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

Mon Oct 12 15:06:44 AKDT 2009

Good point.  Reducing the k-factor could be another way.  Probably a combination of both will be  a good compromise .  I am not sure why we didn't discuss this earlier.  I know that we do every year and we never get a conclusion. 

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: " brian young" < brian _w_young at yahoo.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:24:21 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC) 

Why did this discussion come so early this year? 

I think adjust the K factor to account for the variability. 

From: "Vicente "Vince" Bortone " < vicenterc @comcast.net> 
To: General pattern discussion < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:12:44 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC) 

I believe that the current downgrade is severe.  AMA 5 points.  FAI 5 or more points if my memory is correct.  

In local contest I have been using 3 points downgrade.  I know that is wrong but it has been my best way for me to take into account the break issue.  It used to be zero and it was changed to 5 points ( IMAC still a 10 points downgrade or nada ).  Therefore, Ron is correct.  Probably makes sense to go 2-3 points downgrade if the judge can not see the break before rotation.    

Vicente "Vince" Bortone 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Fuqua " < johnfuqua @ embarqmail .com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:51:00 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC) 

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 @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 

_______________________________________________ 
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/a039b53a/attachment.html>