[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Fri Jan 2 04:53:34 AKST 2009

Mark,

I think that it's only hard for certain individuals with interpretive 
agendas that differ from the rule intent. When these agendas
emanate from celebrity status individuals it establishes a strong basis for 
confusion.

G.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Why is this always so hard??  The hesitation, by definition, is BETWEEN the
rolling segments..not before, or after.  In a 4 pt roll there are 3
hesitations, not 4.  In a 2 of 4, there is ONE hesitation.  The lines before
and after the roll are just that...lines before and after the roll.  Be it a
full roll, or half roll or whatever.

I say again... Hesitation are ONLY BETWEEN the rolls.  Otherwise...what am I
hesitating???

This makes all the centering pretty straight forward..and follows the
intuitive guideline we've always had.

-Mark

On 1/1/09 9:42 PM, "rcmaster199 at aol.com" <rcmaster199 at aol.com> wrote:

> 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,

Here¹s my
> take:

-
I don¹t 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. ButS 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 I¹ve
> seen have scalloped lines and are not exactly loops. But
what¹s in a
> name.

-
As I see it, anything that¹s 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 don¹t
remember seeing a standard
roll duration defined
> in the regs.
I think its pilot¹s d
iscretion. The slow roll of course is not
> pilot¹s
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 don¹t 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 list
> s.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-discu
> ssion 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 

-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 5.8 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 24161 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message