Comments on proposed rule changes for documentation

[caygeon flyer]

Regarding rule changes proposed by Michael Peck in the August 2010 Masters Quarterly:

"The first proposal is to change static judging by eliminating the requirement for three views and relying on two photographs or artists renditions (preferably of a side and front view of the full size aircraft modeled) and a written one page history of the aircraft as the documentation package. Static scoring would be reconfigured as outline 30 points, color 20 points, markings & details 30 points, and craftsmanship 20 points. The rationale for the suggested change is that three views of the full scale airplane that are completely correct are difficult if not impossible to find for some subjects and photos or accurate renditions make this task less daunting for new people trying to get into scale competition."

Firstly, this proposal contains two suggestions, the first having to do with documentation, and the second having to do with scoring.

I have sympathy with a first time scale modeller in trying to get documentation together, however, I disagree with this proposal to change the documentation for several reasons:

• I agree that three-views are not always accurate, but three-views are not currently mandated, so mandating an alternative is not logical.  The current rules allow the use of photographs.
  
  My experience is that when judges are shown pictures that conflict with the three-views, they willingly accept the photos as having precedence.  It is helpful to point these areas out to the judges.
  
  From what I have seen of artists renditions, they are less accurate than three-views.  Artistic licence is taken.
  
  Good photographs of aircraft are also very difficult, if not impossible to find, or take.  Even visiting a prototype in a museum does not often let you get good pictures that would completely substitute for a three-view.
  
  The history of the aircraft provides no information to the judges in evaluating the accuracy of the model.

The changes is scoring do not make sense to me.  No rational is provided for this proposed change.  The changes put more emphasis on colour, which is as simple as matching the colour to chips, and de-emphasizes Craftsmanship, which is the core of the model building process.


Caygeon Flyer

[Mitchell Baker]

I fully agree...  Although I can see the connection between the rule changes... With removing the 3-views, you are also reducing accuracy of outline. 

If anything something that might work, would be to reduce the weight on Accuracy of Outline, maybe adding more weight to Finish, Markings and Craftsmanship...

I really don't think we need to, for lack of a better phrase "dumb down" anything to do with Expert, Team or Advanced class.  Those competing in the Championships are suppose to be the best of the best... Esp in Expert and Team.... Open is the entry level for stepping up in competition.  That is the only class where things should be easier for the contestant... With a step up to Advanced.... 

See-ya
Mitch

[Michael]

I appreciate your comments and thank you for taking the time to post them.  The intent for putting those proposed rule changes in the ScaleMasters quarterly newsletter was to see what other USSMA members think of the ideas (besides the individuals that have actually proposed them).  I have received two comments so far, one by e-mail and yours here in the forum.  Other thoughts/comments are welcome.  You can also talk personally with me about them at the Championships event.

Mike

[Bob Frey]

I would agree with previous posters that we should not make a change in this area. Most competitors that I know are comfortable with the rules as they stand now, and we'd likely be changing gears in order to satisfy a very small minority of participants. We'd also risk making far more people unhappy.

Having said that, I do understand the difficulties obtaining good documentation for some rare or very early subjects. I know the current rules allow photographs in lieu of three view drawings, but without checking the Competition Guide I'm not sure that artist's renditions are alowed for outline. I don't know why they wouldn't since three view drawings are essentially artist's renditions. Perhaps that can be a little better described in the rules. Also judges training should stress that no downgrades should be made if the alternative materials are used.

The best option though is to pick a subject that can be well and easily documented.

Bob

[Bob Houin]

Interesting proposals.  One question, the rationale for removing the requirement of a 3-view that was given was that most 3-views are inaccurate.  While I agree with the statement regarding the accuracy of 3-views, I am at a loss to see how this lack of accuracy relates as my understanding is that you are judged against your ability to build a plane that is outlined in your documentation packet.  Therefore, there is no requirement to ensure that the plane is 100% accurate to the full scale, only 100% accurate to the documentation provided.  Given this nuance the lack of 100% accurate 3-views is not an issue.  I am new at this, so I may be missing something.  Thoughts?

[Gary Norton]

Chuck, it seems that your underlying problem is with the judges rather than the use of 3-views.  I think the real problem is the lack of consistent judging.  Time and again I have heard complaints (comments) from competitiors that their score at one qualifier was so much less/more than their score at the next qualifier.  We need to develop a national pool of trained judges.  Sounds simple but in reality has been very difficult to do.  Judging is a thankless job yet where would we be without them?  Any suggestions on how to accomplish this task would be most welcome.  Anyone have any ideas?
Gary Norton

[Mitchell Baker]

The Boot Camps that they started up in the NW were a good start... If we could get a national boot camp for judges and more "help" info online... Re-certification might be something to look at as well....

--Mitch

[Gary Norton]

Sorry, Chuck.  I certainly did not mean to imply that you have a problem with Scale Masters.  Like you, I love to build also but my favorite is the Super Cub.  Hang in there.
Gary

[Gary Norton]

Chuck,

In reply #5 you suggest a rewrite of paragraph 3.2 and 3.4 of the Guide.  Could you provide and example of how you think each should read?  That would be very helpful.

