[NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI

[Keith Hoard]

Yup, then we'll have guys standing along the side of the road holding signs
that read "Will Call for Food". . .

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> Yeah.  How about a contingency caller contract in which the caller gets a
> percentage of what the pilot wins.  My caller would starve.
>
> Ron VP
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Keith Hoard wrote:
>
>  Wow, I didn't know I was supposed to be paying my caller.  Can I find one
>> that works for tips only?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Woodward, Jim (US SSA) <
>> jim.woodward at baesystems.com> wrote:
>> Del,
>>
>>
>> Why do you feel you need to have a professional caller for precision
>> aerobatics?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:26 AM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
>>
>>
>> Thanks Chris...  I appreciate your good wishes
>>
>>
>>    .. all I can say is,... with the changes in costs to compete and need
>> to have a professional caller etc. all make it next to impossible for me to
>> compete anymore. Becomes to prohibitive for a casual competitor.
>>
>>
>>    Del
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: chris moon
>>
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:19 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
>>
>>
>> Thanks Del.
>> We are actually on the same page. My points were directed more
>> generally than towards anyone who is posting to this topic. I just
>> wanted to make it clear that personal preferences are not a judging
>> parameter and that exaggerated elements in order to please someone who
>> is looking pretty much only for certain elements of a maneuver rather
>> than the whole is also wrong. Also, I read posts where people clearly
>> don't understand the difference between aircraft pitch attitude and
>> angle of attack. Two very different things. I see time and again
>> people (yes, me too) get whacked for not showing some silly 40 degree
>> nose up attitude in order to "prove" the plane stalled before beginning
>> a spin. A wing of course is flown by angle of attack and a plane can be
>> at a high angle of attack yet a "low" nose high attitude to the ground.
>> So, a high angle of attack and a true stall can occur at a relatively
>> low nose high attitude relative to the ground but how often is it
>> downgraded or zeroed because the judge does not know the difference
>> between the two? All of the time. I see and hear it all of the time.
>> "He could not have stalled because the nose was not high enough" Wrong,
>> wrong, wrong.
>>
>> This link has some basic info for those who want to read even more:
>> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml
>>
>> I also agree that judging is way better than before in just about every
>> respect. We can always make it better of course and these discussions
>> make some mad and some frustrated but enlighten others. If one does not
>> truly understand basic aerodynamics, then they cannot become a good
>> judge. The concepts of pitch attitude and angle of attack are key to
>> understanding stalls and snaps so they are key things that we all must
>> understand. Understanding the difference makes judging these maneuvers
>> so much easier.
>>
>> AMA vs. FAI I also agree completely about having to change gears when
>> judging these classes back to back at a contest. Even trying to keep
>> the rules straight for the 2 types is difficult at best.
>>
>> I hope as well as others that you can continue participating in pattern
>> with us! We need everyone.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Del wrote:
>> > Chris...
>> > Please!!! don't take this personally directed at/ _you_/ or any _one
>> > individual_. The list is a great medium to have intellectually
>> > stimulating discussion that often is educational.
>> > Judging is an arbitrary art. Do we all have the same calibrated
>> > eyeball? No.. But all judges should be seeing and judging the same
>> > maneuver with similar downgrades. Are all downgrades going to be
>> > identical.. Not realistically ~ No.. Is that the best we can do..
>> > possibly..? The NSRCA has worked hard with many volunteers over the
>> > years trying to enlighten and improve the caliber of judging and it is
>> > much better than it was 20 years ago..
>> > At this stage of evolution when the judges are reduced to nit picking
>> > shows how well the judging has improved for the overall big picture.
>> > Is it realistic to stop the nitpicking.. It is part of the beast we
>> > enjoy to participate in.. Some terminology in the judging guide could
>> > be tweaked and improved on for those that like to over analyze. The
>> > snap by its very nature if often judged just on the merits of the snap
>> > itself which no judge should ever do. Entry and exit are also worthy
>> > of their focus. That snap in some cases happens in less than 1 sec. It
>> > is always going to have disparity in the scores just based on the fact
>> > not all eyes see and recognize all the details they need to catch in
>> > that sec. let alone feeling burnout or watery eyes etc. that make a
>> > judge miss something.
>> > It is hard to expect all judges to shift gears from FAI to AMA and
>> > back again during the same day or same contest. Dwindling numbers make
>> > that a reality.
>> > I will always contend that your mission as a pattern competitor is to
>> > show the judges to the best of your ability what the rule books
>> > describes. As a pilot if you try to change your flying to what one
>> > given judge expects your are hurting yourself and your overall
>> > performance. I guess that is why they still insist on throwing out
>> > some judges scores at the major competitions. Wish it weren't so but
>> > that is also part of the process.
>> > I personally didn't read anyone saying they were judging by the way
>> > they like it.. I may have missed some posts but what I read, some were
>> > showing, for clarification, that some statements being made, where in
>> > error and just trying to clarify what the specific rule actually
>> > states... Not what someone interprets..
>> > I have always had an issues in FAI judging when 2 pilots flies
>> > identical maneuvers and one flies consistently 5 degrees off in
>> > track/heading and the other flies on the rail do they both deserve a
>> > 10 if all elements in the maneuver have been done per the rules? Some
>> > argue that 1 point / 15 is applied before they get to a 15º error..
