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

Tue Oct 17 13:15:37 AKDT 2006

I can't help but wonder if Kane broke the damned pencil yet.....

Verne

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Watson" <gwatson11 at houston.rr.com>
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --  
nowjudgeing the M

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