<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3314" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>As a side note, I was going to record the maneuvers for
Intermediate to load into the cheap MP3 player I modified so I won't need to
find a caller for practice. If anyone wants these or any other sequence for that
matter just drop me a line.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=pcosky@comcast.net href="mailto:pcosky@comcast.net">Pete Cosky</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern discussion</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:11
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
entry in FAI</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Wow, I never thought of charging for my voice services
as a caller. Industrial narrations, commercials, just about any voice over
work I charge for but calling....hmmm, I never thought of that.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=drykert2@rochester.rr.com
href="mailto:drykert2@rochester.rr.com">Del</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern
discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:25
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
entry in FAI</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Thanks Chris... I appreciate your
good wishes </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff> .. all I can say
is,... with the changes in costs to compete and need to have a professional
caller etc. all make it next to impossible for me to compete anymore.
Becomes to prohibitive for a casual competitor. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff> Del</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=cjm767driver@hotmail.com
href="mailto:cjm767driver@hotmail.com">chris moon</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-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:19
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap
entry in FAI</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Thanks Del. <BR>We are actually on the same page. My points
were directed more <BR>generally than towards anyone who is posting to
this topic. I just <BR>wanted to make it clear that personal preferences
are not a judging <BR>parameter and that exaggerated elements in order to
please someone who <BR>is looking pretty much only for certain elements of
a maneuver rather <BR>than the whole is also wrong. Also, I read posts
where people clearly <BR>don't understand the difference between aircraft
pitch attitude and <BR>angle of attack. Two very different things. I see
time and again <BR>people (yes, me too) get whacked for not showing some
silly 40 degree <BR>nose up attitude in order to "prove" the plane stalled
before beginning <BR>a spin. A wing of course is flown by angle of attack
and a plane can be <BR>at a high angle of attack yet a "low" nose high
attitude to the ground. <BR>So, a high angle of attack and a true stall
can occur at a relatively <BR>low nose high attitude relative to the
ground but how often is it <BR>downgraded or zeroed because the judge does
not know the difference <BR>between the two? All of the time. I see and
hear it all of the time. <BR>"He could not have stalled because the nose
was not high enough" Wrong, <BR>wrong, wrong.<BR><BR>This link has some
basic info for those who want to read even
more:<BR>http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0165.shtml<BR><BR>I
also agree that judging is way better than before in just about every
<BR>respect. We can always make it better of course and these discussions
<BR>make some mad and some frustrated but enlighten others. If one does
not <BR>truly understand basic aerodynamics, then they cannot become a
good <BR>judge. The concepts of pitch attitude and angle of attack are key
to <BR>understanding stalls and snaps so they are key things that we all
must <BR>understand. Understanding the difference makes judging these
maneuvers <BR>so much easier.<BR><BR>AMA vs. FAI I also agree completely
about having to change gears when <BR>judging these classes back to back
at a contest. Even trying to keep <BR>the rules straight for the 2 types
is difficult at best.<BR><BR>I hope as well as others that you can
continue participating in pattern <BR>with us! We need
everyone.<BR><BR>Chris<BR><BR>Del wrote:<BR>> Chris...<BR>>
Please!!! don't take this personally directed at/ _you_/ or any _one
<BR>> individual_. The list is a great medium to have intellectually
<BR>> stimulating discussion that often is educational.<BR>> Judging
is an arbitrary art. Do we all have the same calibrated <BR>> eyeball?
No.. But all judges should be seeing and judging the same <BR>>
maneuver with similar downgrades. Are all downgrades going to be <BR>>
identical.. Not realistically ~ No.. Is that the best we can do.. <BR>>
possibly..? The NSRCA has worked hard with many volunteers over the
<BR>> years trying to enlighten and improve the caliber of judging and
it is <BR>> much better than it was 20 years ago..<BR>> At this
stage of evolution when the judges are reduced to nit picking <BR>>
shows how well the judging has improved for the overall big picture.
<BR>> Is it realistic to stop the nitpicking.. It is part of the beast
we <BR>> enjoy to participate in.. Some terminology in the judging
guide could <BR>> be tweaked and improved on for those that like to
over analyze. The <BR>> snap by its very nature if often judged just on
the merits of the snap <BR>> itself which no judge should ever do.
Entry and exit are also worthy <BR>> of their focus. That snap in some
cases happens in less than 1 sec. It <BR>> is always going to have
disparity in the scores just based on the fact <BR>> not all eyes see
and recognize all the details they need to catch in <BR>> that sec. let
alone feeling burnout or watery eyes etc. that make a <BR>> judge miss
something.<BR>> It is hard to expect all judges to shift gears from FAI
to AMA and <BR>> back again during the same day or same contest.
Dwindling numbers make <BR>> that a reality.<BR>> I will always
contend that your mission as a pattern competitor is to <BR>> show the
judges to the best of your ability what the rule books <BR>> describes.
As a pilot if you try to change your flying to what one <BR>> given
judge expects your are hurting yourself and your overall <BR>>
performance. I guess that is why they still insist on throwing out
<BR>> some judges scores at the major competitions. Wish it weren't so
but <BR>> that is also part of the process.<BR>> I personally didn't
read anyone saying they were judging by the way <BR>> they like it.. I
may have missed some posts but what I read, some were <BR>> showing,
for clarification, that some statements being made, where in <BR>>
error and just trying to clarify what the specific rule actually <BR>>
states... Not what someone interprets..<BR>> I have always had an
issues in FAI judging when 2 pilots flies <BR>> identical maneuvers and
one flies consistently 5 degrees off in <BR>> track/heading and the
other flies on the rail do they both deserve a <BR>> 10 if all elements
in the maneuver have been done per the rules? Some <BR>> argue that 1
point / 15 is applied before they get to a 15º error.. <BR>> others
read it to mean that your don't give a down grade till at least <BR>>
15º of track have been shown. Thankfully in AMA we have the 1/2 points
<BR>> to work with.<BR>> So yes you are right that no judge is to
judge based on what they <BR>> prefer except when it comes to style and
presentation ~ the lower <BR>> criteria for downgrades.<BR>> ~~~ Who
gets the better score...? Dean Pappas once told us that the <BR>> one
that hides their corrections the best. That alone is another art <BR>>
/subject. So when judging ~~ do you best to be consistent and fair to
<BR>> all.. When flying ~~ do your best to show the judges you do know
how <BR>> to fly the maneuvers without any detectable errors. Learn to
hide your <BR>> corrections.<BR>> I sincerely hoped I helped Chris.
Feel free to comment on or off list <BR>> as you feel apropos. I still
love the sport and what it has to offer <BR>> but am having to give it
up ~~ possibly forever.. only time can tell..<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:* Tuesday, June
17, 2008 12:15 PM<BR>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Snap entry in
FAI<BR>><BR>> 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<BR>> 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<BR>> 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<BR>> 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<BR>>
> *To:* nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> ><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<BR>> 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<BR>> 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<BR>> 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<BR>> 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>> Klipped 4
reposting<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>
Earn cashback on your purchases with Live Search - the search that pays
you back! <A
href="http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=earncashback"
target=_new>Learn More</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG.
<BR>Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.0/1506 - Release Date:
6/17/2008 4:30 PM<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<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>
<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>