[NSRCA-discussion] Proffesional Caller's Union

[Ron Van Putte]

I'd be happy to help Ed, but I probably can't get my foot that high.

Ron VP

On Jun 18, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Ed Alt wrote:

> Yelling probably won't help. I think I really need a swift smack in  
> the back of the head sometimes.
>
> From: lightfoot at sc.rr.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:31:28 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proffesional Caller's Union
>
> I can’t call, but I can yell – and I’m cheap!
>
>
> Jay Marshall
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ed Alt
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:24 PM
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com; General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proffesional Caller's Union
>
>
> Nuts!  Now I know why I didn't make the finals yet.  No  
> professional caller!  Doh!  Gonna go get me one right now...
>
> Ed
>
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:15:53 -0700
> From: jpavlick at idseng.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proffesional Caller's Union
>
> According to the Caller's Union (Local 12): "Your caller should be  
> paid 25% of your gross". That should make it easy: .25 * 0 = FREE.  
> Yup, that's what my caller gets paid. Of course I do take her out  
> to dinner and buy her drinks after the contest. Can I write that  
> off as a "business" expense? LOL
>
>
> John Pavlick
>
> Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> 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
>
>
>
> The i’m Talkathon starts 6/24/08.  For now, give amongst  
> yourselves. Learn More
>
>
> The other season of giving begins 6/24/08. Check out the i’m  
> Talkathon. Check it out!
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion