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

Tue Oct 13 12:32:29 AKDT 2009

Um…er….”old” cheat???

Mark Atwood
President
Paragon Consulting
office ~ 440-684-3101 ext. 102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com

IT Solution Providers:  Custom Software Development. Staff Augmentation.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:20 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

What are you supposed to "jab" when vertical? and why? There's no load on wings or fuselage.
The whole concept of jabbing elevator or rudder or ? to show a "pitch break" reminds me of the old cheat of spin entry by "jabbing" down elevator to show a stall.

John

Woodward, Jim (US SSA) wrote:
Mark – in that case you are supposed to “jab” the rudder to show a pitch break in the horizontal plane.
Jim

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:28 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

Hate to jump into this…but does that mean that by definition the Snap from knife edge starts at a 5 because there is NO way to see the pitch break???  Come on…

If do, we got a lot of gravy scores this year.  Although…if we all started at 5…that would just lower the value of that maneuver which is what some were going for in this discussion.  Maybe you are on to something ☺

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting
office ~ 440-684-3101 ext. 102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>

IT Solution Providers:  Custom Software Development. Staff Augmentation.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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 3:35 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

Verne,

Following AMA description: if we don't see the break is 5 points downgrade.  That is 1/2 of the snap roll maneuver.  Therefore, if we see the snap roll but don't see the break the judge has the right to write down 5 points score assuming that all other components are perfect.  Therefore, base on the rule book the snap roll without a break has a value of 5 points.

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----- Original Message -----
From: verne at twmi.rr.com<mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Cc: "Don Ramsey" <don.ramsey at suddenlink.net><mailto:don.ramsey at suddenlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:14:02 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

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><mailto: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> [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><mailto:mjfrederick at cox.net>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto: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><mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net> "Vince" Bortone
> To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><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><mailto:johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto: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>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
> ronlock at comcast.net<mailto: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<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>   _____
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00

________________________________

_______________________________________________

NSRCA-discussion mailing list

NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
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/20091013/dfd567ed/attachment.html>