[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

[george w. kennie]

Thanks for the reinforcement Matt.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rcmaster199 at aol.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year


> About 7 years ago Masters was flying "6 pts of a 4 pt roll". I argued that 
> the center of that maneuver was the beginning of the 4th 1/4 roll and not 
> the middle of the 3rd hesitation (knife edge), because my thinking was at 
> the time that the hesitation element was a part of the rolling element and 
> had to  always be included. There was considerable debate as I am sure 
> many of us had never thought about it that hard. Earl Haury was the JC 
> chair at that time.....he researched it and argued (correctly) that rolls 
> start and end with rolling elements. The JC had an explaination on this in 
> the NSRCA website....I think it is still there
>
> The point is that ANY rolling maneuver STARTS and ENDS with rolling being 
> done. Read that again........It is easy to see how that's true for a 
> continuous roll; the mental leap comes when the other possibilities are 
> included. One should be able to understand and see that it doesn't matter 
> if the roll is standard rate, slow, snap or point.
>
> In a point roll, the hesitation duration/length doesn't matter; it simply 
> must exist, (and the caveat is that they must also be identical if several 
> are required). Therefore, in the proverbial 4 pt, center is indeed the 
> middle of the inverted hesitation. I think this is what George Kennie 
> argued and he is correct.
>
> BTW, this doesn't only hold true for horizontal rolls......it's true for 
> any position, verticals and diagonals20included. This IS the way I have 
> judged since that time. Not to belabor this but to drive it home, the 2 of 
> 4 pt maneuver starts the instant the model is rolling (after the 
> obligatory S&L before it), hesitates, and 1/4 rolls for the 2nd 
> point....and that's it. There is NO hesitation element at the end...... 
> there is the 2nd obligatory S&L. The center IS the middle of the 
> hesitation. If you flew in front of me and didn't do it that way, you got 
> downgraded.
>
> As far as what rate to use for standard and slow rolls, Don is correct, 
> there isn't a clear definition for rate. One rule that worked well for me 
> that I remember from the early 80's was that the 3 roll maneuver should 
> take about 5 seconds. That sort of defines rate for me for a standard 
> roll, therefore, when I am sitting in the chair, that's a judgement I 
> make. It is no longer defined in the rule book as such (no 3 rolls) but 
> perhaps it should be.
>
> MattK, and happy happy to all
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Ramsey <don.ramsey at suddenlink.net>
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 3:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
>
> 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=2
> 0inverted 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 d
> iscretion. 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 guy
> s 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=2
> 0to 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
>
> 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/_______________________________________________
> 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