mups53

My Feedback: (41)

I have to say that in all the times I have frequented RCU the previous World Championships had much better coverage.
I've yet to see any detailed reports of what actually happened.
Question is does this have any hidden meanings? Can anyone who was there share some info on the quality of the flying site and organization of the event?
Can we get some opinions on the event itself. Who flew well how did QQ go from winning the Championship in Argentina to such a low placing? What style of flying was in vogue? Inquiring minds want to know.
How about a podium shot? Nothing... It's like the whole event didn't happen to me. Thanks, Mike

Ricardo M.

This is how the Aussie team saw the competition. I get this from his blog.

http://aussiemodelflyers.blogspot.com/

The Wind conditions were very good, light winds, but as usual across the track. There was a slight bias towards a direction but the pattern could be flown either way.

We, the Aussie's, watched everyone of the finals flights. Obviously everyone had good practice for the final schedule, and were flying well. It was the styles that was interesting. Onda, the Paysant-Leroux were HUGE, they had to be easily pushing the 60 degree box marker. But obviously this had no effect on the scores. The Austrian, Gerhard Mayr, to our boys mind, flew brilliantly. Within the rules, not too big or small, with a very controlled flight of constant speed and precision. He flew very level, very technically correct. He is the guys with the unusual little extra-fins on the fin. See pictures below in previous post. In our mind, he should have been in the top three. His electric engine was superb, very quite and just a light hum sound.

Next to comment on is Quique Somenzini, again flew brilliantly. Fairly open pattern, his rolls in the pattern were similar to everyone elses, slow and long, but in the last unknown where they had a vertical square 8 with half roll in the middle (see photos Unknown Schedule 2) he cleverly tightened up the radius and quicken the roll rate to keep the maneuver to a reasonable size. Just about everyone else using a slow roll, made a square rectangle, and would have gone into the clouds - if there were any! Quique is one of those flyers who are able to keep the plane absolutely level. His rolling circles and loops were brilliant, on the last unknown he was the only person to go reverse direction on the wind. The reason being, he told Steve, was that the snaps could be done into the wind with more control. In the Aussie's minds Quique would have been a good bet to win the event. We are devastated and that he has been robbed to be given 7th place. As we said to quique at the banquet, now you know what the Aussie feel like.....

Onda flew the same style as Christophe, huge, very large radius' with long smooth rolls. His rolling circles were very wide and deep. His ability to fly the plane like this is amazing. All the Japanese all seemed to fly very level. (Because of their training no doubt). The only question on this style "can it be flown at 150m and inside the box, as the rules state?" we think not! But as at most world championships, the guys will copy or follow the person's style who is scoring the maximum!

Suzuki and Akiba flew very similar styles to each other, slightly smaller than Onda, but still reasonably large. To the boys, they still flew reasonably well with just small errors creeping in on the harder maneuvers, such as the rolling loops and circles.

Christophe and Benoit flew the same type of aircraft with similar styles. Their patterns were HUGE! or bigger! To the Aussies, the wings were always 15 degrees out of level, at least, (we know this looks right, because that is how most of the sportsman flyers want to fly, when you are training them. of course the rules say, wings out of level is a major area of downgrade) One of the areas that was very questionable, was the stall turns. The aircraft never, ever stalled, (so it was never going to flop) and seemed to be driving over with alot of throttle. You can see this by the smoke trail at the top of the turn and the fact that the plane turned over very quickly.
Radius and rolls were so big and long that there was little time for straight lines between individual parts of the maneuvers and between some maneuvers. The snaps of alot of the flyers were questionable, with very little elevator being used. So is the case with Christophe and Benoit. (but hey if they get scored for it, why would they want to change!) and example was in the two snaps reversed in the Unknowns where the aircraft wanted to finish nosedown, this being a direct result of very little elevator to pitch the nose up at the beginning of the snap. To Steve, the snap looks like one wing throws itself over.

To the Aussies, the scores left us amazed, unsurprised, but amazed. To us we thought they would have finished much further down the results. especially Benoit. It seems strange that one person can dominate the scoring in this type of company for all rounds, including the preliminaries. Christophe won every round of the comp bar one. Especially when the pattern is flown technically incorrect. wings out of level by at least 15 degree, box infringements, lack of straight lines, questionably snaps with no pitch, driven over stall turns, wings not square in vertical lines when there is a crosswind (so you don't have to yaw the model into breeze when pulling level) Spins becoming unstalled when the nose drops so far.

