[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[Bill Glaze]

Lance:
Not to cloud the issue, but to (probably) confirm your suggestion, I well remember attending and observing the 2003 Team Selection at Triple Tree.  I saw some snaps that had me thinking, "boy, are these neat.  How do they ever get them stopped in time, how do they apply their own timing to do it so precisely, etc. etc."  So, I began taping them with ny video camera.  
When I got home, the tape showed at 10x something I had not discerned with my naked eye, (at 1x.)  It developed that these "snaps" in many cases, showed no break at all.  Just simple, very, very swift aileron rolls about the X axis.  But, with the naked eye, they sure looked like snaps.  Up until that time, I felt that I could accurately judge a snap roll by the "break."  Now, I'm not so sure.  And, I never heard of one of these pilots being zeroed for "No break."  If they were, nobody said so.
Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lance Van Nostrand 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 12:51 AM
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question


  I know official discussion hasn't started but this list is one of the good vetting forums.  Vince proposed Masters flying FAI P, which is clear, but if the logic behind the proposal as written causes confusion it may make a less convincing case.  For example, it says "there is an evident pile up f pilots in the Masters class" but never clearly states how flying the same sequence would change that.  He may be implying that people will more freely move between classes to balance the lines because they are flying a similar sequence but the sequences may not be identical and the judging rules are not identical.  At another point it says "This will make judging of both classes very accurate" but doesn't address the obvious differences in judging criteria between AMA and FAI, which is the current burden that Masters and FAI pilots currently bear when the fly one class and judge the other.  Finally, there is no exact wording proposed on the form where it is expected, but later in the logic it refers to the idea of replacing some FAI manuvers where appropriate.  Without exact wording, its not clear how this is done, or if the manuver descriptions will be re-written in the AMA rules, or referenced to the FAI descriptions like the sequence.  Oh, and how does AMA deal with the fact that FAI changes schedules in odd years?

  My intent is simply to point out aspects that detract from it's thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the issue.

  --Lance


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20091019/b6d67af1/attachment.html>