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

[Atwood, Mark]

To add to the common problem…we’re not all flying the same plane, with the same planform and control deflections, meaning that a valid snap will look at least slightly different for each person even if performed with the exact same inputs.

Bottom line is that there is a LOT of variance in this maneuver and what it should look like.  Different orientations, wind directions, aircraft, etc.  And while elements are clearly in common, a good snap can still have a wide variety of “looks”.    There is even regional “bias” (sorry, 4 letter word) based on seeing a lot of the same type of snapping style and getting used to accepting that as correct, only to go to the nationals and see another regions version of correct.

I have to agree with Ron on the downgrade part.  While there is sooooo much diversity in this maneuver, it seems insane that it’s the only all or nothing maneuver we have.

Imagine if we zeroed loops because they weren’t round enough…   Or something to that effect.



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 2:26 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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091012/b955b692/attachment.html>