[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed rule change

[Bill Glaze]

Without question, judging criteria needs consistency; in no other way can judging accuracy be obtained.  It's difficult enough to do a consistent job of judging, without having to sort out different descriptions of the same maneuver elements.  Or so I see it.  
Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ronlock at comcast.net 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 6:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed rule change


  Yes, I agree on making all the stall turn descriptions consistent, and match the stall turn description as you note below.

  Ron Lockhart
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Bob Richards" <bob at toprudder.com>
  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 5:11:02 PM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed rule change


        --- On Sun, 10/11/09, ronlock at comcast.net <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:



          I'd prefer the descriptions be left as is, and accept that at some amount of wind, a 10 may not be possible.


        I say the judging criteria should be the same for the stall turn element(s) in all maneuvers that contain stall turns. At present, the descriptions are inconsistent. At least change the Figure M and Double Stall turn descriptions to match the Stall Turn w/ or w/o rolls, from "model must be vertical" to "model track must be vertical". Can we agree on that? 

  _______________________________________________ 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/20091012/04dba54d/attachment.html>