[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.

[Mark Atwood]

I disagree completely.  This really comes down to pilot intent, and I as a
judge choose not to try to guess what that intent was.

This weekend I saw...and performed, at least one 7 pt roll (that should have
been an 8 pt.)  Clearly my intent was to perform 8pts and simply overrolled
a pt.   You would likely just downgrade that as you know my intent was not
to perform a 7pt roll (I hope).

I have witnessed more than one 2/4 that had such a slight hesitation as to
call into question whether or not a half roll was done. And the opposite
from an advanced pilot that accidentally had a hesitation in a half roll
(and given the complete lack of rudder, I'm guessing was NOT attempting to
do a 2/4pt roll).

I for one give the pilot the benefit of the doubt and assume his intent was
to do the correct maneuver and that a 5pt downgrade is a sufficient slam for
screwing up the hesitation.

This happened a LOT when Masters had both a 4pt roll and the 1/4 1/2 1/4
roll.  Both wrong intent (people flying a 4pt instead, or the reverse) as
well as some poorly flew versions that could have been easily mistaken for
wrong intent.

I don't think we should be trying to guess intent.  A point roll without a
hitch, or a smooth roll with one...is just that.  A big downgrade.

If not, than we have to start zeroing Top hats that are too rounded for
actually being Humpty bumps, or vice versa along with numerous other
maneuvers. 

-Mark



On 7/2/07 4:29 PM, "Adrien L Terrenoire" <amad2terry at juno.com> wrote:

> George: It is a Zero, because the pilot DID NOT do the correct maneuver.
> he did a 1/2 sq with 1/2 roll, and NOT the 1/2 sq with 2 of 4 up. Totally
> different maneuver!!
> 
> Terry T.
>  
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 14:33:49 -0400 "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
> writes:
>> I would have given him a 5. I would interpret that as the pilot
>> missing one 
>> point of a point maneuver.
>> G.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>> 
>> 
>>> However, with judges taught to downgrade from what they saw, an
>>> incorrect maneuver is easy to slip in, unless the judge memorizes
>> the
>>> maneuver schedule or there's a caller for the judges.  For
>> example, a
>>> pilot performs what's supposed to be a 1/2 Square Loop w/ 2 of 4
>>> Point Roll Up.  However, he actually does a 1/2 Square Loop w/
>> 1/2
>>> Roll Up.  Hmmmm.  Looks right, but it's a zero.  Many judges will
>>> miss it.
>>> 
>>> Ron Van Putte
>>> 
>>> On Jun 29, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Doug Cronkhite wrote:
>>> 
>>>> There's a huge disparity between not seeing a downgrade and
>> outright
>>>> missing someone flying the wrong maneuver.
>>>> 
>>>> -Doug
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Fred Huber wrote:
>>>>> Thats actually the premise behind how we are told to judge..
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you don't see a downgrade... its a 10.
>>>>> 
>>>>> *******
>>>>> 
>>>>> I couldn't get away with doing a wrong way over-rotation... I'd
>> be
>>>>> saying
>>>>> "Oh crap!" loud enough for the judges to hear.  If the pilot
>> says
>>>>> something
>>>>> like that... you can pretty well figure he thinks he zeroed the
>>>>> maneuver.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Doug Cronkhite" <seefo at san.rr.com>
>>>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:19 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> At the TOC in 2000, on the very last flight of the event, Chip
>>>>>> had a 1
>>>>>> 1/4 positive snap to the right on a vertical downline, but he
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> did 1 3/4 snaps to the left. Because he exited the correct
>>>>>> direction,
>>>>>> only ONE judge out of ten (Peter Wessels) caught it. The other
>> 9
>>>>>> judges
>>>>>> gave him VERY good scores.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Don't always assume that the higher score is correct. It's
>> entirely
>>>>>> possible they just didn't see the downgrades/mistakes made.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Doug
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release
>> Date:
>>>>>> 6/28/2007
>>>>>> 5:57 PM
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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