<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
wgalligan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid002501c2d56b$651cd300$3f303fd1@w0s9p7">
<meta content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta content="MSHTML 4.72.3110.7" name="GENERATOR">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Sans Serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">Just out of curiousity...
why was the Imm/45 down snap removed from the schedule at the last minute?</font></div>
</blockquote>
At the time of the contest board vote, there was considerable concern about
the safety of the 45 degree down snap roll maneuver by many of the contest
board members. All the maneuver schedule changes were packaged as a single
vote and affirmative votes of the eleven board members is required for passage
of a rule change. It was felt that the votes were not there for passage.
Since a negative result of the voting would have caused <u>all</u> of the
proposed maneuver schedule changes to be thrown out, a compromise was reached
by removing the 45 degree down snap roll. Just why the Immelmann Turn was
removed, I can't say. Why an alternative maneuver to the 45 down snap wasn't
added, I also can't say.<br>
<br>
Ron Van Putte <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>