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

[gene.maurice at comcast.net]

Ed, Gray, Don,

Thanks for being the voice of reason. Da rules is da rules, period, end discussion. Any conversation to the contrary is a gross waste of valuable bandwidth!!!!

--
Gene Maurice 
AMA 3408 NSRCA 877 
Plano, TX 
gene.maurice at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Ed Deaver <divesplat at yahoo.com> 

Thanx Gray.  Way to go.
I hate to say it, but this discussion is exactly the reason many pilots don't get into pattern.  The rules are in the rule book, opinions are flying around, excluding the rules.  This specific discussion is exactly what many people think of our sport.  People arguing over something that is obvious to everyone else.  The discussion of how to get more people into pattern comes up every 6 months, at the beginning of winter and the beginning of spring but no one wants to address this.  The rules have been written, lets follow them, period.....
On this manuever there is NO directional requirements except as stated previously, enter positive, push the bottom 1/2 loop, exit positive.  With this in mind, the rolls on each seperate leg up and down have to be the same direction to accomplish the requirements of the maneuver, but no relationship between the 2 legs. There is NO requirement for the direction of stall.  I have stalled against the flight path in years past with our first manuever, but didn't realize there was rule against that (I learned very quickly though)  On a calm day, sometimes the plane wants to go a different way than we want.  If the stall is done well, pivot on cg, it really doesn't matter which way you go (not that isn't accounting for any drift which happens a lot.)

As far as the Aresti, this is not IMAC.  In IMAC yes the aresti rules the roost.  This is Pattern and the aresti DOESN"T MATTER.  The double immelman has never had roll direction requirement, the golf ball doesn't have roll direction requirements, the Double Avalanche in FAI doesn't have directional requirements, and the list goes on and on.
Please, this has been settled already, from years ago actually!.  This isn't as difficult as it's being made out.  Now don't get me wrong, I think this is a very hard and pretty manuever when done well.
Ed


Gray E Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com> wrote:

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 


No downgrade......who says the belly of the plane presents less well? That is BEYOND subjectivty and into crack smokin'. 

People, please stop inventing rules that are not there.  That kind of garbage is exactly what judges with grudges use to damage people they do not like, which we all know happens...so please stop interpreting between the lines. It does not HAVE to be the way you think..only the way the rules say-gosh darn it (substituted expression to clear censors). 

Have a nice day otherwise 



Gray Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radome and Composites Engineering
Raytheon_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061017/42ac35b3/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Ed Deaver <divesplat at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question -- now
	judgeing the M
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:15:00 +0000
Size: 739
Url: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061017/42ac35b3/attachment.mht