[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonew FAIrules

Thu Feb 2 11:15:16 AKST 2012

OK.  Looking at some of the old rule books, I'm confused.  Take for example
the novice sequence from 86-87:
Takeoff
Straight flight out (U)
Procedure turn
Straight flight back (D)
Stall Turn (U)
Immelmann Turn (U)
3 inside loops (U)
One horizontal roll (D)
Landing

The procedure turn, stall turn, and Immelmann sure seem like turnarounds to
me, granted to meet the mandatory directions relative to wind you would
need to have a free turnaround between the straight flight back and the
stall turn, and another free turnaround between the stall and the
Immelmann, etc.  So were all the "stunt" turns intended to be executed at
show center with a free turnaround outside the box between each maneuver?

I'm amazed at the amount of "heat" (aka: passion) there seems to have been
in the K-factor around the change to turnaround schedules.  I admit I like
my 2 "free" turnarounds outside the box in Sportsman between maneuvers 6+7
and 11+12 but I could muddle through without them if I had to, and I
honestly can't imagine flying such a disjoint sequence as the ones I'm
seeing in the old rulebooks.  Hardly feels like a "sequence".

Peter+

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

>  The sequences flown were published in the old rule books. Be aware that
> over the years some of the class names changed.****
>
> Some time back I applied K-factors to those non-turnaround schedules to
> try to understand the migration of increasing difficulty, concluding that
> the K-factor alone is a poor indicator of actual difficulty. But we all
> step up to the challenge regardless of the difficulty.****
>
> Jim ****
>
> ** ******
>
> ** ******
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of *Peter Vogel
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:23 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Cc:* NSRCA Discussion List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating
> tonew FAIrules
>
> ** ******
>
> I was reading some of the archived K-factors and it got me curious, is
> there an archive of the sequences pre-turnaround?****
>
> ** ******
>
> Peter+
>
> Sent from my iPhone4S****
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> You can log on at the NSRCA website and then proceed to the judges section
> and click on archived documents. Thanks to Jim Hiller who provided me a lot
> of these, I was able to scan them in and put them into the PDF Format.
> Anyone who has anything older than whats up there, send a hard copy to me
> to scan and I'll have Derek put them up.
>  ****
>  ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:45:38 -0800
> From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to
> new FAIrules
>
> We have a pretty good collection of AMA and FAI rule books on the website
> if anyone wants to see what rules were like, or how much they have changed
> over the years... ****
>
> ** ******
>
> Click on the link below:****
>
> ** ******
>
> http://nsrca.us/index.php/archiveddocuments ****
>
> ** ******
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:****
>
> It would appear that the FAI is going down the same road as IMAC, with
> IMAC's subjective "airspace control" factor.  The smoothness and
> gracefulness 25% gives a judge a non-objective way to give a downgrade of 2
> to 3 points.  Since there is no scoring criteria for it that I could find,
> other than Michael Ramel's instructions to the judges at the WC, I'm not
> sure what we do with it.  I would think that his instructions would have
> been protestable, if anyone had wanted to go down that path, since I'm
> unaware of any official FAI rule interpretation saying, for example, that
> constant speed is a part of smoothness and gracefulness.  I'm sure he was
> just trying to give meaning to a poorly writen criteria.****
>
>  ****
>
> Very sorry to see the FAI going this way.****
>
> Jon****
>
> ** ******
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:49 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to
> new FAIrules****
>
> Dave, the answer, by your own math, is that a geometrically perfect
> maneuver can't be beaten purely by other criteria.   With geometry making
> up 50% of the score, no amount of smoothness can be valued MORE than
> precision.   ****
>
> ** ******
>
> I could also argue that a geometrically "perfect" maneuver would always
> have at least some level of gracefulness based on that perfect geometry.
>  They're not completely independent.  ****
>
> ** ******
>
> Unfortunately S&G is completely subjective, and as analytical people,
> we're not too keen on subjectivity.  But that's the nature of the sport.
>  It's perceived precision, not measured.    Vertical lines at the end of
> the box don't need to BE vertical, they need to LOOK vertical, etc.   ****
>
> ** ******
>
> If we want purely objective scoring... look to racing.  Go fast, bank
> left, pull.   ****
>
> ** ******
>
> ** ******
>
> *Mark Atwood*****
>
> *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*  *|*  President****
