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

Tue Oct 17 17:32:19 AKDT 2006

No, the pen would've flown into me.....

Verne

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Archie Stafford" <rcpattern at stx.rr.com>
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --  
nowjudgeing the M

>I can't help but wonder if Verne had the pencil if it would've already 
>flown
> into a pen by now?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Verne 
> Koester
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:15 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --
> nowjudgeing the M
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 