[NSRCA-discussion] Snap

Sun Oct 11 14:20:32 AKDT 2009

What I want to see judged is when people roll the last half or 3/4 of  
a snap. It is obvious when its done but I think if people see the  
pitch break they will score it regardless of what happens afterwards.  
I saw multiple people do this in Masrers and FAI this year. In fact  
after round 3 of the masters finals when the raws came back and we saw  
the scores I did it in round 4 and scored higher on my Avalanche and  
45 down and Ill admit I rolled the last half. 2 judges scored me the  
same, but 2 others scored me higher.  One was half a point different.   
If we are going to pay attention to the break then the rest of the  
snap counts too.

Arch
Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 11, 2009, at 5:12 PM, "Dan" <warrior523 at mchsi.com> wrote:

> I know better than to enter this conversation but, but, well here  
> goes.  Don, I agree with your post about the three types of rolls.   
> If it is not axial and it is not a barrell roll the it is a snap  
> roll.  Some one at some time put in the description of a snap the  
> requirement of a ptich break.  Man has this caused problems.  Now  
> tell me if a plane does a snap roll without a leading pitch break  
> then what roll was it, axial, nope don't think so.  Was it a barrel  
> roll, nope not that either so low and behold it must have been a  
> snap roll.  We have all set in a judging chair and watched snap  
> manuevers and we have flown these maneuvers.  We can all say that we  
> have seen and or flown many true snap rolls that did not have a any  
> visible pitch break, some are judged on our 1 to 10 scale and others  
> at times receive the zero.  In the current Masters sequence the 45  
> degree downline snap for example.  I have flown that manuever many  
> many times and I have thrown in the "required" pitch bump and I have  
> at times neglected to do the bump, but you know what, in either  
> method the airplane performed a snap roll.
>
> I have been flying pattern since the late sixties and going all the  
> way back to then I have know and been able to recognize a stall turn  
> and its difference from a hammerhead turn.  I for the life of me it  
> seems that a stall turn is named very aptly.
>
> Some of us live for the nitpicking discussions of stalls and snaps  
> and wording in maneuver descriptions, others just want a simple  
> description and go out and fly or judge it to our perceived  
> perfection.  Is it any wonder we seem to be decreasing in our numbers.
>
> Dan Curtis
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
>
> Amen....
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:33:56 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
>
> 
> Don:
> I don't agree with that. You need to see a    distinct pitch break  
> and yawing action to accompany the pitch break, otherwise there is  
> no real evidence that autorotation occurred. "Tail coning" alone is  
> not even a reliable indicator of a snap.  You can easily cheat that  
> to sell a "snap".   A snap is a stalled wing, autorotation maneuver.  
> Also, the tendency to downgrade snaps because of any line  
> displacement goes entirely against the physics of what must occur in  
> order for a real snap roll take happen.  I think we should have a  
> rule that most clearly accounts for the physics of what must occur  
> for it to be a real snap, or just take them of sequences entirely.   
> And of course, educate judges and pilots accordingly.  Also, when  
> you're a judge, don't be afraid to zero or severely downgrade a  
> wiffle snap, or whatever is being presented to you if it's not a  
> real snap. Especially don't be afraid of zeroing snaps when it's a  
> big name trying to sneak a snap cheat in front of you.
>
> Regards,
> Ed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Ramsey
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 7:01 AM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
>
> Ok, how about this for the snap?  “If its not a barrel roll and not  
> an axial roll, it’s a snap.” Maybe have the coning of the tail in  
> the description. This eliminates about 90% of the judging differences.
>
> Don
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 8:09 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 4  
> letter word)
>
> I think changing the judging criteria, just for the snap part of the  
> manuever, would suffice.
>
> --- On Sat, 10/10/09, John Ferrell <jferrell13 at triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ?
> I believe "We could fix most of that, by assigning a low K to snap  
> maneuvers" is the only appropriate solution. If you cast them out,  
> it is giving up.
>
> John Ferrell  W8CCW
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.9/2427 - Release Date:  
> 10/10/09 06:39:00
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091011/27a753f2/attachment.html>