[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

[Don Ramsey]

Georgie,
 
Here's my take:  
 
-          I don't want to debate the 4 point roll.  Earl Haury explains
that best and concludes it is the center of inverted flight.  It is not a
question in AMA as the rulebook says the center is the center of
inverted/upright flight.
 
-          As for the P-09.1 maneuver, the interpretation was published by
the judging committee and posted on the website.  This was confirmed with
Bob Skinner of the FAI.  Nuf said.
 
-          On the half clover:  you can argue that the rules say all rolls
on a line are on the middle of the line.  But.  Maybe this is something the
judging committee should discuss.  
 
-          The definition of a maneuver always takes presidence over the
name.  The name is just the best short description of the geometry.  All
real clover leafs I've seen have scalloped lines and are not exactly loops.
But what's in a name.
 
-          As I see it, anything that's not in the rulebook is at the
discretion of the pilot.  Roll rate are not defined except in slow rolls.
As per your definition of a standard roll (which I notice you did not
define) can it be of duration 1/10 second, can it be 2.99 seconds or can it
be 4.5 seconds?  I don't remember seeing a standard roll duration defined in
the regs.  I think its pilot's discretion.  The slow roll of course is not
pilot's discretion and must be a minimum of 3 seconds duration but can it be
slower than a standard roll or are you just caught up in the name.
 
-          I remember the reverse Cuban Eight.  It was preceded by a half
square on corner.  Most people flew the half square with poor geometry
causing a problem on the eight.  Wind was another problem but the Eight
could be done with an entry line.  Compacted maneuvers are a problem but
most can be done with proper management.
 
-          Hope you don't downgrade for a change in altitude on TA
maneuvers.
 
It all boils down to judges making interpretations that are not in the regs
and applying those interpretations for downgrades.  Of course, this causes
major problems.  The judging classes are to try to prevent this.
 
Don
 
 
 
 
 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of george w.
kennie
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:40 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
 
To all you guys who monitor this list, I not only want to wish you all a
wonderful New Year, but I wish to convey to each how this terrific
interaction that we enjoy on this medium has made my life far more
interesting and fulfilled and rewarding because of your participation in the
process. We may not all share the same viewpoints, but the exposure to
various understandings is always enlightening and of value.
 
This may not be your experience and I can respect that, so you may not be
interested in what follows and that's O.K., but I kinda made a promise to
Tom Miller at last years Nats that I would attempt to address a couple of
issues that came up during a somewhat passionate discussion that took place
in the Gazebo on Sunday evening regarding a couple of rules interpretations.
Please understand that the viewpoints expressed here by me are purely my
opinions and the reasoning behind those conclusions and any corrections to
my erroneous offerings will be welcomed. 
 
The first point that was put forth by my worthy adversary was in regard to
Hesitation Rolls. In his understanding, he submitted that a point in a point
roll included the hesitation and therefore the first maneuver in P-09, the
Double Immelman with 2 of 4 points first, must be flown with a space after
the second point in order to fulfill the requirement of his interpretation
of the maneuver.
 
This is in total opposition to what the rulebook states. I'm here to tell
you that the POINT and the HESITATION are TWO separate and distinct
entities. How do I know that? Think about it for a second. What do you do in
a verticle up-line with 2 of 4? Do you include the hesitation portion of the
roll in the line? If you did and you treated this as ONE element and you
centered that element in the line, then the roll portion would occur
significantly off center toward the bottom of the line !  
This is further supported by the rulebook in  5B.4.3.7. where it states,
"the half roll, snap roll, POINT ROLL, or full roll should be performed
IMMEDIATELY after or before the half loop as required by the particular
maneuver. A VISIBLE LINE IN BETWEEN THE TWO COMPONENTS MUST DOWNGRADE THE
MANEUVER BY 2 POINTS. This action can only occur if the POINT  and the
HESITATION are treated as two separate and distinct elements.
 
This error in thinking extended to his proposal that the center of a 4 point
roll was NOT the center of the inverted portion of the roll, but the
beginning of the third point. If you are tempted to agree with this proposal
I would recommend that  you draw out the maneuver displaying all of the
individual elements inclucing the entry and exit lines, assigning similar
inch values to each element and you will quickly see that the center is
indeed the center of the inverted portion of the roll.
 
