<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>Bravo, Ed! The figure skating analogy is exactly what I use when I'm
describing pattern to a non-flyer. They understand the idea of
"compulsories", which is basically what we're doing. They understand
complexity, also.</DIV>
<DIV> AND - nearly everyone understands that it is the
ULTIMATE in "impression" judging. In fact, in many of those events they
have a "technical" score (for us it would be geometry, accuracy, exits/entries,
etc) and an "artistic" score (which for us would be all the elements of
presentation, timing, finesse, "touch", etc)</DIV>
<DIV> Ed, I for one, am not at all afraid of joining your
comment about us "following" the FAI and it's effects on our maneuver
choices. We've lost a considerable amount of the grace and "artistry" that
precision aerobatics CAN have. </DIV>
<DIV> And by doing so, as you so astutely noted, we have been
FORCED to introduce judging criteria, parameters, and details that 90% of us
mere mortals cannot POSSIBLY differentiate, much less SEE.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Great comment, Ed!! Thank you for posting it!</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199 AMA 46373<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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=edbon85@charter.net href="mailto:edbon85@charter.net">Ed Miller</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:10
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Displacement during snap
rolls (was Why is it so quiet?)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Seems the never ending snap discussion was beat to death here last year
too. This will be long but hear me out. No doubt what I'm about to say will at
the very least be controversial. That's fine with me as I think we need to
think outside the box more often. My wife enjoys watching figure skating.
Being the "supportive spouse", on occasion I will watch for a bit with
her. It seems in figure skating, the multiple rotation jumps, triples and even
quadruple rotation variations is where all the judging ( and viewing
) emphasis is placed in a skaters routine. It also seems the judging is
focused on 2 things, the entry to the jump and "sticking" the landing.
Frankly, those that say they can see every element of the skaters rotation
are, IMHO, full of blank. It plain happens too fast. I have better eyesight
than most, in my younger days I could pick up the stitching and rotation of a
baseball thrown at 90mph. I'll admit, some of that sharpness is gone but,
I honestly cannot pick up all the rotation elements in a figure skaters jump
in real time ( we all can when they replay it in slow-mo ). Ever since the
snap roll was introduced into precision aerobatics, an oxymoron IMHO, we have
had the same problems judging snaps as professional figure skating judges have
judging triple toe loops. I have watched ( and learned some ) from the real
snap masters, aka Lockhart and Pappas, yet, when in the judges chair I look
for departure in pitch ( entry ) and "the landing " of the maneuver ( exit ) .
So, to me, we've introduced snaps into precision aerobatics to separate the
wanna be pattern jockey hackers like me from the gifted, talented folks like
Lockhart, Pappas, Hyde, etc. but in fact what we've done is actually dumbed
down our judging criteria. These talented flyers will find the setup and stick
movements to present a maneuver such that it defies the laws of gravity.
However, most of us are only humans and as judges, only judge what can we
realistically see and honestly assess in a snap roll. Most all snap rolls I've
seen done and performed rotate at such a speed that again, the exit is the
focus. Once in awhile you can pick up the obvious aileron roll exit. There are
many more elements of a snap roll besides entry and exit yet as I
read/delete/read/delete, etc. the discussion we are having here, it boils down
to entry and exit positions. The ex-masters maneuver of 2 rolls in opposite
directions. It is a thing of beauty when done properly takes a lot of
time to perform, especially compared to our beloved snap rolls, has many more
places for the pilot to screw up that are EASILY VISIBLE to the judges
besides the entry and exit points. That's precision aerobatics IMHO. AMA
pattern was always smooth and graceful until someone decided as the FAI does,
so must the AMA. Some will say it's progress, new maneuvers, it's just raising
the bar to let the cream rise to the top. I'm on the side that the bar has
sunk into the cream. Maybe the some of the lost NSRCA members felt
similarly.</DIV>
<DIV>Ed M</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>