Jason Shulman flew his tighter style that we saw in Australia. He also seems to have a tendency to fly wing down (as most of the US team do and have done, except quique) On his last flight of the comp he also hit the famous Darty Fence when landing.

The German flyer, Bernd Beschorner, fly brilliantly. Technically correct, very level, within the rules of the box. His only fault was perhaps having difficulty landing the snaps.

What is sad for the Aussies, is that the World Championship title should be the best on the day and this title should have been someone elses, we have all spent lots of money and hoped for the opportunity to do our best, and when you make it to the final 10, and out fly people, you expect to get the podium. That was definitely not the case here. We feel for some of the other pilots.

Podium Photos.

There are lots of pictures in the web. Try this.

http://aeromodelismocampoo.com/foro/...er=asc&start=0
http://www.aeromodelismoecuador.com/...etines2009.htm
http://equipoargentinof3a.blogspot.com/
http://2009worldsportugal.shutterfly.com/

Eggert

ahem ....yup, but I'm just having a very hard time understanding how in the ( F3A ) World :-), 25 judges, at the same time, and apparently for numerous manuevers, can miss 15 degrees deviation from level wings ? Or is it just me .......... :-)

mups53

My Feedback: (41)

Thanks Ricardo I appreciate your perspective. Mike

vbortone

My Feedback: (2)

Besides flying big, were the champions flying close? I don't like the combination because it is difficult to get good perception of the geometry. I agree in regard that the simplest rule is wing level. Any correction to cross wing by not keeping the wing level should be a downgrade.

VB

Derek.Koopowitz

The top 3 flew somewhere between 175m to 220m out and big... as stated by the Aussies.

Silent-AV8R

I'm sorry, but I am still trying to get my head around a scoring system that has a person who was in the top 3 in the prelims, the semis, and the first two flights of the finals ends up in seventh place based on the final 2 flights. Did he crash? Hit a judge with his plane?? How does that happen?

And a guy who was never in the top 5 for all those same rounds ends up in second place.

No disrespect is meant for the actual pilots, nor am I questioning their skills. I am just interested in how that scoring system works and how anyone can honestly say that it sorted the field of pilots properly.

tIANci

Is 220M not too far? I was told by a judge who has been on the international circuit that 175-185 is still ok ... but 220? Won't the plane look ever so small too?

Rendegade

perhaps a move back to the Ballistic style maneuvres again? stratoshperic loops and such?

f3a05

Just surmising, but could it be something to do with personal motivation?
With the system as I understood it, the finals result would be set by taking the best one of the two F09s, and the best one of the two unknowns.
Since CPLR won the first F09, and the first unknown, (and having won the semis), he couldn't be beaten,whatever happened in the last two rounds(one each of F09 and unknown 2).
Perhaps it would be better in future if the finals result was taken as the best 3 out of the 4 rounds flown by each finalist?

twoturnspin

Just to clarify the judging, in the finals there were something like 20 judges, a set of judges score each "part" of the sky, ie. a group score the left hand, a group score the middle and a group score the right hand manouvres.

I totally understand what you are saying Eggert and the only way this could happen is "impression" judging. Portugal was the first WC I have attended (and let me say I only saw the Finals) and I was quite surprised by the results. My simple view is that the downgrades for errors are very clear but did not seem to be applied accurately in the flights I witnessed. The detailed report above gives some examples and I would highlight box violations in particular where downgrades did not seem to be applied based on the % of the manouvre out of the box.

As I watched each flight I noted some obvious errors but could not relate them to the scores that were given - especially with regards to the same manouvres with the same judge for a different pilot. One specific manouvres was the reverse snap that Benoit performed in Unknown 1. It went terribly wrong for him:
1. first snap didn't seem to pitch then finished off line and significantly off level.
2. second snap (reversed) yawed off and finished off level again.
3. The manouvre was not graceful or precise.
On this basis I failed to see how if would score well, worth a 2 at best in my view and yet two judges scored it a 6. I would love to sit down with the judging panel and a video of the flights and ask them how them came up with the scores. I do not say this malicously but when I compare it to the same manouvre scored by the same judges for other pilots I cannot begin to understand the basis of their downgrades. I would be delighted if there was an opportunity to understand the scoring methods used. Please note this is just one example, I'm not singling out Benoit for any reason other than the manouvre flown, he is a singularly brilliant pilot.