All this stuff came from a guy who was a former World Champion and was
agreed to by another top 5 calibre individual who was in attendance at this
small gathering and when I attempted to offer a different viewpoint I came
under a vehement verbal attack.What I had further difficulty with was the
fact that he was able to convince the head of the judging committee that he
was right and the ruling went in his favor to the degree that it was
announced at the pilot's meeting that the maneuver would be flown with the
hesitation before the commencement of the loop. On the first day of
competition he himself flew the maneuver WITHOUT the hesitation. I couldn't
help wondering to myself if he did it all in an effort to sabotage the
competition. My other conclusion has to be, " just because you possess
fabulous flying skills (and this guy really IS fabulous, I thought he won
the last round of F ) doesn't mean you can read English and understand what
is being inferred."   As you can tell, I'm sure, .....I'm doing a little
venting here. I'm too easily frustrated.  
 
O.K. ...........next item.  Half Clover !   A couple of years before this,
the same individual raised some questions regarding the clover execution. I
had been doing this maneuver incorrectly in my practice sessions and his
questions, were valuable to me because they really made me think !  When I
expressed my opinions regarding proper execution of this maneuver to ANOTHER
top flyer I was informed that my basis was faulty. In subsequent thinking
sessions I haven't been able to reverse my conclusions. My contention is
that this is indeed a HALF clover. Why would it be otherwise? Some
individuals in the judging fraternity tell me " You're getting too caught up
in the NAME of the maneuver."  Well why did they give it that name if that's
not what it is.  
O.K., It   IS  one half of a clover.  Therefore the correct way to perform
the figure is to visualize a FULL clover in your mind and then perform the
top two loops relative to those proportions ( if it's upright ). If there's
a roll on the upline, then the point of the roll should occur at a point
correspondent with altitudinal point of intersection between the upper and
imaginary lower loops. Now what I had been doing wrong was to do two loops
at the top of a long vertical up-line that were sized way too small for what
a full clover should have looked like, had one been built on my baseline,
and the loops were significantly above the rollpoint. Make 'em bigger guys
and bottom out on the center of the roll and it will score big. 
 
Next: Maneuver end points.  Refer to your Aresti drawings and look for that
vertical bar that indicates the correct end-point of questionable maneuvers.
A couple of years ago there was a Reverse Cuban from the top that could not
be completed before center far enough to allow an exit line to be inserted
before the initiation of the subsequent maneuver. Quique asked in the
judging class if he could start the next maneuver before center because it
had it's own problems. After class I checked the Aresti and informed him of
the problem created by the sequence originator not allowing for the correct
ending point of the Cuban. He was grateful for the explanation and I was too
as I had not contemplated the discrepancy before either. All sequence
originators need to be mindful of all maneuver endpoints when trying to
achieve a free -flowing schedule.
 
You wont find this one in the book, but it's a pet peeve of mine and there
are a lot of people that feel otherwise.  SLOW ROLL  vs.  ROLL !     There
are multiple descriptors explaining the correct execution of rolls whether
they be normal speed rolls or slow rolls.  Maneuvers requiring slow rolls
distinctly specify that the roll being called for needs to exceed a 3 second
duration.  THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC REQUEST !   In the absense of this
request it is my opinion that a normal speed roll is to be executed and
should be required.  A while back we had a Triangle with a roll across the
top. It did not say "ALL ACROSS" the top nor did it say "at the pilot's
discretion."  It could be deduced, by the judge, that if you do a slow roll
across the top that you don't want him to see your inability to properly
center the normal speed roll and this is your way of snow-balling him.
Like I say,  NOT IN THE BOOK, but I read English !   Sorry.
 
One more:  Turn Around altitude change.  Jim Woodward will tell you what a
stickler I am for  BASELINE, BASELINE, BASELINE !!!!!!!!!!!!!   You hear
everyone stating the fact that it's O.K. to enter a T.A. maneuver at one
altitude and exit at another without penalty.  Well I don't know how or when
this one got so discombobulated.
Originally the intent of this rule was to accommodate an execution
infraction and was assigned a penalty to be assessed to either the current
maneuver or the subsequent maneuver.  For some reason guys started reading
this rule to mean "it's O.K. to change altitude on T.A. maneuvers without
reading the penalty part and with subsequent re-prints of the rule book that
part was dropped. I hate when that happens !!!!!!!!!!!! 
 
Despite the sound of all this, I really AM having an O.K. day and offer it
up for your perusal.  Just don't over-react please.
 
Remember, I love you guys.
 
Georgie 
  
 
  _____  

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> 
We are a community of 5.8 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 24146 of my spam emails to date.
The Professional version does not have this message

No virus found in this outgoing message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (5.0.0.22 - 10.100.075).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090101/83194048/attachment.html>