<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Is it not the pilot's responsibility to simply fly the maneuver as <br>depicted? Why then must they exaggerate a portion to placate a judge <br>who wants to see it their way? Our judging training materials <br>distinctly say not to downgrade just because the maneuver is not done <br>the way you like. The example was one pilot making sharp corners in a <br>square loop vs another making larger more rounded corner. Both are <br>correct and should be judged identically but can anyone argue that one <br>way should be downgraded because it was not the way "you like it" <br>Stalls, snaps and spins are no different. Not the way I like it = so <br>what. If it is done correctly it is always a 10. I would think that if <br>the other judges are consistently giving "normal" scores and I am <br>zeroing or giving some nominal score, that there has to be an issue <br>going on. Am I the only one who is consistently right in my thinking <br>and everyone else is all wrong? Or, could it be the other way around?<br><br>Chris<br><br><br><br>Del wrote:<br>> It is the "PILOTS" responsibility to fly the maneuver as described per <br>> the rules. If said pilots chooses to not make it obvious or <br>> discernable to the judge then enjoy the score you should be awarded.<br>> Del<br>><br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> *From:* chris moon <mailto:cjm767driver@hotmail.com><br>> *To:* nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>> *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 5:11 PM<br>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>><br>> George - you have made an excellent point in that the interval may by<br>> "minuscule" and not overly noticeable to everyone. It is absolutely<br>> wrong for some to claim that you must "show" them as judge an<br>> exaggerated pitch up just to satisfy a personal interpretation of the<br>> maneuver. Just as is is absolutely wrong for those judges to demand<br>> another overly exaggerated pitch up as a stall entry to a spin<br>> maneuver. It is never the job of the participant to exaggerate a<br>> portion of a maneuver just to prove it exists, therefore your<br>> usage of<br>> the term "minuscule" in terms of the time interval between pitch and<br>> rotation is something we need to keep in mind.<br>><br>> Chris<br>><br>> george w. kennie wrote:<br>> > My lip is becoming too painful from biting it, so I think I'm<br>> going to<br>> > stick my nose in here somewhere.<br>> > I think I'm with Jon on this one.<br>> > My logic, however flawed, tells me that if I am flying my plane<br>> > straight and level and I input rudder, no matter how much, there<br>> is no<br>> > way that this input will induce a stall to the airframe.<br>> Therefore, it<br>> > seems to me, that the necessary force required to stall the main<br>> > lifting surface must come from the elevator. It would further<br>> seem to<br>> > me that this input must, by it's very nature produce a pitching<br>> > attitude to the fuselage whether positive or negative. So I<br>> would have<br>> > to conclude that the attitude "break" referenced by the rule can<br>> only<br>> > refer to a "pitch" break and would be impossible to confuse with an<br>> > attitude change induced by the rudder seeing that the required<br>> result<br>> > is to stall the main wing.<br>> > And yes Jon, I agree that it would be necessary to lead with the<br>> > elevator in order to bring about this attitude change before<br>> rotation<br>> > is started, however miniscule the interval might be.<br>> > Of course I'm still open to hearing other interpretations and their<br>> > validations as these observations are strictly opinions.<br>> > G.<br>> ><br>> > ----- Original Message -----<br>> > *From:* Jon Lowe<br>> > *To:* nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> ><br>> > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 2:10 PM<br>> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>> ><br>> > Jim,<br>> ><br>> > I have no clue how you think all three axes can be initiated at<br>> > the same time. You keep forgetting the part of the RULE, quoted<br>> > verbatim below, that says the "fuselage break and separation from<br>> > the flight path" must happen "BEFORE THE ROTATION IS STARTED". I'm<br>> > NOT equating fueselage break to pitch break, it could break in<br>> > pitch and/or yaw, if it doesn't start rotation at the same time.<br>> > If you initiate all three axis at the same time, rotation WILL<br>> > start at the same instant, and that is specifically NOT permitted.<br>> > READ THE RULE! The judge MUST determine if the fuselage broke and<br>> > separated from the flight path first, BEFORE the rotation started.<br>> > If it didn't, he MUST severely downgrade.