[NSRCA-discussion] klipped to repost.. Snap
Nat Penton
natpenton at centurytel.net
Fri Jul 7 12:55:34 AKDT 2006
Bill
You may be making the situation overly complex. The fliers are interested in presenting a good manuever and it is not that difficult. We need to get all judges on the same wavelength.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Glaze
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] klipped to repost.. Snap
Georgie:
Such a thing exists as that of which you write. IMAC has done exactly what's needed to, through a Powerpoint movie projection. This movie format clears away the verbal clutter. The presentation includes effect of different inputs, stick position, right and wrong ways of performing the figure, etc. and the presentation absolutely and fundamentally reduces the cobwebs about this maneuver. Having said that, nothing is 100% and you will always have folks (read: judges) who may be fairly easy to "fool", and flyers who are masters of doing the fooling. IMHO, it's all part of the game. All we can do is to try to reduce the amount of "fooling" and the amount of "being fooled" to a bearable minimum. Or so I see it.
Bill Glaze
----- Original Message -----
From: george w. kennie
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] klipped to repost.. Snap
"We need descriptive language that is widely accepted."
What we've had for years is "LANGUAGE" ! In my experience, everything expressed in language has been twisted and manipulated and interpreted to the whim of the reader and will never be able to achieve the status of being widely accepted.
IMHO, the best shot at reaching some degree of consensus is a actual video that you can slow-down, speed-up and analyze to your heart's content. Then and only then can a descriptive (language) be written that is capable of being supported by what takes place in the video. It becomes very difficult to challenge what is visually apparent.
We probably not only need the video of the correct way to do it, but additional videos displaying poor execution and highlighting and explaining the downgrades even the subtle inadequacies.
This is the only way this thing is ever going to go away, IMO.Without such a tool we'll be doing this forever.
I still love ya, Nat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
G.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nat Penton
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] klipped to repost.. Snap
Del, the problem is "everyone has thier opinion and everyone has to stick with what they feel is the correct way to address snaps".
We need descriptive language that is widely accepted.
----- Original Message -----
From: Del K. Rykert
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] klipped to repost.. Snap
George and all...
Not to step on anyone's toes and many opinions are flying... Some are very erroneous...
I have my opinion and have to stick with what I feel is the correct way to address snaps.
I follow what is written in the rule book.. end of story... Part of the ambiguity stems from different aircraft and different pilots use different inputs to produce their maneuver. It is left up to us judges to score what we see based on the Don Ramsey or the rule book has said. Has nothing to do with what a full scale snap may look like.. has nothing to do with what a 1/3rd or 1.4 scale snap may look like.. Different breed of cat and visually appear different... IMHO..
If someone was able to produce a visual file of what is and what is not acceptable might help some.. Part of the problem we as humans are expected to process visually and mentally what occurs often in less than 1 sec for the meat of the maneuver and some are going to not see some flaws when so much of the maneuver occurs is so a small space and time. Heaven forbid if a judge blinks or gets teary eyed from wind at moment of execution. I have been fooled by some and gave a score.. I try my darndest to catch all those that try to fool me. I am only human but a very hard nosed judge. Does that mean we shouldn't have the snap in the schedule? I myself think that is a pretty drastic reaction.
I try to follow what I was taught at judging seminars. focus on CG of aircraft. A definite break in flight path has to occur if a true snap occurred. I defy anyone to show me how and airplane.. any airplane can do a true snap and at least not have had some degree of break in flight path.. Correct me if I am all wet ... Also the tail should show some conical movement along with the break.. have to be careful to not confuse some that do a barrel roll but still have a little conical movement of tail.. I have seen it done.. and they received their appropriate goose egg.
Nothing is written about the aircraft speed being a judging factor... before during or after the snap..
stepping down..
Del
nsrca - 473
----- Original Message -----
From: george w. kennie
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
I have received several e-mails from some very accomplished pilots who have indicated that they are perplexed regarding the requirements regarding the proper execution of the snap maneuver. Specifically what needs to be shown to the judge in order to score well. Even among the judging community there is a lack of consensus with many misunderstandings of what constitutes a "break" and recognizing the stalled condition and heaven forbid, the auto-rotation.
It is apparent that a standard needs to be adopted that will once and for all end the individualized interpretations being submitted from all quarters (mine included).
If indeed there is a correct process involved to bring about the proper execution of this maneuver, then it should be possible for the people responsible for handing down the final definitives, to single out the pilot who consistantly performs this maneuver to the precise satisfaction of their judging criteria and have the performance video-taped and made part of the NSRCA web-site and eliminate the confusion.
This will enable anyone to visit the web-site, observe the process, and come away with the full knowledge of how to (as Robert Gainey says) score TENS !
Yeah, Me.......(who else?)
----- Original Message -----
From: Tommy Scarmardo
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
George,
Kinda like when the judges tell us to slow down, we're flying too fast !
tommy s
"george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net> wrote:
John,
I think I have a problem with #1.
I think the pilot's responsibility is to perform the maneuver correctly.
The Judges responsibility is to know what a correctly performed maneuver
looks like and then to score it accurately.
The pilot has no responsibility to satisfy a judge who may be inept.
G.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ferrell"
To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
> >From my point of view:
> 1. It remains the pilot's responsibility to satisfy the judges.
> 2. What is and is not a snap is defined by our rules.
> 3. All airplanes do not snap alike, see #1.
> 4. "Burying the Snap" by over controlling will eventually put you in a
> situation that will score poorly.
>
> IMHO:
> Those of us with a chronic problem of over controlling usually wind up
> selecting control travel limits based on what it takes to snap and spin.
> Those with the gift of fine motor control can get away with more sensitive
> controls.
>
> John Ferrell W8CCW
> "My Competition is not my enemy"
> http://DixieNC.US
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060707/23e80195/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list