[NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

[John Fuqua]

Ron makes valid observation which I came to many years ago at the TOC when
Mr. Bill graciously funded for full scale pilots like Patty Wagstaff do demo
flights to entertain us.   The one thing that I came away with in comparing
full scale to our airplanes is the speed of the snap/rotation.  In the full
size aerobatics types that I observed there was plenty of time to see the
nose pitch and then after somewhat of a hesitation yaw and rotate.  In our
pattern planes, especially when using a snap switch, it all gets to be a
blur due to sheer speed.  I have no solution to this issue but to MAKE the
pilots show a break by having severe downgrades.  Otherwise the concept of a
snap will be ignored.  Yes it's hard to see which makes it incumbent on the
pilot to present it to the judges.  

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
ronlock at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:26 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

Here is a description that shows technically correct snap execution, and
valid, consistent judging is possible.

 

(Half of the District One guy need not read this, they have already heard
it)   <G>

 

At a small airport airshow, one of demos was an in-trail formation of four
full scale AT-6 Texans.   As each plane got to stage center, it did a single
positive snap roll. Spectators saw four snap rolls in a row, about 5 seconds
apart.

 

The flight of four went around, and repeated the maneuver.  Some spectators
are getting bored - even a pattern guy could get bored with a string of 8
nearly identical maneuvers.   And then, they did it yet again!!

 

What's in this for us?   The snap maneuver by each AT-6 appeared to take a
second or so, from initiation to completion.

By the time the fourth plane did a snap, you could start seeing....

-  there is a nose pitch up,  

-  then a yaw, 

-  then plane rolled in direction of yaw,

-  plane returned to straight and level flight.

 

By the time the flight came around for another four snaps, you could see
more details..

-  there is a nose pitch up,  (somewhat sudden, at least sudden for an AT-6)

-  then a large amount of yaw, 

-  then rapid roll in direction of yaw, (rolling faster than it could with
ailerons) 

-  plane returned to fairly close straight and level, nose slightly high.

 

By the time the flight positioned for yet another four snaps, (Yawn,
spectators headed for cotton candy) the four distinct elements of the snap
roll maneuver were easy to see, and there was time to evaluate (judge) each
element.

1.    there is a nose pitch up,  (somewhat sudden, at least sudden for an
AT-6, with little rise in altitude)

2.   then large amount of yaw, (the yaw proceeds the upcoming roll)

3.   then autorotation at rate faster than it could do an aileron roll)

4.   plane returns to level flight track, with nose lowering to level flight
attitude.

 

We can all be expert Snap Roll Judges!   Ahhh, at least for AT-6 snaps.

 

What I take from all of this-

 

The problem is not snap descriptions.   It's the application of them;
observation, discrimination and judging of elements in the split second
observation time we have.  Is the task beyond reasonable expectations of
most of us as a judging community?   I suppose we will continue work started
over 10 years ago to improve in these areas.

 

In the meantime, shall we reduce the impact of inconsistent judging of snaps
by limiting the downgrade of the snap portion of a maneuver to say..two
points2?

 

Ron Lockhart