[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
J N Hiller
jnhiller at earthlink.net
Mon Jan 5 12:04:53 AKST 2009
Where do you find that. Here is what it says in the Sportsman Judge training
presentation for both the half cuban and half reverse cuban eights (401-15).
??NOTE: In a TAmaneuver, entry and exit altitude changes are allowed. To
change altitude in thismaneuver, the 45 degree line may be extended or
truncated. All loop radii must remain equal.
http://nsrca.us/documents/judging/currentamaschedules/PPT_Sportsman2007.pdf
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of billglaze
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 12:42 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
One maneuver in Sportsman, goes counter to all other turnaround figures of
which I know. The Half Reverse Cuban should be entered/exited at the same
altitude. I know it's IMHO silly to have different criteria for the same
maneuver, but there it is. Particularly to have that requirement in
sportsman, but there it is. I can quote the "authority" of the day, if
necessary.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rex
To: NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
You are correct, Jim.... for both AMA and FAI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
To: cahochhalter at yahoo.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:23:51 -0800
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
With respect to pattern it's my understand that all turnaround maneuvers
except the sportsman, straight flight out / stall turn / straight flight
back, can be used to adjust altitude.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Charles
Hochhalter
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:59 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
If I read it correctly about any turnaround maneuver is considered
as an altitude adjusting maneuver.
Love these discussions... sometimes nervous to speak up and prove
you are wrong rather than participate and learn... hehhehe
Chuck
--- On Mon, 1/5/09, billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:
From: billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
To: "General pattern discussion"
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 5:50 PM
Interesting if one takes the verbatim descriptions. It would seem
that on the Half Cuban an altitude change on finishing is permitted, because
it is specifically mentioned. Such mention is missing on the Reverse Cuban.
Any significance?
----- Original Message -----
From: J N Hiller
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 9:28 PM
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing
listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090105/bbca25f8/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list