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Jon Lowe<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: Woodward, Jim (US SSA)<br>> > To: General pattern discussion<br>> > Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:37 pm<br>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>> ><br>> > Jon,<br>> ><br>> > I’m shocked - you are totally wrong here. Do not equate “fuselage”<br>> > to “pitch” in the reading of this definition. As a judge you<br>> > should NOT apply a “pitch-assessment” pass/fail criteria to<br>> > judging FAI snap rolls. It is completely rejected. The plane and<br>> > therefore “fuselage” must autorotate about the flight axis, which<br>> > means that the nose and tail of the plane will move in a conical<br>> > fashion. The pilot can initiate with all 3 axis at one time.<br>> ><br>> > It is the responsibility of the judge to determine if autorotation<br>> > occurred, and not determine how or in what order the pilot did it.<br>> ><br>> > Thanks,<br>> > Jim<br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> > *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>> ><br>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>> > ] *On Behalf Of<br>> > *Jon Lowe<br>> > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 1:21 PM<br>> > *To:* nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> ><br>> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>> > You are correct, as long as there is no roll induced at the same<br>> > instant. I overlooked that possibility. Not sure how rudder alone<br>> > will induce the "supposed to be in a stalled condition" though!!<br>> > There are many attitudes (e.g. 45 down on center) where a judge<br>> > could not likely see a rudder departure alone first, and thus<br>> > conclude that departure did not occur before the roll departure<br>> > started. And a judge might also not see a pitch departure first on<br>> > a end box upline snap, but he could see rudder first. It is VERY<br>> > clear that simultaneous roll with either or both of the other axes<br>> > departures is NOT allowed as others have tried to state here. I<br>> > did say that pitch and yaw departure could happen simutaneously,<br>> > in my original post, as long as roll doesn't occur at the same time.<br>> > Jon Lowe<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: JShulman><br>> > To: General pattern discussion<br>> >><br>> > Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:22 am<br>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>> > Jon,<br>> > I don't see where it says pitch break? Rudder first will show<br>> > attitude break and separation from the flight path. So if one uses<br>> > rudder and elevator first this is also correct.<br>> > Regards,<br>> > Jason<br>> > www.jasonshulman.com<br>> > www.shulmanaviation.com<br>> > www.composite-arf.com<br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>> ><br>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<br>> > ]*On Behalf<br>> > Of *Jon Lowe<br>> > *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 12:11 PM<br>> > *To:* nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> ><br>> > *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>> > I suggest people re-read the definition ofsnap-rolls from the<br>> > FAI sporting code. I did a few minutes ago. Here it is:<br>> > "5B.7.5. *SNAP-ROLLS*<br>> > A snap-roll (or flick roll/rudder roll) is a rapid<br>> > autorotative roll where the model aircraft is in a stalled<br>> > attitude, with a continuous high angle of attack<br>> > Snap-rolls have the same judging criteria as axial rolls as<br>> > far as start and stop of the rotation, and<br>> > constant flight path through the manoeuvre is concerned.<br>> > At the start of a snap-roll, the fuselage attitude must show a<br>> > definite break and separation from the<br>> > flight path, before the rotation is started, since the model<br>> > aircraft is supposed to be in a stalled<br>> > condition throughout the manoeuvre, If the stall/break does<br>> > not occur and the model aircraft barrelrolls<br>> > around, the manoeuvre must be severely downgraded (more than 5<br>> > points). Similarly, axial<br>> > rolls disguised as snap-rolls must be severely downgraded<br>> > (more than 5 points).<br>> > Snap-rolls can be flown both positive and negative, and the<br>> > same criteria apply. The attitude<br>> > (positive or negative) is at the competitor’s discretion. If<br>> > the model aircraft returns to an unstalled<br>> > condition during the snap-roll, the manoeuvre is severely<br>> > downgraded using the 1 point/15 degree<br>> > rule."<br>> ><br>> > Note that "the fuselage attitude must show a definite break<br>> > and separation from the flight path, before the rotation is<br>> > started..." That means that simultaneous pitch and rotation is<br>> > specifically NOT permitted. I would interpret it as meaning<br>> > that pitch and yaw could theoretically happen simultaneously,<br>> > as long as no roll is involved. Sorry Matt, the rules as<br>> > written do NOT allow actuation in all three axes<br>> > simultaneously. The rule also states that a constant flight<br>> > path has to be maintained.