One other area that baffled me was the noise testing. The procedure was that the pilot had his model bought forward where it was held in place by his helper and he put the throttle to full while the test was completed. There were a couple of odd variations though between pilots. A number of pilots stood next to the official noise tester and showed him that the throttle was at full noise and then reduced the throttle when they were given the go ahead from the official. (I think it was QQ that actually took his hand off the sticks so the official could clearly see that the throttle was fully extended - it was a clear and unambiguous test) Other pilots walked away from the official while the pushed the throttle up, there was no way that you could tell if he were going to full throttle or not (also quite rude I thought). One pilot in particular had a fairly noisy electric that I did not seem to be throttled up fully during the test and when it was in the air it seemed relatively loud to me - he was one of the guys that walked away from the tester while the test was being done. Of course, this may have all been perfectly done but in competition it is important for things to be seen to be done properly not just done. It could not be argued that this was the case with the noise testing because different pilots did the test different ways - they should have been given clear instructions and been required to follow these instructions that way it is fair to all participants.


So what is the solution?
1. Screen the judges from the pilots, this would be relatively easy to do and would reduce the propensity for impression judging.
2. Have box judges that have a series of lights that tell the judges when the plane is out of the box. In Unknown 2 a bunch of pilots were so far above the box it was incredible that they didn't seem to be downgraded.
3. Noise testing rules to be enforced in the same way for everybody.

Unfortunately my experience at the WC's left me a little disenchanted and much less interested in participating at a WC in the future. For me win or lose it doesn't matter as long as the flights & tests are fairly assessed. Unfortunately, I honestly didn't think the pilots were treated evenhandedly and this is pretty rough considering the time and expense that people go to compete.

andre12

Hello
just to clarify...
in the finals there are 20 judges, 5 score the left hand, 10 the middle and 5 score the right hand manoeuvres
see u later alligator

tuny

I think it was ok, in my opinion they were all flying at 150-175m, it was posible to stand in the 150 line, so it was not difficult to tell how far out was they flying.

results.

- the finals are a whole new event, all 10 start from 0, and the best unk and best F counts. so, its not hard to understand how results can change
- take a look at the rules and you will se how its done and understand its right.

its very easy to take it on the judges, but for me they did an amazyng job.

Silent-AV8R

Judging is a thankless task and the easy place to lay blame. My comments were more about the scoring system itself since it seemed to ned up with a finishing order that defies logic and that was counter to the treands of the entire contest.

tuny

yep.... thats the way it is....

same thing as in argentina....

mups53

My Feedback: (41)

(quote)
Unfortunately my experience at the WC's left me a little disenchanted and much less interested in participating at a WC in the future. For me win or lose it doesn't matter as long as the flights & tests are fairly assessed. Unfortunately, I honestly didn't think the pilots were treated evenhandedly and this is pretty rough considering the time and expense that people go to compete.

[/quote]
Twoturn that statement has me thinking that there are probably more out there that share your disappointment in what you/ they saw. I'm sure that attending the Championships is a huge endevour that costs a small fortune with a considerable amount of time and sacrifice.
Based on your experience do you think that there may be others who are questioning whether they would ever want to do it again?
Anyone want to express an opinion on this?
I can tell you that I'd be very upset if I attended an event that I thought was tainted by bias and rules being bent or not adhered too. But I wasn't there and I'm again searching for some answers to some perplexing questions I have. I still find the silence to be very odd.
I appreciate the comments so far and I promise I won't go too much further and I'm not here to slam anyone or any country. It's all brought on by the odd silence. Thanks, Mike

hezik

I have never seen a top level pilot fly, so keep this in mind when reading my remarks.

On the wing level issue.. keep in mind the position where the judges sit. The contest is not to fly everything straight and level. The contest is to make the judges think everything is straight and level. This is how it is possible that a figure, of which a bystander in another position thinks 'that was crap', gets a high score..

From what I've heared of people who have seen flying on this level, these pilots are champions in hiding stuff from the jury.

However, on the other issue the jury guidlines are pretty clear. If someone is flying at 200~220m deep, he should have at least 1 or 2 points substracted each figure.

tommy s

My Feedback: (55)

I never have liked the scoring system we use. We should just fly the prescribed
number of rounds, add up the score, and the best score wins. Why should we
throw out the bad rounds? I bet pro golfers would like our scoring system, they
could throw out their bad shots and just add up their good ones.

tommy s

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

Until technology gets to a point where the flight can be recorded( GPS telemetry) and viewed down to inches or tens of inches. Judging will be as is " Not perfect but its all we have"... If judging where perfect we wouldn't have anything to talk about.[sm=drowning.gif]


[sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif][sm=drowning.gif]

gary

vbortone

My Feedback: (2)

I think the original reasoning was to take care of dead sticks. That could be easily fixed by leting the pilot fly again at the end of the round the manuevers that he could not fly because of the equipment problem. AMA allows to re-fly if the pilots has a mid-air or radio problem. Why not allow the same rule if there is other technical problem that is not under pilots control? In this way all rounds could count for the final score.

