[NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day

Fri Jul 11 19:11:10 AKDT 2008

S+G.  Smoothness and Gracefulness - a radius that is "too tight" could be
downgraded because it is not smooth and graceful.  So square horizontal
eight with 8 tight radii and perfect geometry could score less than a 10 due
to the completely ambiguous "S+G" criteria.  And because S+G downgrades are
not specified, it is entirely possible that a geometrically imperfect square
horizontal eight could receive a higher score because it was "S+G" - Despite
the fact that geometry is the #1 criteria.  (yes, my opinion is that S+G is
a crock for the most part).

Regards,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Matthew
Frederick
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:18 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day

It was clear enough, I undestood what you meant, but I can just as easily 
say the same... If the pilot has to "rush" the first radius, he should be 
able to use his skill to make all the other radii in the maneuver the same. 
If for some reason you're forced to pull a tight radius first, just fly the 
maneuver so that tight radii are pulled throughout. There's nothing in the 
rulebook that says a radius has to be a certain size.

Matt
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
To: <mjfrederick at cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:20 PM
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day

>
> In this system the first radius only sets the standard for the second
> radius.  Then the second sets the standard for the third.  The third for 
> the
> fourth and so on.  The first radius is only used once.  Guess we were not
> clear enough.  Yes you could get a downgrade for every radius if every one
> was different from its predecessor but I guess that's where pilot skill
> comes in.  But from a judging perspective you only have to remember the 
> last
> one.
>
> There is no way most will remember the first 2 of 3 (1 and 2, 1 and 3 or 2
> and 3)  when the pilot gets to 6 or 7 or 8.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mjfrederick at cox.net [mailto:mjfrederick at cox.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:27 PM
> To: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com; General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day
>
> The problem with using this type of judging is: what if radii 2,4,6,8 are
> all the same and 1,3,5,7 are all the same... According to the current 
> rule,
> only half of the radii deserved a downgrade, but using the previous radius
> to judge the current radius would lead to every radius but the first being
> downgraded. If you allow the first to set the standard, the person 
> receives
> the same score as the current rule intends for them to receive without the
> ambiguity of the judging criteria.
>
> Matt
>
> ---- John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> wrote:
>>  the RCA Board liked Mark's idea here but it came up to late in the
>> cycle to make any adjustments.  Yes the first radii is used to judge
>> the second, but the second then becomes the standard for the third and
>> so on.  From a judges point of view I do not know how it could get any
>> clearer or easier to implement.  If all 8 are different then the pilot
>> deserves the appropriate score.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
>> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:59 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day
>>
>> I have always felt that the best way to judge this would be to simply
>> downgrade any CHANGE in radius.  Thus you are always simply comparing the
>> last radius to the current one.   If you work through it, it scores 
>> pretty
>> well.
>>
>> The worst case example would be in an eight where you vary every other
>> radius from large to small (which actually happens a lot given corner on
> tbe
>> top and bottom).
>>
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
>>
>> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:47:38
>> To: General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day
>>
>>
>> I would argue against that there "has never been a rule (in AMA) that
>> the 1st radii is the standard for the maneuver".
>>
>> I've been judging for many years and I challenge anyone to be able to
>> sort through all the different radii in a Square Horizontal Eight,
>> decide what the "standard' radius was, how much the various radii
>> differed from it, assign downgrades and write a score on the
>> scoresheet before the airplane was in the next maneuver.
>>
>> Regards also,
>>
>> Ron Van Putte
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Dave wrote:
>>
>> > "Since, in the latest vote on rule changes, RCA-09-3 failed, we need
>> > to train judges that 1. The first radius does not set the standard"
>> >
>> > I sincerely hope prior training was not contrary to the above?  It
>> > has never been a rule (in AMA) that the 1st radii is the standard
>> > for the maneuver - and it never should be!!  When 7 radii in a
>> > square 8 are the same, and 1 is different - it should be painfully
>> > obvious which radii is to be downgraded.
>> > FAI has screwed up making the 1st radii the standard for the
