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

Wed Oct 14 15:27:12 AKDT 2009

You are right, but if a score is thrown out before averaging in with others
then it does not count. Some contest years ago, before computerized scoring
and normalization, used to be run that way. I haven't seen this practice
lately since I've started contest flying again.

Dave

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:17 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

If there are at least 2 judges, and they don't have identical raw scores, it
seems to me that part of one judges score is diminished, and the other
judges score increased, in achieving the average.  This seems to me to be
the usual thing.  If I'm missing something, feel free............. Bill

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:03 PM

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

Agreed also, and don't ask me to judge at a contest where high and/or low
scores are thrown out. I'm not going to sit out there if my scores may not
count.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:38 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

Agreed!   In spades!  Bill

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>  

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

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:00 PM

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

Wow!  A chief judge who can override the rest of the judges.  Why bother
even assembling the rest of the crew?

Let's not do that in Pattern.

Ed

  _____  

From: billglaze at bellsouth.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:43:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] How I became an expert Snap Judge (TIC)

Chris:

What you say is interesting, indeed.  I was judging at a large IMAC contest
a few years ago, when (apparently) the chief judge felt the competitors were
fudging the snaps,somehow.(?)  So., the competitors starting making the
breaks very obvious, to prevent downgrades.   You never in your life saw
such ugly snaps.  Fuselage angles went from level to an immediate (up to) a
45 degree angle.  But, the breaks were certainly obvious; they couldn't be
missed.  In fact, it seemed to me the breaks were the dominant feature of
the maneuver.  Again:  really, really ugly.

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Chris Moon <mailto:cjm767driver at hotmail.com>  

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:07 PM

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

I think what this goes back to is the erroneous belief that you need to see
an exaggerated pitch departure or it should be severely downgraded.  Keep
reading the maneuver description.  It needs "A" pitch break, and depending
on the current aoa (angle of attack) that can be a difference of just a
degree or 2 if you are near the critical aoa.  Please don't tell me guys,
you are looking for MORE than a simple exceeding of the critical aoa and
resulting stall.  An exaggerated pitch break just to prove to naysayers that
you make a break is wrong, wrong, wrong.  It says it needs "A" break.
Please keep re-reading it.  Same for spin entry.  It needs to stall, not go
30 degrees nose up to "prove" a stall.  We are getting wound up over a
misunderstanding of the mechanics of a stalled condition.  As Don and Verne
are alluding to, it really is not that complicated.

Chris

verne at twmi.rr.com wrote: 

Or you could just write in "DNO".... I always seem to see the break as in,
nose up, tail down, and my 56 year old eyes are lousy.

Verne

---- "Vicente "Vince" Bortone"  <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net>
<vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote: 

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 @ twmi . rr .com 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca -discussion at lists. nsrca .org> 
Cc: "Don Ramsey" <don. ramsey @ 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 @ 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"  <mailto:mjfrederick at cox.net>
<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 eve
n 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>

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"  <mailto:johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
<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 <http://lists/> . nsrca .org/mailman/listinfo/ nsrca
-discussion 

  _____   

_______________________________________________ 
NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
NSRCA-discussion at lists. nsrca .org 
http://lists <http://lists/> . nsrca .org/mailman/listinfo/ nsrca
-discussion 

_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list NSRCA-discussion at lists. nsrca .org http://lists <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 
http://lists <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

  _____  

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/>  now. 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20091014/d22d3f08/attachment.html>