Grade Inflation, continued...

I reposted an entry from the Oz Report last week (http://events.dowsett.ca/node/1309) on what he calls 'grade inflation'. I meant to but didn't take the time to post my take on his posting. I heard that same comment used today at the Flytec Championships and knew they were refering to the same opinion.

The first thing you need to keep in mind is that we are trying to ensure that the efforts pilots put into flying the tasks they are told to fly in a competition are rewarded fairly. We aren't trying to make every day 1000 points as weather and flying conditions have help adjust days where we aren't flying in ideal conditions.

The GAP scoring system is what all of our comps are scored with. It is designed to take many factors into consideration when scoring a day to help level the playing field and reward day winners with the proper scores to keep it a fair competition over the term of the meet. It reward pilots for being consistant, not for being lucky on one day (a highly valid day) and not-so-lucky on other days (the low validity days).

I did opt to change the parameters used at the US Nats from what Davis had told me to use. I changed the parameters BEFORE I ran any scores....my reasoning? I KNEW the parameters he gave me were too high (I am not sure why I listened to him in the first place). I brought up my concern at the initial pilot meeting but Davis stood his ground and wouldn't consider other options that I and other pilots brought up. Closed mind = closed case.

So I went on what I felt was my better judgement and as Meet Director I made the change. I looked at the task flown that day which was a 75 mile task BUT it only took the winner 1h38m to complete - a far cry from the 3hr proposed nominal time. The other factors of that task that I considered was that approximately 25% of the field did make it into goal (which was the parameter set) AND most of the pilots were scattered across the entire course which is something the GAP likes to see in a valid task.

So I thought it was a good example that it was a valid task but the nominal time was the biggest parameter blown and nominal time and nominal distance are NOT in relation (opposed to what Davis thinks). The nominal parameters (time and distance) should be set to a reasonable time flown to do the task OR a decent distance flown.

It is too bad that there is no longer any advice or support for the GAP scoring software (http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/race/). It is important for us to refer to their guidelines to be sure we are using their software right.

I took the advice of what the actual pilots that compete on an international level in that class (the flexies).

I got around to rescoring the first day with the different parameters. The rigids would have went down from 948 to 628 using the parameters Davis laid out. The flexies would have went down from 949 to 581.

It didn't make any difference in the final results in the podium on either class. It did flop 8th and 9th place in the flex class though so don't get me wrong...it does make a difference in pilot positioning, it's just a good thing it didn't change the podium.

With so many pilots in goal each day, I feel they were rewarded fairly with the change in parameters. I just don't see it as erroneously inflating the day scores. Each day brought conditions that did have the competitors to make a number of key decisions. On the first day, Oleg's reaction to being 'only' 3 minutes faster than Curt (after taking a later start gate) was that he (himself) should be penalized to not win the day for being 'slow'...and he was.

Both days were devalued (slightly) which did leave room for us to have a 1000 point day - unfortuneately we never had weather to show us that day.