<!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 6.00.6000.16674" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<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></BODY></HTML>