Control Line: Aerobatics
Ted Fancher 158 Flying Cloud Isle Foster City, CA 94404
WOW, Henri! That was quite an indictment of U.S. Stunt pilots in your article, "The American Dream" (which I published in last month's column). It is, however, one with which I take great exception, both to its general tone and to many of the specifics with which you attempt to make your case. I simply couldn't allow the accusations to stand without answer, so I'm taking this opportunity to make a detailed rebuttal.
Let me address your final point first. I feel the underlying message of your remarks is your belief that Americans arrogantly consider themselves "supreme" in the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event; that we feel we deserve to win regardless of how well we or the competition may perform.
I'd like to rebut this in two ways:
- First, notwithstanding your excellent command of the English language, there are nuances of its use with which you appear unfamiliar. Among the definitions of the word supreme in an English dictionary are "highest in quality" and "dominant."
Henri, American Stunters are proud of their history in Stunt because our record in the event is without peer in international competition. Of a total of 15 CL Aerobatics World Championships, U.S. teams have won 12 team championships, placed second once, and third twice. In addition, individual championships have been won by Les McDonald (three times), Billy Werwage (two times), Bob Hunt, and Bob Gieseke. Such a record clearly is "dominant" and indicative of competitors of the "highest in quality." I make no apologies for our pride... or for being concerned that we need to improve our performance to regain that level of accomplishment.
If U.S. reporters use the words "American supremacy," it is as a reflection of the historical record. (By the way, I was unable to find even a single instance of such use in any of the press reports on the last world champs.) It is certainly not an implication that Americans are somehow uniquely blessed and "deserve to win" because of our nationality. Quite the contrary: because of the United States' rich and varied ethnic makeup it would be impossible for us to assume the existence of any inherent genetic or social superiority.
- Second, it is simply not true that the U.S. modeling press has assumed the supremacy of the U.S. team. I was quite disappointed that you chose to quote Don McClave's comments out of context. You selectively chose those which appeared to support your theory without giving recognition to those parts which, frankly, make your position indefensible.
Let me quote—in its entirety—the second paragraph from Don's world champs report:
"Let me say right up front that there's no question about who won. The Chinese team flew extremely well and was clearly the winner. The Russians led by 1986 World Champion Kolisnikov also flew well and were a marvelous second place (and well deserved)."
Therefore, rather than grouse about an unsatisfactory result, I'd like to analyze what happened and offer a few thoughts and suggestions for future teams.
CL Aerobatics / Fancher
Evidence from reports
Now, Henri, you've got to admit that those are not the words of an American who, in your words, "cannot realize that there are some other pilots who simply are on a par—or even better."
In addition, read this quote from my report in the December 1988 Model Aviation Stunt column:
"(It was unanimous from interviews with each of the U.S. team members) that Xiang Dong and Kolisnikov deserved their placings. These guys are the creme de la creme of Stunt right now, and we've got to find a way to beat them." —Ted
Here's another quote, this one from Charlie Johnson's world champs report from the same magazine:
"It's been a bitter pill for the U.S.A. Aerobatics pilots to swallow, not dominating the individual and team awards . . . today, those select few from the other countries are so very, very good that our American phalanx isn't the advantage it once was."
Henri, I rest my case. Your accusation of exaggerated national consciousness simply isn't supported by the facts. The reporters weren't complaining about Americans not being "allowed" to win; they were explaining that our very best efforts hadn't been good enough to continue a winning tradition in which we take great pride.
OK. Now that we've both had our say on American fliers' dreams of supremacy, let's discuss some of the specifics you brought up.
Scoring systems: FAI vs AMA
First, our lack of understanding of FAI scoring, and your dislike of the AMA system. Yes, Henri, I am familiar with the FAI scoring system, both with its strong points . . . and its obvious shortcomings. I am also familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the AMA system. Although it is not a conclusive argument for its superiority, it is worth noting that the Precision Aerobatics pattern and the AMA scoring system were developed concurrently by American fliers, most prominently George Aldrich.
I suppose you could nitpick Don's letter and call AMA scoring a 30-point system. With the exception of the landing, which can earn zero points, all maneuvers are scored between 0 and 40. I'm not sure what significance to attach to the difference, but I will grant that it does exist.
Your discussion of a "good" maneuver is again influenced by lack of familiarity with the language. In English your descriptive terms "good, very good, and perfect" could fall under the general category of "good" — as opposed to "bad" maneuvers, which could encompass anything from mediocre, to poor, to awful, to unrecognizable. Don was clearly describing his broad range rather than the specifics.
In AMA, as in FAI, we have no description of "flawed" maneuvers, only of the perfect one. Although you have a scale in your own mind which ranks maneuvers as good = 8, very good = 9, etc., the FAI rule books have no such classification. It states only that "Maneuvers may be awarded marks between 0 and 10 by each of the judges."
The determination of that score is left to the subjective evaluation of each judge. While one judge may consider a good maneuver (whatever that is) a 5 or 6, another may call it a 7 or 8—and the score is "right" as the other.
You go on to say emphatically that it is "not possible" to tell a 31-point maneuver from a 32-point one, but neither are we able to precisely tell a 7-pointer from a 6. The advantage of the AMA system is that even if the wrong score is given, the net result is only a one-point deficit. That's a difference a flier could hope to make up in subsequent maneuvers.
