[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
Charles Hochhalter
cahochhalter at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 7 08:54:39 AKST 2009
Now I gotta find where it says they must in fact be at the same altitude.
--- On Wed, 1/7/09, billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:
From: billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 5:42 PM
O.K. then--I was given the correct information. The same-altitude requirement for the half-reverse Cuban is because of the figure following, namely, the straight flight back. Therefore, it is a de-facto same entry/exit altitude figure. Now, what Don Ramsay told me makes perfect sense.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: John Pavlick
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
As far as I know there is nothing different about the Sportsman turnarounds (i.e. you CAN enter and exit at a different altitude) BUT you have to remember that "Straight Flight Back" must be at the same altitude as "Straight Flight Out" so this requires you to do the turnaround maneuver between these two with the same entry and exit altitude. Other than that, you can adjust your altitude with the turnarounds - same as every other class. There is ahowever a right and a wrong way to do this. you have to pay attention to the details in order to get max. points
John Pavlick
--- On Wed, 1/7/09, 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: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 2:20 PM
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).
> 𐀄NOTE:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090107/648b1b20/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list