<!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>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></BODY></HTML>