<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I tend to agree with Ed. Furthermore, what hard
facts could possibly be stated about this in the rule book? Would you want it to
say that when observing end maneuvers the judge should downgrade if the angle
doesn't look steeper than 45 deg.? IMO this is inappropriate for the rule book,
though it's perfectly acceptable to point out in a judges clinic or judging tips
document.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Keep in mind also that the distance in our out will
also change the look of the end 45 deg. angle. This means that this discussion
also would need to be in the rule book. I think the rule book should just
state facts, educating the pilot and judge on how to recognize geometry so they
can enforce the rule book is important but ancillary to the official rule
book.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My opinion.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Keith Black</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=divesplat@yahoo.com href="mailto:divesplat@yahoo.com">Ed Deaver</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 09, 2007 11:04
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] APPARENT
GEOMETRY (PARALLAXED VIEW)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Have been thinking about this discussion (currently going on elsewhere
also) and suddenly had the light bulb go on.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At some clubs as we enter the driveway that leads to the field, 1/2 mile
away or maybe a bit more, or the NATs site for example from site 3 (grass
field I think) to site 2, it is very easy to watch the geometry of the plane
being flown. At this distance, there is almost zero vertical parallax
due to the distance from the pilot.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sooooo, what do we see at this distance. Loops sure do look round
to me when flown by good pilots, 45's look like 45's or maybe 50's (my
contention is a slight bit steeper always scores better than a slight bit
flatter) and even though the pilot is standing "under" the manuever, the good
pilots still keep the geometry when looked at from a distance, Correct.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At the end of the box, standing this distance away it is easier to see
the geometry again, with only a very little parallax and the good pilots, IMO
still keep the geometry very close to what it should be. The 45's may be
a slight bit steeper, but from a distance the 1/2 cuban 8 flown well, will
still have a round radius, with very close to a 45 degree downline (again
depending on what the local teacher states), with the rolling element
centered.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My point is, too much is being made of this parallax issue and think
judges will reward the pilot that flies the correct geometry, which again IMO,
can be verified by watching a flight from a distance.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just my $.02</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ed<BR><BR><B><I>rcmaster199@aol.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV>A question has been posted from an IMAC gentleman (who is trying
to write better IMAC rules) as to how Pattern people fly and judge
skewed appearance of maneuvers at box ends or in center when tall maneuvers
(Hourglass, Vert Sq 8, Rolling Ess, etc) are involved. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some of us have searched the book and found no wording written that
describes what the pilots' responsibilities and the judges' responsibilities
are in the performance of the skewed apparent geometry. There is a statement
in the Judges Training tape in regard to end maneuvers.... that these will
appear different even when accurately flown. The oness is essentially on the
judges to know how the True Geometry should appear when flown at an angle to
the eye, and must not downgrade for Apparent or Parallaxed appearance
difference.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Spoke with Don about this earlier today and we decided to present the
question to the group and get some conversation going. We should be explicit
in the book regarding how such Apparent Geometry should be treated....ie-
what is the pilot's responsibility and what is the judge's. Description
improvements could be written over the next couple rule cycles.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The pilot's responsibility may appear easy.... they simply need to fly
precise geometry per the book. True enough, BUT.....consider what is
actually flown, especially by the top guys, and what scores well. These are
not necessarily as precise as one might think. The better pilots tend to fly
purposely flawed maneuvers that give the impression of precision.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV class=AOLPromoFooter>
<HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at <A href="http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437"
target=_blank><B>AOL.com</B></A>.<BR></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>