<br>> ><br>> > Let's face it, the only way to prevent severe downgrading from<br>> > EVERY judge, not just some judges, is to have a pitch break<br>> > first. Takes any question away.<br>> > Jon Lowe<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: rcmaster199@aol.com<br>> > To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> ><br>> > Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:46 am<br>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>> > A "Flick" and a "Snap" roll are the same roll in full scale<br>> > aerobatics parlance and reference material.<br>> ><br>> > Do these mean the same thing in model aerobatics? In my view,<br>> > they do<br>> ><br>> > The latest FAI regs allow actuation of the three main axes<br>> > simultaneously...that is, the regs don't specifically<br>> > differentiate "Pitch Break" from other deviations. I don't<br>> > think they specifically require that the model must rotate<br>> > about it's flight path either, I don't believe (.....plane<br>> > must rotate in a conical fashion about the fight axis....).<br>> > The model would probably present the best if that's done, so<br>> > pilots may want to consider that when executing the maneuver.<br>> ><br>> > In my take, a rapid Pitch is desired to preload the wing.<br>> > Contrary to popular belief, both panels dot not have to stall<br>> > for a snap to occur. Quite the opposite. Upon rudder<br>> > deflection, the port panel will practically stall (lift much<br>> > much less than the other panel) but the starboard panel must<br>> > be lifting to create the autorotation. If both panels stall,<br>> > the model will fall out of the sky for a distance and a snap<br>> > would not occur at the correct moment in time<br>> ><br>> > MattK<br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: Woodward, Jim (US SSA)<br>> >><br>> > To: General pattern discussion<br>> ><br>> >><br>> > Sent: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 8:47 am<br>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in FAI<br>> ><br>> > Guys,<br>> ><br>> > I thought the FAI changes explicitly allowed flick rolls? The<br>> > rule<br>> > reads, "... fuselage attitude must show a definite break and<br>> > separation<br>> > from the flight path."<br>> ><br>> > It does not say, "MUST SHOW PITCH BREAK." Please DO NOT<br>> > ERROUNIOUSLY<br>> > APPLY A PASS/FAIL MAJOR DEDUCTION initial assessment to the<br>> > snap roll.<br>> > Watch the whole maneuver then render your score.<br>> ><br>> > A break and separation from the flight path simply means that<br>> > the nose<br>> > and tail of the plane must rotate in a conical fashion about<br>> > the fight<br>> > axis. Yaw, roll, and pitch can all break at the same moment if<br>> > that is<br>> > how the pilot does it.<br>> ><br>> > Hey :) some really handsome smart guy wrote some stuff at this<br>> > link<br>> > below about snap rolls to help clarify how they are done in IMAC.<br>> ><br>> > http://www.mini-iac.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=77<br>> ><br>> > thanks,<br>> > Jim<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> ><br>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> > Get the Moviefone Toolbar<br>> > .<br>> > Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> ><br>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>> ><br>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> ><br>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> > Get the Moviefone Toolbar<br>> > .<br>> > Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> > Get the Moviefone Toolbar<br>> > .<br>> > Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.<br>> > It has removed 9842 spam emails to date.<br>> > Paying users do not have this message in their emails.<br>> > Try SPAMfighter for free now!<br>> ><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>><br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> It’s easy to add contacts from Facebook and other social sites<br>> through Windows Live™ Messenger. Learn How.<br>> <https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_LearnHow><br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>><br>> No virus found in this incoming message.<br>> Checked by AVG.<br>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1505 - Release Date:<br>> 6/16/2008 7:20 AM<br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br><br><br /><hr />Introducing Live Search cashback . It's search that pays you back! <a href='http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=introsrchcashback' target='_new'>Try it Now</a></body>
</html>