VB

Dean Pappas

Hello Hezik, Hello All,
As I read the rules, flying at 200 ~ 220 m should net 3 or 4 points downgrade per maneuver.
Yes, judging is difficult and thankless, but two interesting effects are are at work here:
1) The separation of the 20-person Finals judging panel into left-side, middle, and right-side judges emphasizes (incorrectly) a strict adherence to the 60 degree side-lines and provides competitors impetus to fly farther out in order to comply. This was not the intent of the box rules as written long ago!
2) We Pattern-People can easily be mistaken for lemmings: those furry critters that mythically march off cliffs en-masse. A willful, clearly stated, agreement to disregard the rulebook so completely would be unthinkable ... Yet, the herd-mentality can take us there inadvertantly, if not innocently.

The solution: the judges need to have the guts to use their judgement!

Regards,
Dean Pappas

David Kyjovsky

Been there, seen the finals (and semis and a lot of the preliminaries too).

I must say that twoturnspin is rather correct in his observations. The main problem, as I see it, is that the judges do not have the guts to downgrade the "big names" enough for obvious mistakes. Or maybe they do not see them. Either way, this is something that hurts this category immensely.

mups53

My Feedback: (41)

OK now where hearing something concrete.
Here's what will happen if this disregard for the rules continues.
Good young talented flyers will stop trying as well as many others to be a part of the sport.
Rules are rules and I have an extreme problem with top level trained judges who are afraid to downgrade top flyers who do not follow them. How did we get to the point where these twinkie roll so called snaps, wing over way more than 1.5 wingspan stall turns, stalless spin entry, undefined straight and level entry's to manuevers become the norm? We don't score well in my part of the country doing this.
I'm all for a flying style a type of model or powerplant or whatever setting a trend but not rules violations that evolve into the only way to do it for some select people. It's crazy and if not corrected will lead to the demise of the sport.
Mike

Nickolas

My first world championship and hope not the last. First I consider myself a big fan of the sport and then a competitor. The real story about Portugal...well the organisers very nice people and did their best for the event, however the pits should have been covered with carpet to avoid dust both on the planes and the equipment... Also it was a difficult place to fly specially for people like me that did not have much exposure of it prior to official practice.

I don't have much of experience in international events but watched many P flights, I think that T. Onda and CPLR flew very well indeed. CPLR was very graceful but Onda had minimal or no mistakes in the execution part, regarding the big box it is another story but he kept his distance constant. Did not see QQ's flights but saw his practice flights of F schedule at Leiria airfield, HE WAS AMAZING!

About the judges now, have read your comments and will not take a position but will make the retorical question: Why a judge would not have the g....s to downgrade the top names? What's the gain for him/her really? I can not believe that the result of a WCH is not fair as there is too much diversification in the marks due to the number of judges, in the end the result should be fair.

Personally I have faith in the organisers and judging, I am really amazed when I see the top names flying even if they make some tiny mistakes (there is no perfect flight), in the end they are human like all of us. Hope the big names always to be there to inspire most of us, I think this sport needs their innovative approach and contribution. Pattern is not just moving the sticks around and flying an ARF model like most people do nowdays, pattern is "magic" and the "magicians" are the big names fortunatelly.

Best regards to all participants judges and organisers,

Nikos

flywilly

My Feedback: (121)

We HAVE the technology to eliminate human judges... financing it for a model airplane contest is another issue[X(]

What is the average age of the judges? The last WC I attended, the judges were clearly older than the competitors. Why would the aging visual acuity of the judges be acceptable, not to mention the extremely taxing prospect of evaluating hundreds of manuevers per round. Lastly, the complexity of the maneuvers has increased exponentially in the past 10 years (judge a rolling circle - was it really level in all quadrants?) plus the difficulty of judging the unknown sequences - they are unknown to the judges, too (I know the judges should be familiar with the elements, but each flight provides a little more overall reference especially in presentation).

Subjectivity is always an issue in any judged sport (just ask the figure skaters - oh, by the way, check out how much technology they now use in the judging process).

A friend once said to me: 'if you don't like the judging, RACE!'