[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Mon Jan 5 11:47:35 AKST 2009

Silly me - when I opened the thread entitled "Happy New Year," I was
expecting to see some greetings.  Happy New Years guys.

Regarding this topic, I think it is a wonderful teaching and
philosophical point for precision aerobatics , "... that all maneuvers
begin and end with a straight line."  In IMAC, the language is something
like, "... the maneuver begins when the pilot departs horizontal
wings-level flight."  (Jim H., you mention something like this in your
post a few below.)

I happen to like the pattern statement - maybe because it is so simple.
With either statement though, the primary discussion from the SE IMAC
judging seminar became, "... when do I stop deducting points from the
maneuver just completed, versus the upcoming maneuver."  In either case
the judge has to make a determination on how to apply downgrades for
what happens on exit, versus entry to the upcoming maneuver.

In my mind, the "... all maneuvers begin and end with a straight line"
statement doesn't affect that overall geometry of the maneuver.  It is
there to say that if you wings aren't level before you begin a maneuver,
then points are being deducted.  It is there to "define" briefly when
one maneuver ends and another begins.  It is there to reinforce that
there is no "sport-flying" in the box.

Thanks,

Jim

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Rex
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:27 PM
To: NSRCA-discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

The only straight line requirement for lead in/out of a maneuver, has to
do with either 
entering or exiting the box.  Sportsman pilots have this requirement
four times per 
sequence...  entering the box for the first maneuver, exiting the box
for two unscored 
turnarounds during the sequence, and calling box exit before landing.  
When calling box entrance, a 15m line must proceed the first maneuver...
thus exiting the box
also requires a 15m line from ending the manuever to actually calling
the box exit.
As a general rule,  a visible straight line must separate each
maneuver....  there is no length 
requirement....  just "visible".

I think that's correct...  lol

Rex

________________________________

From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:28:50 -0800
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

George I'm back.

I was hoping someone would advance the discussion regarding the finish
point of the reverse cuban eight being equal to it's start. Since no one
has I can't sit back and watch. Sorry but I disagree. 

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong but as I remember from previous
judging seminars 'all maneuvers start from and finish with straight and
level flight' (upright or inverted). This leads me to believe maneuvers
start and stop when they deviate from S&L flight in either roll or pitch
and do not include either a lead in or exit line segment.

As you know, Aresti figures are a universal / international language
used by IAC competitors. They are often displayed on their instrument
panels as a sequence quick reference guide. If we were to try to fly
each figure as drawn most turnarounds would need an altitude change with
some having strange angles. If all turnaround maneuvers finished or
started with their widest part, either entering or exiting something
like the reverse humpty which is 3 radiuses wide, if flown on line,
would need to include an exit line equal to 2 radiuses in length. I
don't think so!

The attached word document contains figure descriptions from the IAC and
AMA web sites. They all describe the maneuver as starting or ending with
the looping segments with no mention of a lead-in or exit line. It
appears to me that the Aresti drawings are for reference only and not to
be used as a required flight path.

I expect this will come up in our judging seminar and I will fly and
judge it however Gary says.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 10:30 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

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     

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090105/bd661a10/attachment.html>