[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

[J N Hiller]

George don't worry about me being ostracized I spent the bulk of my working
life pointing out details to coworkers, managers and consultants who were
generally unaware or disinterested. The consultants were fun, it didn't take
long to overload them and I outlasted most of the managers.
The devil is always in a seemingly unending string of details. During my
years in management, writing 'How It Works' documents filled with detail, I
found most folks were overwhelmed if exposed to all of it but it was
necessary reference material.
Most management meetings were filled with discussions exposing details and
the relative importance to the individuals concerned. It was always
enlightening.
I guess what I am trying to say is that highly detailed rule books like
highly detailed SOP manuals can become so overwhelming that they become dust
collectors. Kind of like the snap roll discussions where too much equals
nothing. Yes it's time to dump a lot of old e-mail.

I'm one of those strange individuals that fly pattern or IMAC for the
challenge and self-satisfaction and yes I judge my flying but I don't
question the scores awarded. We all see it a little differently and there is
always room for improvement but before the NSRCA judging clarification
guidelines and training, score sheets could be 'interesting'.

Anyway thanks for enlightening me regarding the finishing point of the half
reverse cuban. I thought the maneuver separation line started upon
completion of the partial loop. Something else to watch for when judging!

Yes I read all your postings and responses.

Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of george w.
kennie
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 6:50 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Jim,

I'M A NOBODY !!!!!!!!!!!!   If you fall into the trap of taking anything I
say as Gospel you may be opening yourself up to opposition and ostricism, so
be forewarned.

My reason for dealing with the clover was to establish some sense of what
size to make the loops. As you can see, when you clearly understand the
geometry, the required size becomes a dictate.    It's all in the details,
Jim. Some people feel that I'm over detail oriented, but unless you
understand the details you can't effectively perform OR judge the maneuver
accurately.  I inadvertently abdicated my own mantra by loosely referring to
the looping portion of the clover as loops, when they're 3/4 loops. My bad.
You sound like you have a good handle on the clover. I would add that you
further concentrate on making sure the vertical up and down lines are
dead-on superimpositionally.

I also agree with the floor to ceiling approach as I'm constantly telling
new guys that I work with to "make it bigger."  Adding to that the
requirement to maintain maneuver to maneuver relative size relationships,
which addresses your question regarding the Sportsman's Cobra.  Ya can't
have a mini-Reverse and a gigandi Cobra. I'm glad you referenced that
problem as it's a prime example of what I was talking about in my discussion
on "maneuver end-points."  I think I remember a lot of agreement in previous
discussions about the problem resulting in the conclusion that maneuver # 3
and # 8 needed to be switched to alleviate the cramping issue. I even
thought this to be a viable solution at the time, that is, 'til you brought
it up  and then I realized that I was missing my own point. There is no size
difference between the 1/2 Cuban and the 1/2 Reverse Cuban. That Reverse
doesn't end until you get all the way back to the beginning of the ENTRY
line.  CHECK THE ARESTI !  So, you see there is no advantage either way.
What was probably needed was something like a Humpty.

Regarding the roll rate issue. I'm glad that Matt referenced that as I was
going to offer the three rolls in 5 seconds, but refrained as it's too vague
and would be quickly challenged.  The 3 second rule on the Slow is a minimum
value with no maximum indicated. It should be pretty obvious that there
should be a visually discernable differential between the two and becomes
somewhat subjective. This 1.67 second interval for the standard roll being
established as a maximum value would quickly come under attack I'm sure. I
don't know how the legislative process could be achieved on that one.

My feeling, and it's only a feeling on the Cuban with 2 of 4 is similar to
my stand on the triangle with the roll across the top i.e. presentable
centering. I like to see a clearly defined line before and after the rolling
element and would prefer to see the roll consume less of the overall
downline area than the two straight-line segments, but that's just ME. I
confess that I would not like to see a standard rate that's so fast that I
can't keep up to the required corrections.

I'd also like to thank you for your feedback.  I wasn't sure anyone would
read the whole diatribe.

Georgie




----- Original Message -----
From: J N Hiller <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Hi George this is Jim Hiller. Thank you for bringing these issues to my
attention. OH happy New Year to you as well. I am waiting for it to stop
snowing so I can get my daily exercise.
I don't fly FAI but I am called on occasionally to judge it. Although not on
of my favorite activities I do try to get it right and a consensuses of is
necessary or we are back to local judging rules interpretation.
A agree with you on the hesitation rolls. I believe that a 2 of 2 or 2 of 4
roll consists of three elements not four (1/4 roll, line, 1/4 roll) wherever
it is done rather it is in a combination maneuver or not. It's been a while
since I looked at the rules but when a point roll is combined with a snap or
aileron roll the two need to be together without a noticeable line between
them.
I really appreciate the enlightenment regarding the half clover, which I now
need to fly. Great, center the horizontal crossover on the vertical 2 of 4
up and half roll down. In contrast to the above the rolling elements need to
be centered on a line requiring a discernable line before and after of equal
length, the length of which will need to equal two radiuses (1/2 height).
The size of this first master's class maneuver will establish the floor and
ceiling lines. I expect this will be addressed in the judging seminar this
spring. In any case it gives me something to strive for.
The sequence layout and turnaround altitude change kind of run to gather. In
helping a new pattern flier through the sportsman sequence there was a
consistent problem centering the Cobra after the Half Cuban Eight. Both of
these maneuvers are sized 'floor to ceiling' (best presentation) a lot of
horizontal length is needed placing the airplane beyond a Sportsman's
visibility / ability limit. Re-enter the box high and flying a small radius
Cuban, a low exit exiting resulted due to the '45 line, half roll, 45 line'
length but it finished closer to the box end allowing a less rushed entry
into the Cobra. Should this altitude allowance be continued and or used for
convenience? I don't know! If the Cobra had been preceded with a Half
Reverse Cuban there would have been plenty of room to enter a nice size
Cobra.
Roll rates! I too am bugged by roll rates especially slow roll rates used in
hesitation rolls, as if the pilot is sneaking up on the point rather than
hitting it, often without a discernible hesitation between them. As for slow
v/s aileron rolls, the 3-second rule may not be very appropriate in
turnaround style aerobatic presentation. For best presentation the line
length consumed would be a better measure, such as 1/2 box width for a slow
roll and maybe 1/8 box width for an aileron roll.
Just another opinion!
Jim


-----Original Message-----
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 10:40 AM
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
  _____

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090102/1a80f798/attachment.html>