>> > maneuver - no need for AMA to blindly follow that error (or any
>> > others - ie, AMA rules should never include process or procedure to
>> > automatically adopt anything from FAI - AMA can always choose to
>> > copy or follow FAI).
>> >
>> > Noting every single error and element in complex maneuvers is not
>> > easy (nor is flying them easy).  And just like every pilot is not
>> > capable of every maneuver, not every judge is going to catch all
>> > errors all the time.  This is a competitive event, and for the both
>> > the pilot and the just, there is only 1 that is the best.  And in
>> > both cases, the "best" is probably the one with the "best"
>> > combination of talent, hardwork, practice, and training.  I see no
>> > need to either dumb down the maneuvers or dumb down the judging
>> > criteria to blur the distinction between the best and 2nd best -
>> > seems quite contrary to the goal in pattern of perfect maneuvers.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Dave Lockhart
>> > DaveL322 at comcast.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron
>> > Van Putte
>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:36 AM
>> > To: General pattern discussion
>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day
>> >
>> > I wonder how many judges are able to do all those steps in
>> > determining and recording a score before the next maneuver starts.
>> > Remember, many of these judges are the ones who can't write down a
>> > score without looking away from the airplane and looking down at the
>> > scoresheet.
>> >
>> > Ron VP
>> >
>> > On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Joe Dunnaway wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's nothing different than what we have been doing.
>> >>
>> >> Joe Dunnaway
>> >>
>> >> Ron Van Putte wrote:
>> >>> Yeah, lets quit talking about that.  Plus, let's not talk about
>> >>> spins and snaps.  Let's talk about how to judge the eight
>> >>> different radii in the Square Horizontal Eight.  Since, in the
>> >>> latest vote on rule changes, RCA-09-3 failed, we need to train
>> >>> judges that 1. The first radius does not set the standard,   2.
>> >>> They have to decide what radius represents most of the radii in
>> >>> the maneuver,  3.  They must determine how each radius deviates
>> >>> from this standard and assign a downgrade,  4.  They then must add
>> >>> up all the downgrades and subtract the sum of the downgrades from
>> >>> 10 and 5.  They must write the score down on the scoresheet before
>> >>> the airplane enters the next maneuver.  Nothing to it; it just
>> >>> takes a little training.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ron VP
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jul 8, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Wayne Galligan wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Now we are back to the driveway, parkway thing huh?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> WG
>> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> From: Keith Hoard
>> >>>> To: General pattern discussion
>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:50 AM
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Then I stopped in the middle of the road and went outside began
>> >>>> yelling at people to 'get the hell out of my driveway!!!' . . ."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Wayne Galligan
>> >>>> <wgalligan at att.net> wrote:
>> >>>> Actually Steven Wright went home one night and put the key in the
>> >>>> door to the house to open it and it started.... so he drove it
>> >>>> around the block.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> WG
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> From: Tim Taylor
>> >>>> To: General pattern discussion
>> >>>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:15 PM
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Steven Wright not Carlin
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --- On Mon, 7/7/08, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Off topic: independence day
>> >>>> To: "General pattern discussion"
>> >>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> >>>> Date: Monday, July 7, 2008, 3:08 PM
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yeah, but as George Carlin once asked, "Why do we drive on the
>> >>>> parkway and park on the driveway?" Ron VP On Jul 7, 2008, at
>> >>>> 12:54 PM, Anthony Abdullah wrote: > Particularly considering a
>> >>>> bra holds a pair of... Well, you know > what I am getting at. > >
>> >>>> Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote: > I'm still waiting for
>> >>>> them to burn pantys. > > BTW, how come is it a "pair of pantys"
>> >>>> but only "one bra"??? > > Bob R > > --- On Mon, 7/7/08, Del
>> >>>> <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote: > Hmmm `~ brings back memories
>> >>>> when women insisted on burning their > bra's... ~~ I never
>> >>>> complained~~ just raised my eyelids for closer > observation..
>> >>>> <g> > > Del > > ps ~~ realize it may be an age related comment ..
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Keith Hoard
>> >>>> Collierville, TN
>> >>>> khoard at gmail.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> 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