>
> 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 ****
>
> Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  *|*  Fax: 440.684.3102****
>
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  *|*  www.paragon-inc.com****
>
> ** ******
>
> ** ******
>
> ** ******
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, DaveL322 at comcast.net wrote:****
>
>
> **
> ******
>
>
> There has never been guidance for s+g downgrades in AMA or FAI.....which
> is why I have always advocated s+g should be eliminated from the judging
> criteria.  Of course if I am mistaken about the goal of pattern being
> precision aerobatics, then maybe s+g should be the only criteria.
>
> I've never gotten an answer to this question.  How can a geometrically
> perfect maneuver be outscored by a geometrically flawed maneuver?  Of
> course with the new FAI scoring.....it would seem that geometrically
> perfect maneuver might only be scored a 5.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!****
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Ronald Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
> Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 09:49
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to new
> FAIrules
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>****
>
> After thinking about this further, I wonder how the change in  ranking
> affects anything.  Positioning has specific downgrades (2 point downgrade
> for each 1/4 of the maneuver off center).  However, I am unaware of any
> specific downgrades for smoothness and gracefulness. ****
>
> ** ******
>
> Ron Van Putte****
>
> ** ******
>
> Begin forwarded message:****
>
> ** ******
>
> *From: *Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>****
>
> *Date: *January 31, 2012 8:24:56 AM CST****
>
> *To: *General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>****
>
> *Subject: **Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to
> new FAIrules*****
>
> *Reply-To: *General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>*
> ***
>
>
> **
> ******
>
> That's interesting.  I know #2. and #3. were in reverse order before.  I
> don't remember a rules change vote on this. ****
>
> ** ******
>
> Ron Van Putte****
>
> ** ******
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Bob Kane wrote:****
>
> ** ******
>
> FWIW, this is identical to to the ranking in the AMA Competition
> regulations:****
>
>  ****
>
> From the current AMA document (RCA-12):****
>
>  ****
>
> *1.* Precision of the maneuver.****
>
> *2.* Smoothness and gracefulness of the maneuver. ****
>
> *3.* Positioning or display of the maneuver.****
>
> *4. *Size or dimensions of the maneuver relative to the maneuvering area,
> distance from the judges, and other maneuvers in the flight. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The above criteria are listed in order of importance; however, all of them
> must be met for a maneuver to be rated perfect. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Bob Kane getterflash at yahoo.com****
>
> * *
> *From:*
> J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to
> new FAIrules****
>
> ** ******
>
> I would have thought positioning rated a higher precision aerobatics.
> Smoothness and gracefulness is polish.****
>
> Jim****
>
>  ****
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
> mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>
> ]*On Behalf Of *tocdon at netscape.net
> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2012 6:06 PM
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new
> FAIrules****
>
>  ****
>
> This will keep the list going (and the discussions too).  I recall Michael
> Ramel clearly discussing the future of the rules during the judges training
> at the World Championships at Muncie.  This was relating to smoothness and
> gracefulness being directly related to constant speed.  The following
> reflects what he discussed, as cited on page 35, and effect the way a score
> is awarded:****
>
>  ****
>
> Geometry:  50%****
>
> Smoothness and Gracefulness: 25%****
>
> Position of maneuver: 12.5%****
>
> Size of maneuver: 12.5%****
>
> Proportion of the maneuver outside the (box) in addition to above.****
>
>  ****
>
> The specific, objective criteria used to judge smoothness and gracefulness
> includes, "maintaining constant speed throughout various maneuver
> components, like climbing and decending sections..."****
>
>  ****
>
> Also the sentence about radii being very loose or very tight, even
> if equal size within a maneuver, are grounds for downgrade of smoothness
> and gracefulness.****
>
>  ****
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Don****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists..nsrca.org <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****
>
> ** ******
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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****
>
> ** ******
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>

-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120202/aac1a587/attachment.html>