If the same incorrect evaluation is made in FAI, the net difference can be much larger because of K-factors. For example, a one-point error on a segment with a K-factor of 8 is effectively an eight-point swing; on a segment with K = 10 it is a ten-point swing. In order to recoup those lost points, the wronged pilot must fly several low-K maneuvers or at least two high-K maneuvers one point better than the other pilot.
By the way, I was surprised that you didn't catch Don's failure to recognize the separate K-factors on individual segments of consecutive maneuvers. Can it be that you are not quite as fluent with the nuances of the system as you believe? Incidentally, I feel that judging those segments separately is a major shortcoming of the FAI system. Not only is it a tabulating mania, but it also adds a significant anomaly to scoring consecutive maneuvers.
For example, if a contestant flew the first of three Inside Loops perfectly he would receive a score of 10 (times a K-factor of 1.0) = 10. His second is only "below good" and is scored a seven (times a K-factor of 2.0) = 14, and the third is so bad that it scores only an embarrassing five (times a K-factor of 3.0) = 15. This judge has just achieved the dubious distinction of awarding progressively more and more points for a deteriorating, rather than an improved, performance. That is so ludicrous as to be laughable.
You stated, Henri, that 10 points is not much in FAI scoring. I would counter that the difference between the second-place Russians and the third-place U.S. team was 65 points: 17,561 to 17,496. These scores represent 27 scores per team (three flights, three judges). The difference per judge's score thus works out to just over two points. That's less than 10—and a whole lot less than 18!
I can't accept your contention that a couple of minor errors in a Square Eight should result in a downgrade of at least two FAI points. In the Square Eight (which is two consecutive maneuvers, remember—R/MCM), I find 16 corners, 16 sides, 16 angles, eight top and bottom elevations, four intersections, four maneuver segments which should be congruent, plus the opportunity for an infinite number of glitches and bobbles. Any or all of these could be flawed to a greater or lesser degree.
If an FAI judge downgrades a full point for each minor mistake as you suggest, I contend that most scores would be zero—even before multiplying by the K-factor. I have seen few if any Square Eights which didn't have at least a half-dozen or so minor errors, if only because the corner radius exceeds the mandated 2.10 meters.
Judging and impressions
Although I was disappointed in the facetious manner with which you addressed Don's evaluation of the judging in Kiev, I don't disagree with your conclusions—and neither would Don, because your comments illustrate exactly the point Don was attempting to get across. Let me expand on that.
As you say, what the judges should be looking for is clearly spelled out in the rule book: shapes, sizes, intersections, corners, and elevations. No question about it. However, as you well know, Henri, it ain't all they're seeing—whether they know it or not. A number of things subconsciously influence Stunt judges. In fact, you brought up two of them—one to support your position and one, supposedly, to undermine the "U.S. approach."
You took exception to Windy Urtnowski's use of the word "excitement" to describe Jimmy Casale's victory at the 1988 U.S. Nats. You said, "I don't know what excitement is (in connection with Precision Aerobatics?)." Yet, when discussing the noise level of U.S. engines in an earlier paragraph, you wondered why Americans "give away impression points."
The last time I looked, Henri, neither quiet mufflers nor excitement was listed in the FAI rule book as an item for which a pilot can gain flight points. Nonetheless, we both know that impressions influence judges, no matter how objective they try to be. Oftentimes, when fliers are dead even on the fundamentals, it is these subjective items which separate the winners from the also-rans.
Excitement does count. Al Rabe has proven that beautiful, near-scale Stunters which fly well can beat better Stunters which don't create equal excitement. Jimmy Casale, in the mold of earlier wind-bag Stunters such as Lou Andrews, Hal deBolt, and Davey Slagle, has proven that a fast, flashy, and showmanlike approach to the pattern can generate excitement ... and big scores. And a good friend of mine from West Germany has shown that the excitement of a goodly flying biplane can generate scores in excess of what he himself felt were deserving, even from experienced judges.
No, Don McClave wasn't "discovering" that geometry, etc. were important. American pilots haven't garnered record numbers of World Championship medals through ignorance of either the FAI scoring system or the demands of the Stunt pattern. He was simply relating the facts to an eager army of American Stunt fliers. The facts are that although the world Stunt fraternity has embraced many exciting American innovations, they aren't buying the currently popular American style of fast and flashy patterns.
That's all he was saying. "We got beat, no question about it. We'd prefer to win. Here's where I think we need to improve. Let's try to win again." I can't agree that those are the statements of an individual with problems accepting reality. I think they are the battle-cry of a tough competitor who accepts losing but hopes to regain the title. Quite praiseworthy, actually. Don't you think?
Advice for newcomers
A last thought to the newcomer to our sport of model aviation that might be attending this type of model event: don't be hesitant in picking up all the brochures, catalogs, and handouts that you can from each of the exhibitors. Those catalogs and brochures are not only a reminder of what you saw at the show, but serve as a product reference library for you until next year's show.
Response is something that we hope for when we write about our event in what might seem to be a controversial manner. That was the case with my January 1989 column in which I wrote about some of Mike Kelville's (Lakewood, CA) thoughts and comments on our Sport Scale event. If you'll recall, Mike felt that our Sport Scale event was getting too complex, and that civilian-type aircraft models (especially one- or two-engine types) were at an advantage.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