>> > others read it to mean that your don't give a down grade till at least
>> > 15º of track have been shown. Thankfully in AMA we have the 1/2 points
>> > to work with.
>> > So yes you are right that no judge is to judge based on what they
>> > prefer except when it comes to style and presentation ~ the lower
>> > criteria for downgrades.
>> > ~~~ Who gets the better score...? Dean Pappas once told us that the
>> > one that hides their corrections the best. That alone is another art
>> > /subject. So when judging ~~ do you best to be consistent and fair to
>> > all.. When flying ~~ do your best to show the judges you do know how
>> > to fly the maneuvers without any detectable errors. Learn to hide your
>> > corrections.
>> > I sincerely hoped I helped Chris. Feel free to comment on or off list
>> > as you feel apropos. I still love the sport and what it has to offer
>> > but am having to give it up ~~ possibly forever.. only time can tell..
>> > Del
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > *From:* chris moon
>> > *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> >
>> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:15 PM
>> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
>> >
>> > Is it not the pilot's responsibility to simply fly the maneuver as
>> > depicted? Why then must they exaggerate a portion to placate a judge
>> > who wants to see it their way? Our judging training materials
>> > distinctly say not to downgrade just because the maneuver is not done
>> > the way you like. The example was one pilot making sharp corners in a
>> > square loop vs another making larger more rounded corner. Both are
>> > correct and should be judged identically but can anyone argue that
>> > one
>> > way should be downgraded because it was not the way "you like it"
>> > Stalls, snaps and spins are no different. Not the way I like it = so
>> > what. If it is done correctly it is always a 10. I would think
>> > that if
>> > the other judges are consistently giving "normal" scores and I am
>> > zeroing or giving some nominal score, that there has to be an issue
>> > going on. Am I the only one who is consistently right in my thinking
>> > and everyone else is all wrong? Or, could it be the other way around?
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Del wrote:
>> > > It is the "PILOTS" responsibility to fly the maneuver as
>> > described per
>> > > the rules. If said pilots chooses to not make it obvious or
>> > > discernable to the judge then enjoy the score you should be awarded.
>> > > Del
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > *From:* chris moon
>> > > *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > >
>> > > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 5:11 PM
>> > > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
>> > >
>> > > George - you have made an excellent point in that the interval
>> > may by
>> > > "minuscule" and not overly noticeable to everyone. It is absolutely
>> > > wrong for some to claim that you must "show" them as judge an
>> > > exaggerated pitch up just to satisfy a personal interpretation
>> > of the
>> > > maneuver. Just as is is absolutely wrong for those judges to demand
>> > > another overly exaggerated pitch up as a stall entry to a spin
>> > > maneuver. It is never the job of the participant to exaggerate a
>> > > portion of a maneuver just to prove it exists, therefore your
>> > > usage of
>> > > the term "minuscule" in terms of the time interval between pitch and
>> > > rotation is something we need to keep in mind.
>> > >
>> > > Chris
>> > >
>> > > george w. kennie wrote:
>> > >> My lip is becoming too painful from biting it, so I think I'm
>> > > going to
>> > >> stick my nose in here somewhere.
>> > >> I think I'm with Jon on this one.
>> > >> My logic, however flawed, tells me that if I am flying my plane
>> > >> straight and level and I input rudder, no matter how much, there
>> > > is no
>> > >> way that this input will induce a stall to the airframe.
>> > > Therefore, it
>> > >> seems to me, that the necessary force required to stall the main
>> > >> lifting surface must come from the elevator. It would further
>> > > seem to
>> > >> me that this input must, by it's very nature produce a pitching
>> > >> attitude to the fuselage whether positive or negative. So I
>> > > would have
>> > >> to conclude that the attitude "break" referenced by the rule can
>> > > only
>> > >> refer to a "pitch" break and would be impossible to confuse
>> > with an
>> > >> attitude change induced by the rudder seeing that the required
>> > > result
>> > >> is to stall the main wing.
>> > >> And yes Jon, I agree that it would be necessary to lead with the
>> > >> elevator in order to bring about this attitude change before
>> > > rotation
>> > >> is started, however miniscule the interval might be.
>> > >> Of course I'm still open to hearing other interpretations and
>> > their
>> > >> validations as these observations are strictly opinions.
>> > >> G.
>> > >>
>> > >> ----- Original Message -----
>> > >> *From:* Jon Lowe
>> > >> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > >>
>> > >> *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 2:10 PM
>> > >> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI
>> > >>
>> > >> Jim,
>> > >>
>> > >> I have no clue how you think all three axes can be initiated at
>> > >> the same time. You keep forgetting the part of the RULE, quoted
>> > >> verbatim below, that says the "fuselage break and separation from
>> > >> the flight path" must happen "BEFORE THE ROTATION IS STARTED". I'm
>> > >> NOT equating fueselage break to pitch break, it could break in
>> > >> pitch and/or yaw, if it doesn't start rotation at the same time.
>> > >> If you initiate all three axis at the same time, rotation WILL
>> > >> start at the same instant, and that is specifically NOT permitted.
>> > >> READ THE RULE! The judge MUST determine if the fuselage broke and
>> > >> separated from the flight path first, BEFORE the rotation started.
>> > >> If it didn't, he MUST severely downgrade.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Jon Lowe
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > Klipped 4 reposting
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> Earn cashback on your purchases with Live Search - the search that pays
>> you back! Learn More
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1506 - Release Date: 6/17/2008
>> 4:30 PM
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080618/14b5b02c/attachment-0001.html>