Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: 20/20 VISION - REPLY TO ALL

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]


ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: 20/20 VISION - REPLY TO ALL



                


Thread: 20/20 VISION - REPLY TO ALL

Message: 20/20 VISION - REPLY TO ALL

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: Geryl Mortensen <iloop at Onramp.NET>

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:15:42 UTC


Message:

First, I wanted to thank everyone who has participated so far in the 
recent thread regarding 20/20 vision for Judges.  Instead of responding 
to each of the dozens of different people who have sent mail and clutter 
up everybodyís mail box,  I thought I would do all of us a favor and 
send out a general post that covers most of your concerns and my 
motivation for the proposed rule that all GRADING judges have 20/20 
vision or corrected 20/20 vision. 

Second, I would like everyone to know that I am not complaining about 
Judging in general or any Judge.  It just surprised me when I found out 
that there is no STANDARD for eye sight for a GRADING Judge.  I believe 
that it should be a requirement, otherwise, there is no sense in having 
such strict judging criteria that requires good eyesight to implement. 

In my opinion, the Assistant and Boundary judges donít need to be able 
to see as well as a GRADING judge does.  Assistants need to be able to 
read Aresti and maybe in the higher categories, have eyesight good 
enough to allow them to count turns in a roller or point rolls, help 
look for hard zeroís, etc., they do not have to be able to instantly 
deduct points during the flight as a grading judge does.  

I am not a ophthalmologist or optometrist  and do not know if 20/20 is 
the only solution.  Like several of you said, maybe it is 20/30 or 
something.  Whatever Clyde Cable and Phil Knight have must be OK because 
they certainly know how to implement the rules as well as anyone.  
Personally, I wear a mild corrective  lens for flying, driving, going to 
the movies, etc.  I do not need to wear my glasses to be safe on the 
ground. I have never walked into a wall or anything and I can even 
operate as a Private pilot with a third class medical without my 
eyeglasses.  However, I can tell you from the time that I have spent in 
the last several years looking up at friends in their small aircraft 
(Pitts) at the top of the box, there is NO WAY that I could apply  the 
proper down grade as stipulated in judging criteria without my glasses. 
 I could guess because I could tell that you were off heading, over 
rotated, positive, negative, dragging a wing, etc.,  but I could not say 
by how muchÖI just canít see that well without them. 

Maybe at the next contest that has a weather delay, we could park a 
Pitts and a mono plane 3,000 or 4,000 feet down the ramp.  We could then 
move the planes in 5 degree heading changes and see if you need 20/20 
vision to tell how much each is off heading.  It would be similar to 
school, most kids donít think they need glasses until you canít see the 
words on the black board, and besides, maybe everyone would learn what 5 
or 10 degrees really looks like. 

The main concern that several of you mention for not wanting to make 
20/20 vision a rule is fear of not having enough Judges at the contest. 
This sounds like a reasonable concern, however, no Judges so far have 
said that this would be a problem  and none have said that they would 
not come as a result of such a rule.  Anyway, if they had eye sight that 
would keep them from grading flights, they could always be an Assistant, 
Recorder, Contest Director, etc. 

For all I know, maybe all current GRADING Judges have 20/20 vision now. 
 I just think if we are going to have rules that govern the downgrading 
process, then all Judges should be equally trained and have at least a 
standard for eye sight.  

Have you ever wondered why so many figures get a grade of 8 or 8.5 and 
most competitors  end up with between 78% or 84 % after you deduct the 
penalty points.  Are we really that good?  Why do some of the Judges, 
like Phil Knight, and Clyde Cable give lower scores.  For one, they know 
the rules and what to look for and I bet they can see pretty well also. 
 Think about this, some say that mono planes get higher scores because 
they show better.   To me, show better  means that the Judges can see it 
better.  Most pilots will also tell you that you will score better if 
you fly low in the box rather than high, again, the Judge can see you 
better.  If they can positively see it and you fly it perfectly, you get 
a great score as you should, if you screw up, you should get down graded 
for the screw up.  20/20 vision would make this a closer reality when 
combined with education and experience on the Judges line.  

I think my concern for this rule comes from a lifetime of playing 
catcher in baseball.  I could always tell the Umpires that could really 
see and the oneís that could not.  It is one thing to be able to see the 
pitcher throw the ball, it is quite another to see the ballÖ 

Thanks once again for all of the great comments.  
Geryl Mortensen
IAC 16969
Chapter 24 - Dallas - Fort Worth
Staudacher S-300 
(972)  233-2848
http://rampages.onramp.net/~iloop


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn