[NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question -- now judgeing the M

Tue Oct 17 12:36:03 AKDT 2006

Mark,

The majority of the names I recognize responding to this thread are Masters
pilots. Great discussion by the way.  However I am hopeful the individuals
from other classes who judge Masters get this information as well.

Continued awareness and education is what I am after.  I take personal pride
in understanding the appropriate criteria and application there of when it's
my turn to judge no matter who the pilot is or the class flown.

Glen

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:53 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --
nowjudgeing the M

Hey Glen,

On this maneuver, I have a hard time believing that anyone would
downgrade a good M based on which side of the canopy they see.  Of
course...I've never really understood the "show the canopy first" idea
to begin with, but especially here, there are SOOOOOO many things to go
wrong, that a good M is a good M...period.  Draw the lines, wind
correct, hit the radius...and BHAM!!  Good maneuver.  There's so much to
screw up that showing the wrong side is irrelevant.

Now...like I said...stalling the opposite way...short of a dead
calm...is more likely to get you a downgrade.  Be it right or wrong...  

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Glen
Watson
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:38 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --
nowjudgeing the M

Understood subjectivity will always be part pattern...

Let's see a show of hands of those who would apply a downgrade to an M
flown
technically correct according to the AMA judging criteria although the
belly
was seen during 1 or both of the stall turns.

Glen

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Atwood
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:19 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question

I would disagree...it IS defined.  Figure M with 3/4 rolls.  Roll
direction
is optional, stall direction is optional.  That's always been the case
unless it's specified otherwise.  There's no "implied" roll direction,
just
one that some think looks better.  That will always be the case.

Some people do their four points in different directions so as to show
the
canopy first, or last, which ever they feel presents better...Not sure I
personally care, but for those that do...go for it.   I know I'll catch
flack for say this, but this IS a subjective sport.  Presentation DOES
matter... Always will.  It's shouldn't outweigh the objective criteria,
but
it's not worthless either.

On 10/17/06 3:11 PM, "jivey61 at bellsouth.net" <jivey61 at bellsouth.net>
wrote:

> G
> Yes you agree ..but you also see we have to define it now or everybody
will
> be flying and judging it differently. What a mess that will be.
> 
> Jim Ivey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
> 
> 
>> 
>> Jim,
>> It certainly will work this way, but your original method will
present
>> better. With the roll direction being pilots option your original
>> ll/rr-rr/ll is a much prettier maneuver. There's something to be said
for
>> presenting the canopy to the judges on rolling maneuvers. I apply
this
>> technique on all maneuvers with rolling elements unless the specified
>> requirement forces otherwise, like reverse K.E.'s.  IMHO, you had it
right
>> the first time!
>> G.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <jivey61 at bellsouth.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
>> 
>> 
>>> Bob
>>> If I read the Aresti correct the rolls on both vertical lines are
the
> same
>>> direction.This makes it lt-lt and lt-lt coming from the left and
rt-rt
> and
>>> rt-rt coming from the right.Like Jerry  said look at top of plane
one
> time
>>> and bottom of the plane next time.
>>> 
>>> Jim Ivey
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Bob Kane" <getterflash at yahoo.com>
>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:01 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Wow, this is more complicated than I anticipated. Do you have to
roll
> the
>>> same way for each stall turn?  Or can you reverse directions to show
the
>>> canopy during each stall?
>>>> 
>>>> For example, flying left to right as shown on the aresti, pull 1/4
> loop,
>>> short line, roll 3/4 left (canopy toward flightline), short line,
stall
>>> toward the right, short line, roll 3/4 left, short line, push 1/2
> outside
>>> loop, short line, roll 3/4 right (canopy faces flight line), short
line,
>>> stall towerd the right, short line, 3/4 roll right, short line, pull
1/4
>>> loop.
>>>> 
>>>> Bob Kane
>>>> getterflash at yahoo.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: "jivey61 at bellsouth.net" <jivey61 at bellsouth.net>
>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:45:56 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jerry
>>>> I looked again at the aresti and I think you are right.The aresti
shows
>>>> both upline rolls in the same direction.That would let you see the
top
>>>> one
>>>> time and bottom the other time.
>>>> My mistake Bob so much for crutches.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion