[NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin

Sun Oct 21 17:55:18 AKDT 2007

Lance:

The return to the published KFs was because we were just doing it wrong,
basically going against the charter to follow IAC from a purist POV.  It
also screwed up the software automation we had with KFs being nicely listed
with each figure and tallied for the sequence by the Aresti program that we
used for creating sequences.  Every time a sequence was created, you had to
go look up those figures altered by the rule change and modify it.  It was
messy.  I think those were the main reasons.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lance Van
Nostrand
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 8:41 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin

Interesting, Ed,

If this was discussed at length (instead of a few emails here) do you
remember why they returned the KFs to the FAI cataloge numbers?  Was their
rationale more complete than ours?

--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>  

To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 9:14 AM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin

K-factor multipliers are all about degree of difficulty and we can probably
agree that it can be difficult to do good snaps every time.  They can seem
like a good thing from that perspective.  However, for some perspective I
thought back to a similar discussion and thought process in IMAC a few years
back, where tail slides were considered problematic (correctly so I think).
That led us into a discussion of elimination of the maneuver in sequences,
restricting how it was used (upwind only vs. downwind) and so forth.  They
were genuinely hard to fly consistently and also somewhat hard to judge
properly when presented certain ways, such as when heading downwind and far
away.  That led to the idea of reducing the K-factor when the tail slide was
part of a figure, which also led to us dreaming up other K-factor
adjustments (rollers went higher if I remember correctly).  

Anyway the point is that we ended up tampering with things that caused us to
stray from compliance with the FAI catalogue, which was a problem in the
case of IMAC. Ultimately the k-factors got corrected back and tail slides
stopped appearing in sequences.  Problem solved!  Should we eliminate snaps
in Pattern?  I don't much care for them, but I can live with them. I would
like to at least keep their use to an absolute minimum due to the inherent
mismatch with precision flying and performing and judging a true snap roll
correctly.  It's based entirely too much on the opinions of the observer.
Because we've just got little models whistling about and momentarily turning
into a blur, I'm afraid that it will always be thus.  It's very different
than watching a full scale airplane do a snap, where there is little doubt
of whether one was done for real or not.  I don't know if it would be wrong
to minimize the K-factor with snaps or not, but it leaves me wondering if
we're solving the right problem?

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lance Van
Nostrand
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 8:51 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging-snap & spin

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 <mailto:ronlock at comcast.net>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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

  _____  

See what's new at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170>
and Make AOL Your
<http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169>  Homepage.

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20071022/44ab35ea/attachment.html 