[NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin

Sun Oct 21 11:38:48 AKDT 2007

Poorly educated/trained judges will always be a problem.  Judges are  
predominantly pilots and most are at a contest because they want to  
fly, not judge.  Judging is a "payment" for being judged.  It's a  
question of priorities.

There are a few, like Don Ramsey, Earl Haury and Matt Kebabjian, who  
set good examples for the rest of us by balancing their priorities as  
a pilot/judge to the benefit of the rest of us.  We need more like them.

Ron Van Putte

On Oct 21, 2007, at 2:01 PM, chris moon wrote:

> Jon and John are correct in their comments.
> To add something - I think the problem is that many of us "cater"  
> to the
> judges who do not judge these maneuvers correctly. There is no
> requirement to over exaggerate the break in order to do the maneuver,
> however many do just that as a defensive tactic against the judge who
> refuses to judge correctly. The problem is the JUDGE - not the pilot.
> I don't advocate changing the schedules or K factors as a work around
> for poorly informed judges. We are much too politically correct and
> accept the zeros from them if we don't do it "their" way. If you
> compete regularly, you know who they are and cater your maneuver to
> accommodate their lack of ability in the chair. Sorry for the rant,  
> but
> we are talking about fixing things the wrong way for the wrong  
> reasons.
>
> Chris
>
>
> John Ford wrote:
> > Jon,
> > Hear, hear.
> > Couldn't have said it better!
> > I also share the opinion that in the case of the snap (or the spin
> > entry for that matter), our judging standards don't judge actual
> > flight characteristics of the particular plane, and we are asking
> > pilots to exagerate the break because that is what we agreed we  
> wanted
> > to see all the time, not because every plane should show it  
> naturally.
> > Maybe we are sitting on this bed of nails because for many  
> people, the
> > mystery and controversy of the break is more attractive than
> > aerodynamic reality?
> > I've done lots of snaps in full-sized planes and there are as many
> > break styles as there are airplane designs. Some older/larger planes
> > require that you slow up and reef back almost to the buffet before
> > mashing the rudder, others are so touchy that a modest tap on the
> > rudder with only a hint of pitchup will send the beast thru 150
> > degrees of autorotation before you can think about it. In both  
> cases,
> > believe me, it was a true snap roll, but in the first case, you may
> > have seen some break, but in the latter, it would have looked like
> > everything happened at the same time around all 3 axes. I'm  
> sitting in
> > the thing, and I can't tell!
> > Essentially the same comments for spin entry, in agreement with  
> Jon's
> > comments.
> > I'll judge by the rules of the CD, but I do it with a bit of a
> > shoulder shrug, I suppose.
> > John
> >
> > */JonLowe at aol.com/* wrote:
> >
> > The age old problem of what a "break" is in a snap was solved at
> > the Don Lowe Masters a couple of years ago. They defined it as a
> > "simultaneous departure in all three axis". There you saw graceful
> > snap entries, clearly defineable as a snap. At the IMAC Tuscon
> > shootout, they had had the pitch departure requirement, and most
> > were pitching what looked like 45 degrees (was probably 25
> > degrees), before they entered the snap. Break, pause, enter snap.
> > Ugly as hell. At a pattern judging seminar I went to this year, we
> > sat around for half an our trying to decide what a "pitch break"
> > was. We finally decided that if you saw anything at all, it was
> > ok. But beware of IMAC judges crossing over, unless they have been
> > retrained. I got some 5's this year this year, because they didn't
> > see a large break.
> > As regards spin entries, there are too many spin entry nazis IMHO.
> > The rule book clearly defines downgrades for entries. In my book,
> > if they don't break any of those rules, (wing coming over before
> > the nose passes thru horizontal, not stalled, weathervaning,
> > etc.), I don't downgrade for the entry. Too many people want to
> > add their own definition to the rules about how an entry "should"
> > look, and tell you they downgraded or zeroed you. When you ask
> > them what specific rule you violated, they say it "didn't look
> > right". Some of these same people will coach you to "cheat" at the
> > entry to get a pretty one, dumping up elevator to get the nose to
> > fall thru, which really breaks the stall. Unfortunately, all
> > airplanes do not enter the same way, and some entries are not
> > pretty, but they don't break the rules. Maybe, as well as teaching
> > what isn't correct, we ought to teach what ISN'T downgradeable in
> > some of these manuevers.
> > Jon
> > In a message dated 10/21/2007 8:50:52 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > patterndude at tx.rr.com writes:
> >
> > Ron,
> > Your idea caused me to stop and think. I'm wondering if it
> > would really help, however. If a pilot "in the hunt" screws
> > the landing (K=1) he's now "out of the hunt" on that round.
> > Scores are often very compressed at local contests so even if
> > we reduce the KF, a bad score on any manuver is usually enough
> > to do mortal damage.
> > --Lance
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Ron Lockhart
> > *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> >
> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:34 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin
> >
> > Eliminating is one solution - a price that comes with that
> > solution is lack of practice doing and judging snaps-
> > which is desirable for some in AMA classes, and for sure
> > for those looking ahead to F3A.
> > An in between thought - reduce the K factor considerable
> > for snap and spin maneuvers.
> > That leaves them in the schedules, provides flying and
> > judging practice on them, but reduces the
> > impact of the imperfect judging of them on round scores.
> > Ron Lockhart
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* BUDDYonRC at aol.com
> > *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> > *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:44 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging
> >
> > My cents worth on the subject.
> > Snaps and Spin entry seem to cause much of the problem.
> > Why do we continue to repeat trying to solve a problem
> > that most agree is controversial at best and
> > impossible to judge consistently on an equal basis?
> > Seems that the best solution is to eliminate these
> > from the schedules and pick maneuvers that more suit
> > Precision Aerobatics and their ability to be judged
> > correctly by everyone not just those who have advanced
> > to the top of the super judge platform.
> >
> > Buddy
> >
> > Jon Lowe
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --
> > See what's new at AOL.com
> > and Make AOL Your
> > Homepage .
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café.  
> Stop by today!
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20071021/64bd07e9/attachment.html 