<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
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></body>
</html>