AEROBATICS
Wynn Paul
While I was fortunate to be a member of the United States' FAI Precision Aerobatics team, and attempted not to open my big mouth too much, there were a number of items occurring which I feel need some comments. In addition, Mr. Zdenek Liska, the chief judge of Precision Aerobatics, asked that I supply him with some ideas on administration of the contest—along the lines that the Precision Aerobatics Model Pilots Association (PAMPA) has used for the FAI tryouts and the Nationals since 1974.
Taking the items in chronological order from the FAI Sporting Code, the first problem is from section 2.5.6(d) and (k) regarding the responsibility of the organizer to "provide at least one practice day prior to the competition" and "Provision of adequate practice areas shall be made before and during World Championships." Much has been said about the absolutely miserable practice conditions at the 1980 World Championships. Certainly, it is a matter of protocol to have an "Official Practice Day" at the site, but why should the site be closed to competitors at all other times?
"Adequate practice areas" is a typical, poorly-worded phrase which can be interpreted to suit the host country. The American Stunt team at the 1980 Championships quickly found out that two circles were not "adequate practice areas," although the Championships management ruled that they were adequate. Granted that the typical European country which hosts the World Championships does not have the acres of asphalt parking lots that are familiar to Americans, but to host a World Championships contest with two practice circles for 69 competitors in Precision Aerobatics reflects poorly on the management and administration by the FAI and the CIAM.
Some questions were raised about the weather conditions at the 1980 Championships; some felt that the contest should have been postponed to the next day. It might have made for a better contest, but obviously there would have been many problems in postponing the contest for one more day—lodging, meals, officials, etc. Section 2.5.9 of the FAI Sporting Code deals with weather conditions. From personal experience, the wind seemed to be in excess of 12 m/sec., but the contest was not postponed.
The most disturbing part of the rules, which always seems to draw the ire of many competitors, is counting the highest qualifying flight in the final standings. Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.14 deal with number of flights and final standings (called "classification" in the FAI Sporting Code). This year, qualifying flights were spread over three full days, which meant that the judges were comparing a flight of Bill Werwage at 10:00 a.m. Monday with a flight of Bob Hunt at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, still in the same first round! You may argue that the judge is supposed to compare each maneuver with his interpretation of a perfect maneuver, but when one round (with 69 fliers) is split over a day-and-a-half, it is just too momentous a task to expect really objective scores from day to day. Then, to carry over one high score to count in the finals is just ridiculous.
The finals should be another contest, with the competitors starting out equal and flying either two or three official flights. Actually, there is plenty of time to fly three official flights and count the two highest scores, especially since there are only 15 competitors.
Since, in Precision Aerobatics, the luck of the draw has a great deal of influence on the outcome, in many instances it is unfair to penalize a finalist by using a qualifying score that may have been lower, relative to competitors of similar abilities, just because the flier had a poor draw. I can see no advantage to carrying over the qualifying score. Certainly, everyone will attempt to fly their best in qualifying to ensure that they make the finals, so there can be no question of "going easy."
There does not seem to be a simple solution to the lengthy qualification procedure, especially since only one flight circle is permitted for qualifying. It would be expensive to provide more judges to have two circles for qualifying, and there would be a big problem to supply two circles—especially since it is very difficult to even come up with one at many World Championships sites. Of course, it would make sense to have two qualifying circles, split the number of competitors in half, and add the two scores obtained from the two official flights. But with space and money limitations, I do not foresee this possibility.
Assuming that only one qualifying circle will be utilized, then the same procedure for selecting the 15 finalists should be retained, except that Section 4.2.14 of the FAI Sporting Code should be changed to have the finals consist of the best two scores from three official flights.
Another item at the World Championships, which I asked our team manager to protest, was that the judges did not have an individual recorder. Anybody who has ever judged according to FAI rules knows how difficult it is to score and write down all the scores for each maneuver. Remember, on three inside loops, each loop is awarded a score from zero to 10. As a judge, you have the option of trying to write down the score while looking at the next loop, or waiting until all three are finished, and then writing down what you think you remember about them. It is a much fairer procedure to have the judge call out softly to a recorder the scores for each separate part of each maneuver. Unfortunately, recorders were not provided in Poland in 1980, and one judge went so far as to say that he could not judge with a recorder! I find that difficult to believe; he must have a marvelous memory.
In the FAI Sporting Code, section 4.2.13 states, "Each judge will be provided with a secretary." What we call, in athletics, "home cooking" prevailed at the Championships this time, and the Jury ruled that no secretaries (recorders) had to be provided. And, let's remember this is a World Championships. I'll bet the judges at the RC Pattern World Championships had recorders.
And last, but not least, we come to the rule that the U.S.A. has been trying to get removed for years: Section 4.2.11, "he must signal the start of a maneuver by raising an arm for at least one circuit." This rule goes back to the years when the judges were not really certain what was a maneuver and what was controlled crashing. There is just no need to signal before each maneuver. The competence of the competitors in Precision Aerobatics is such that everyone can not only perform the complete pattern, but there are probably 20 to 25 competitors who could all qualify. The arm signals are just not needed.
Conclusions and Recommendations
- Do not carry qualifying scores over to the finals. The finals should be a separate contest with all finalists starting equal.
- Change Section 4.2.14 so the finals consist of three official flights, with the best two scores counted.
- CIAM should enforce the requirement for adequate practice areas and ensure host countries provide reasonable practice opportunities beyond a single official practice day.
- Provide each judge with a recorder/secretary, per Section 4.2.13, to improve scoring accuracy for complex maneuvers.
- Remove the required arm signal before each maneuver (Section 4.2.11), as it is outdated and unnecessary.
For information on Precision Aerobatics or PAMPA, write Wynn Paul, 1640 Maywick Drive, Lexington, KY 40504.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
