[NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)
James Oddino
joddino at socal.rr.com
Tue Oct 13 11:24:03 AKDT 2009
I have given quite a few nines recently while saying to myself, "that
was a nine if it was really a snap".
Jim
On Oct 13, 2009, at 12:14 PM, <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> Is there anybody involved in this discussion that honestly can't
> recognize a snap when they see one? I'm just asking.....
>
> Verne
>
>
> ---- Don Ramsey <don.ramsey at suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Vince,
>>
>> What about the next sentence in the FAI definition, “If the stall/
>> break does not occur and the model aircraft barrel rolls
>> around, the manoeuvre must be severely downgraded (more than 5
>> points).”
>>
>> How about if the break does not show and the model does NOT barrel
>> roll around. Do you still downgrade by 5 or more points? I don’t
>> know what the intent of the rule was but I can tell you for a fact
>> that the judges that only score FAI in Europe do not downgrade it
>> by 5 or more points. I believe they use the “If it’s not a barrel
>> and not an axial roll then it’s probably a snap, so judge it that
>> way” because they have been instructed in the past to do it that way.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> rom: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince"
>> Bortone
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:10 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge
>> (TIC)
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I am copying the snap description from the current FAI and AMA
>> manuals. I don't see the AND you mention in the FAI rule book.
>> See the important portion in bold. I see that the AMA description
>> is better in this respect. You are correct in regard the downgrade
>> in FAI. 5 or more points if you don't see the break and the model
>> barrel rolls. Therefore, what is the downgrade in FAI if the judge
>> does not see the break and there is autorotation? I will say 5
>> points since it says 5 or more points if the model barrel rolls.
>> Again, it appears that AMA down grad descriptions are better.
>>
>> FAI:
>> SNAP-ROLLS
>> A snap-roll (or flick roll/rudder roll) is a rapid autorotative
>> roll where the model aircraft is in a stalled
>> attitude, with a continuous high angle of attack
>> Snap-rolls have the same judging criteria as axial rolls as far as
>> start and stop of the rotation, and
>> constant flight path through the manoeuvre is concerned.
>> At the start of a snap-roll, the fuselage attitude must show a
>> definite break and separation from the
>> flight path, before the rotation is started, since the model
>> aircraft is supposed to be in a stalled
>> condition throughout the manoeuvre, If the stall/break does not
>> occur and the model aircraft barrelrolls
>> around, the manoeuvre must be severely downgraded (more than 5
>> points). Similarly, axial
>> rolls disguised as snap-rolls must be severely downgraded (more
>> than 5 points).
>> Snap-rolls can be flown both positive and negative, and the same
>> criteria apply. The attitude
>> (positive or negative) is at the competitor’s discretion. If the
>> model aircraft returns to an unstalled
>> condition during the snap-roll, the manoeuvre is severely
>> downgraded using the 1 point/15 degree
>> rule.
>>
>> AMA:
>> Snaps: A Snap roll is a simultaneous, rapid autorotation in the
>> pitch, yaw and roll axes of flight in a stalled wing attitude. The
>> following criteria apply:
>> 1. Since the maneuver is defined as a stalled maneuver, initiated
>> by a stall of the wing induced by a rapid change in pitch attitude,
>> the nose of the fuselage must show a definite break in pitch
>> attitude from the flight path in the direction of the snap
>> (positive or negative) while the track closely maintains the flight
>> path. The lack of a discernable pitch break is downgraded by 5
>> points. Large deviations from the flight path, indicative of a
>> delayed stall, are to be downgraded using the 1 point per 15-degree
>> rule for each axis of the excursion before stall. For example, it
>> the model pitches 15 degrees nose up and the wings rotate 15
>> degrees before the stall, the maneuver should be downgraded 1 point
>> for pitch and 1 point for roll.
>> 2. The track visualized as the path of the Center of Gravity (CG)
>> should closely follow the geometric flight path of the maneuver
>> while the nose and tail auto rotate through opposite helical arcs
>> around the flight path. Lack of these helical arcs (or coning) is
>> indicative of an axial roll and is scored zero.
>> 3. If a stall does not occur and the model barrel rolls, the score
>> is zero. A barrel roll can be identified when the CG, the nose, and
>> tails scribe the same helical path through the required rotation of
>> the maneuver
>> 4. Snap rolls have the same judging criteria as axial rolls as far
>> as start and stop of rotation, constant flight path through the
>> maneuver and centering on lines.
>> 5. If the model returns to an unstalled condition during the
>> maneuver, such that the autorotation is not visible and the model
>> rolls or barrel rolls to complete the maneuver, it would be
>> downgraded using the 1 point per 15 degree rule.
>> 6. Airspeed is not a criteria which should be used to judge this
>> maneuver. The wing of the model is stalled during this maneuver;
>> therefore a significant decrease in speed may occur and is not a
>> cause for downgrade.
>>
>>
>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:47:30 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
>> Central
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge
>> (TIC)
>>
>> ?
>> While speaking with Don Ramsey about the nuances of judging snaps
>> at a recent contest I found that he agreed with my interpretation
>> of the FAI snap rule. The severe downgrade should only be applied
>> if there is no break AND there is no autorotation (this is exactly
>> what the rule says). Basically, lack of a break is not substantial
>> grounds for the severe downgrade in FAI. If the break is not seen
>> and autorotation still occurs at some point during the roll the one
>> point per 15 degree rule applies. Since the snaps happen so fast,
>> for me it's usually not more than 1 or 2 points unless it was
>> blatantly obvious that the plane rotated a while before the snap
>> truly began. It's the same as if you stop the snap before
>> completing the rotation and do an axial roll to finish. This
>> nonsense of people being so quick to apply a severe downgrade has
>> gone too far. One element of a maneuver (because I can't think of
>> any sequence that has just a snap roll) should not ruin a whole
>> flight, or even that one maneuver unless it just wasn't a snap. I
>> like the idea of "if it's not a barrell roll and not an axial roll,
>> it's probably a snap."
>>
>> Matt
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Vicente <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> "Vince" Bortone
>> To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> >
>> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:12 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 at 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 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.9/2428 - Release Date:
>> 10/13/09 06:35:00
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list