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

Dean Pappas d.pappas at kodeos.com
Tue Oct 17 18:05:53 AKDT 2006


Well I for one know that it would be a beautifully sharpened pencil: the job done with a sharpener of his own design.
Dean

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org on behalf of Verne Koester 
	Sent: Tue 10/17/2006 9:32 PM 
	To: NSRCA Mailing List 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure"M" question -- nowjudgeing the M
	
	

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 16618 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061018/b535c583/attachment.bin 


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list