[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
billglaze
billglaze at bellsouth.net
Wed Jan 7 05:20:31 AKST 2009
Are you saying that I have been given wrong information; that, in fact, in
Sportsman Class the judged T/A figures all allow for an optional altitude
change? Thus, making consistency and common sense at the same time? Don't
have time presently to re-research the subject; will do so later. Thanks
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <rcmaster199 at aol.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
> Hmmmm... I think I wrote that wrong. What I wanted to say is that exit
> may be different in altitude than entry on any TA maneuvers. And BTW, it
> doesn't have to be different....
>
> As written, one could interpret the verbiage as allowing an altitude
> delta on entry from the previous horizontal line... something akin to a
> gallop on entry. That's clearly wrong.
>
> Jim, thanks for pointing that out
>
> MattK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 4:04 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
>
> 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.p
> df
> 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.C2 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
> 20 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
> panels0D
> 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 conc
> erned. 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
> 0A 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=2
> 0# 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 a20maximum
> 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
> =2
> 0 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/listin
> fo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list