Gary

[Mitchell Baker]

Chuck,

Many of your suggestions from previous years have not suffered any total fate... Several are still on the board, just because you don't give us detailed examples of rewrite... it's hard to get something nailed down...   Nothing is dead....  Some are simple... but some are not... that is why I developed a specific form for submitting proposed changes.. so we could get a detailed example of what the person proposing the change was looking for...  hi-level strawman reminds me of my old Air Force and Gov't contractor days...  They were a no-win situation for us... no matter what we did.. we could never "interpret" the exact meaning correctly which we figured was what was wanted hahahaha... As Gov't contractor, we were suppose to get if wrong so they would have someone to yell at and blame.....  Ahhh... enough reminiscing of the good old days....

No, seriously Chuck...  I want this process to be easier on everyone...  like a change process in my old T-38 manual...  Here is the problem... here is how I think it should be fixed.. and here is how....  otherwise we end up like last couple year floundering in what we each think is meant...  We are also still trying to break down all the Mel's ideas... but it's hard when you have full time jobs, family and other obligations to go through 2-3 pages of stuff trying to figure out what is really meant... and you know as well as I do... give that job to 5 or more people and it will take forever... hahaha...  

See-ya
Mitch

[Mitchell Baker]

You can also reverse that as well Chuck... would the judges have the time to keep up with 3-4 different numbers then add them up before the next maneuver?  Since I don't know the details of this exact suggestion.. and I have seen something of a score sheet you had come up with out there... but I don't remember the details...

Ok, do you have a sample score sheet that can be reviewed? 

What ever is done, there has to be a balance between what all the judges are expected to do, remember and write down. I do know on the current score sheet if the judges there is a key which the judges can use to show where things were not right... to high... off center...etc... I have not seen them used much... Is that kind of what you are talking about as well? Better feedback from the judges?  I also know that at Mint Julep, the judges will often, after a flight, talk with the pilot and let them know what they though was good, where they thought there is problems etc...

See-ya
Mitch

[Mitchell Baker]

Now I am really confused.... 

Did you send me a packet with that in it?  I'm trying to wrap my hands around this...    Also why I wish the proposal form would be used.. but I do need to figure a way to have attachments added to the form...    There should only be one way to officially propose something is a neat orderly fashion....  Well back to my original question.. did you send me something?

See-ya
Mitch

[Mitchell Baker]

Yup.
It's actually before the board right now.
/chuck

This is what confused me... I knew the example you posted from from several years ago... Work with me here... rough crowd hahaha...  I want to get something going that is productive... and be able to give feed back... and if you have an example score sheet.. I would like to see it...  All my format does is seperate things up a bit to make it easier to review and address..  Remember myself and most of the other on the rules committee work full time and it's hard to read through things... look up things and then address them.  Also if a detailed (or somewhat detailed) solution/change is not posted.. nothing says the committee will go in the same direction...  I want to make sure we do go in the same direction... if not it only causes frustration on both sides... I really don't care what has happened 2+ years ago, that was before I was involved in the process... obviously the process was/is broken.. and I want to fix it.. I don't want you or anyone else feel they are being ignored.. and I think I have proven that.. at least in some respects...  I'm a techie... I approach things from that angle... 

One thing you can't say is I have ever told you to shut up... or that I am not interested..  I do believe I have tried to open up the lines of communication and get something in place that can make most everyone happy and get feedback on the processes....

See-ya
Mitch

[Michael]

Hi Mitch,

Chuck submitted his proposal to me, as West Coast Vice-Chairman.  A condensed version of the proposal was in my last newsletter article for comment.
Chuck's proposal revolves around removing the flight realism component from each separate manuever performed and allowing the "10th" manuever as flight realism to stand on its own.
It was used that way at the Hemet qualifier and seemed to enjoy support from the participants at that event.  Once we enter the rule discussion cycle, I will present that proposal to the Board.

Mike

[Mitchell Baker]

Ok, I'm caught up now..

See-ya
Mitch

[j_whitney]

Hi Mitch,

Chuck submitted his proposal to me, as West Coast Vice-Chairman.  A condensed version of the proposal was in my last newsletter article for comment.
Chuck's proposal revolves around removing the flight realism component from each separate manuever performed and allowing the "10th" manuever as flight realism to stand on its own.
It was used that way at the Hemet qualifier and seemed to enjoy support from the participants at that event.  Once we enter the rule discussion cycle, I will present that proposal to the Board.

Mike

Not sure how others approach it, but the "3 category" score seems easy and straightforward to me.  The first event I ever judged was Pattern, and the 2 stresses on those maneuvers were precision and placement.  Adding in realism of the maneuver seems pretty simple to me, and actually made it easier to judge each maneuver.

Since in Scale we do not judge turnarounds, there is ample time usually to figure the score and add the component scores if necessary between maneuvers.  There are only a couple of instances where the judge might be rushed - Traffic Pattern to Landing and then on in to landing.

Regarding photos in lieu of 3-views: I think mandating only one or the other is a bad move.  You can use photos to augment the 3-views; if you are concerned about the accuracy of the 3-views, you are at liberty to correct them and send the corrections and supporting documentation to your district member of the Scale committee for approval.

As Bob Houin pointed out tho (I think it was Bob) - we are judged by our documentation - if the documentation is actually incorrect, but our model matches it there should be not downgrade.

Ask Mitch - I have been a proponent of judges re-certification for a long time.  I think it should be mandatory - and I think CDs should be required to be certified in at least Flight judging, if not both flight and static.  The CD is the ultimate arbiter at an event and should know the rules he is supposed to be operating under.

The usual language I get when I bring up re-certification is that they don't want to offend or overburden the judges.  I think that if a judge is willing to judge at all, he or she is more than likely willing to recertify.

My 2 cents.
JW