<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18828">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Lance:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Not to cloud the issue, but to (probably) confirm
your suggestion, I well remember attending and observing the 2003 Team Selection
at Triple Tree. I saw some snaps that had me thinking, "boy, are these
neat. How do they ever get them stopped in time, how do they apply their
own timing to do it so precisely, etc. etc." So, I began taping them with
ny video camera. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>When I got home, the tape showed at
10x something I had not discerned with my naked eye, (at 1x.) It
developed that these "snaps" in many cases, showed no break at all. Just
simple, very, very swift aileron rolls about the X axis. But, with the
naked eye, they sure looked like snaps. Up until that time, I felt that I
could accurately judge a snap roll by the "break." Now, I'm not so
sure. And, I never heard of one of these pilots being zeroed for "No
break." If they were, nobody said so.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Bill Glaze</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=patterndude@tx.rr.com href="mailto:patterndude@tx.rr.com">Lance Van
Nostrand</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 Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 19, 2009 12:51
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] Rules
proposal 11-6 question</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I know official discussion hasn't started but
this list is one of the good vetting forums. Vince proposed Masters
flying FAI P, which is clear, but if the logic behind the proposal as written
causes confusion it may make a less convincing case. For example, it
says "there is an evident pile up f pilots in the Masters class" but never
clearly states how flying the same sequence would change that. He may be
implying that people will more freely move between classes to balance the
lines because they are flying a similar sequence but the sequences may not be
identical and the judging rules are not identical. At another point it
says "This will make judging of both classes very accurate" but doesn't
address the obvious differences in judging criteria between AMA and FAI, which
is the current burden that Masters and FAI pilots currently bear when the fly
one class and judge the other. Finally, there is no exact wording
proposed on the form where it is expected, but later in the logic it refers to
the idea of replacing some FAI manuvers where appropriate. Without exact
wording, its not clear how this is done, or if the manuver descriptions will
be re-written in the AMA rules, or referenced to the FAI descriptions like the
sequence. Oh, and how does AMA deal with the fact that FAI changes
schedules in odd years?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>My intent is simply to point out aspects that
detract from it's thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the
issue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>--Lance</FONT></DIV>
<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>