long as the judge uses the SAME personal criteria within a round, all pilots are judged the same.
Regardless of the simplicity of this approach, there are folks who will rail against the use of such a subjective rule and try to boil everything down to black and white. ACS is NOT a black and white rule and there are no right ways and/or wrong ways...just consistent ways - to judge.
A pilot needs to be constantly aware of his plane position within the airspace and strive to position his plane in the best location to be judged accurately by our other less subjective criteria. It is this constant awareness that should result in the pilot flying smaller patterns and reducing our "footprint" and improving his scores.
In the future, should technology advance to the degree that we can practically and economically determine the exact position of our aircraft relative to the pilot, the ACS may become obsolete. For now, however, the ACS represents the best approach to reduce the footprint of a flight and the impact of IMAC flying on our flying fields.
Believe me when I tell you that the ACS was debated, torn apart, put back together, fought over, cussed at, etc. We (the previous Board) tried GPS technology, waded through numerous box methodologies, and still came back to the simple approach that is the ACS. It is easy to understand, requires no additional technology - just common sense and reasonable basic judgment skills.
Any discussion that helps judges arrive at what they will use as their personal criteria is extremely helpful but again it must be stressed that consistency of technique within a given round is critical.
I hope this helps in understanding the purpose of the ACS and how simple it is. Attempts to make something extremely complex out of it will only result in confusion and undermines the intent of the system.
Roy Barrow
AMA Scale Aerobatics Board
Chairman
Normally (and in the future) I would recommend directing any/all questions to the current board and the outstanding committees that are in place to handle such questions/concerns. However, at risk of stepping on the current leadership's collective toes, and since I was very involved in the developing the ACS, I will attempt to give you an answer from my personal perspective.
There is no doubt the ACS will be debated at length and this is a good thing. The sole purpose of the ACS is to reduce the footprint of our sequences. The biggest problem people are going to have is understanding that there is no across the board way to arrive at an ACS...so the search for how to judge this or how to judge that is rather pointless.
The ACS is a score arrived at via a judge's personal criteria of a pilot's use of the airspace. As long as a judge uses the same personal criteria for judging all pilots in a given round, there is no issue. As a judge gains experience judging the use of airspace, his personal criteria and scoring method will evolve. Again, this is as it should be...as long as the judge uses the SAME personal criteria within a round, all pilots are judged the same.
Regardless of the simplicity of this approach, there are folks who will rail against the use of such a subjective rule and try to boil everything down to black and white. ACS is NOT a black and white rule and there are no right ways and/or wrong ways...just consistent ways - to judge.
A pilot needs to be constantly aware of his plane position within the airspace and strive to position his plane in the best location to be judged accurately by our other less subjective criteria. It is this constant awareness that should result in the pilot flying smaller patterns and reducing our "footprint" and improving his scores.
In the future, should technology advance to the degree that we can practically and economically determine the exact position of our aircraft relative to the pilot, the ACS may become obsolete. For now, however, the ACS represents the best approach to reduce the footprint of a flight and the impact of IMAC flying on our flying fields.
Believe me when I tell you that the ACS was debated, torn apart, put back together, fought over, cussed at, etc. We (the previous Board) tried GPS technology, waded through numerous box methodologies, and still came back to the simple approach that is the ACS. It is easy to understand, requires no additional technology - just common sense and reasonable basic judgment skills.
Any discussion that helps judges arrive at what they will use as their personal criteria is extremely helpful but again it must be stressed that consistency of technique within a given round is critical.
I hope this helps in understanding the purpose of the ACS and how simple it is. Attempts to make something extremely complex out of it will only result in confusion and undermines the intent of the system.
Roy Barrow
AMA Scale Aerobatics Board
Chairman
