snip: none of us are capable of a 600. snip
Derek
Hi Derek,
Just to take minor exception.
As long as the scores are determined by individual human assessment it
can't be argued that 600 scores aren't achievable. if, by some twist of fate, stunt becomes big enough that Silicon Valley could make billions by creating algorithms or whatever it takes to digitally determine errors (and accept some individual's [or a "team" of individuals') assessment of how much to deduct from 40 for each "digitally indisputable" error (multiplied, perhaps by the magnitude of that error) then we would have the means by which to determine if none of the three of you is capable of such scores.
I've watched all of this year's top five fly some pretty indisputably excellent patterns and have flown a few pretty decent ones myself. To say that a human couldn't justifiably claim to have judged as fairly as he/she felt capable (they don't add them up as they go along, after all) has somehow "erred" when the total reaches a magic number is not, I don't believe, fair to the judge. It's just the way he/she saw and determined the value and degree of fault in each perceived error...in the course of maybe 10 to 15 seconds from beginning of that maneuver 'til the start of the next.
Not at all to be argumentative. Only to state an alternate point of view.
The left coast appears to have stacked the deck but it's the judges who'll pull the cards and the pilots who deal them and I've no doubt that you can deal with the best. Good flying (it ain't luck) tomorrow, my friend.
Ted