Search

[Brian Hoare]

Hi Alan

I would be happy to judge Masters and the intermediate.

Regards
Brico

[Thomas David]

Hi Al,

I'm happy to judge too.

cheers,

Tom

[Alan Williams]

Thanks Tom and Brian. 

[Phil Lewis]

On Kevin's behalf here is the flight order for the World Cup/UK Championships this weekend.

Any errors spotted please let me know ASAP.

Phil

[Phil Lewis]

On Kevin's behalf and much head scratcing here are the combined results gleaned from both Pi's, World Cup first.

Should anyone have any queeries please make contact right away.

Phil

[Phil Lewis]

And now Intermediate, Masters and P-25.

Phil

[Mike Pole]

Thank you to Kevin, all judges, Phil and all concerned with this weekends Champs and World Cup.
Kazie and I thoroughly enjoyed it even when the wind was outside our 'comfort zone'.
Having seen the forecasts leading up to the weekend it's amazing how it all ran to schedule.
Thank you again,
Mike & Kazie

[Alan Williams]

Below some feedback from Nico and LLaurent. 
I can add that similar comments could be made about the P only flights.
I have also posted this is the judging tab, in case some will not see this thread.

From Nico:
Laurent and I shared our impressions about the flights over the weekend and I think we were generally on the same line.
Don't hesitate to ask other judges on the next competitions to give the team the latest and most accurate tips.

The weather conditions didn't help to go deep into individual flights but we can still take global observations out of it.
Firstly even with these tough conditions pilots did perform on pretty high standards, not reaching top marks as they would do in normal weather but I gave a lot of 8 or 8,5 scores and relatively few bad ones which is a sign of strong and solid backbone of the category here.

The main point I will raise is the ratio distance/sizing of the manoeuvres. Saturday I was not that comfortable appreciating central manoeuvres but trying to get shelter from the rain I was moving my head in and out of the tent. Thing is I did feel the same on Sunday while the tents were away...
To make it short I've arrived at the conclusion that pilots were flying too big, too close.

I know these last years we focused on distance, the sporting code strongly insisting on this criteria. I would say that globally distance is now fine and matches the requirements but we have to come back to this more important rule:
Art. 5.1.8. Marking g)
"Manoeuvres must be performed such that they can be seen clearly by the judges ... If, for some reason within the control of the competitor, a judge is not able to follow the model aircraft through the entire manoeuvre, he has to downgrade the manoeuvre accordingly."
Practically in the P schedule:
- the roll combination after the vertical 9 is too high above our heads to be properly appreciated, it's 6 1/4 rolls to assess on horizontal/vertical position which requires to be clearly seen.
- the spin entry starts with a nose-up attitude that you can not see when it's just above your head.
- the figure S finishes by a 1/4 roll integrated. Who has been able to see the integration on this grey sky? I did really struggle with that.
Practically in the F schedule:
- first manoeuvre, square loop on corner, hard to see the integration at the top.
- roll combination: same as in the P.
- half loop: basically there's not enough room left to size it accordingly to the proportion of the manoeuvres requirements but on top of this seeing the integration of the half loop was a challenge.

Art 5B. 11. Size of the manoeuvre
It costs up to 1 point per manoeuvre, when a manoeuvre is too big in the manoeuvring zone but also when you compare a manoeuvre to the others.
Few illustrations in the P:
- The half cloverleaf doesn't need 2 full size loops with an exit barely above their tops.
- The comet when finishing at the centre creates an overlap with the S and then costs 1 point to each manoeuvre.
In the F I will just talk about the vertical 8:
- What is the point of going that high?
- It's a long manoeuvre, it's boring to judge, why would you let too much time to the judge to think about the radii differences on the 8 angles plus positions and roll rates of the many rolls and part rolls?
- Plus you expose the model to the wind.
- If your plane is at the expected 175m in depth it means it's above the 300 meters height, I'm sure you don't need that much space to perform a nice looking 8.
- I've seen many different shapes of squares and lots of top squares bigger than the lower ones which then looked like rectangles.

Then about distance: Art 5B.10.
It's clearly said that the main criterion is visibility. If you can't quickly downsize please find a compromise with the distance, fly where it's comfortable to fly for you and easy to see for the judge and progressively get closer downsizing the flights.
Check how much time you need to run a whole schedule and see if reducing the size would give you more comfort to shape, centre, leave time and space to execute a proper portion of straight line between manoeuvres?
Could downsizing allow to reduce the speed considering that high speed makes any mistake look more obvious and harder to correct?
Could I sneakily add that the flight has to be executed at a constant speed: Art 5B. 9.?

Modern planes can I'm sure accurately perform the schedules at a lower speed, the engines can now deliver more power than needed when needed.
When I'm looking back at the evolution of the schedules over these last 30 years I'm seeing a movement from "ballistic" lines to more complex manoeuvres requiring different skills. To give an example we don't need anymore to get to a high speed to hope that the plane will reach the top of a kind of round loop, we now need control.
Apart the distance the sporting code doesn't give measurements, radii sizes, doesn't impose a specific speed but asks for precision, accuracy and harmony, it's not a race. A different rhythm has to be found for each manoeuvre depending on its location, that's where in my opinion we see the pilot's style and personality.

Then, if during a flight the pilot's neck can't go further back without moving the shoulders backward the manoeuvre is more than probably performed too high or too big. If the caller behind feels the same the caller should probably say something and discuss it during the debrief after the flight.

So, that's it basically, work on the ratio size, distance and speed. Everyone should find more comfort, especially in rough conditions.

Couple of things before leaving:
- If the definition of a snap is pretty much about what a snap isn't, we need to have a noticeable kind of explosive moment of something to make us think it's not a quick roll or a barrel roll. Even if physically the plane does stall, we have to see something to score it.
- A humpty-bump would look easy but generally doesn't score well because entry, top and exit have to have the same radii. If the pilot wants a big round top keep in mind that the entry and especially the exit have to match, when I say especially the exit it's because at the end the exit is often too tight compared to the top. Keep in mind that the Aresti is a visual code, not an accurate drawing of the manoeuvre. On the paper sheet there's no round corners on the squares, there's no round entry and exit on the humpty-bumps but there are in the sky. Radii have to be the same and they are compared to the previous one within the same manoeuvre.
- When there is a change in direction of rolls or part rolls it has to be immediate. With the strong wind facing the planes I've seen in the rolls combinations some pilots realising that the plane did not as usual reach the center of the flying area and then kept the plane on knife-edge position to roll on the center. Please don't wait and bounce, a judge will notice the wait but not especially the flag way under the plane and I personally would penalise the wait more than the position.
- Finally, one last but not least point: geometry is the main judging criteria, we've discussed it a lot about shapes and sizing, I would add a reminder about the importance of having the rolls and part rolls properly centred in their portions of straight lines within the manoeuvres. A common mistake is to see these elements coming too late, mostly once the center is passed and it causes a clash with the end/exit of the line. For a judge it's a kind of easy mistake to catch, especially at the end of the line more than at the beginning... Please take care of it, it's more than a detail, it's way too many points lost because of this.