ORIGINAL: aresti2004
ORIGINAL: Dean Bird
This thread came back on topic....
I went to Brian Howard's regular judging school in 2004 at Desert Aircraft. I went to the Advanced Judging School in 2005 held in Chandler. I was also at the judging refresher at the Tucson Shootout. Here is what I was taught and what I recall.
1. The standard is perfection. Deductions are taken from there.
2. There is no "allowed" displacement on snaps that isn't deducted. As a judge, you have to find a consistent way to downgrade for ANY displacement after the snap.
I think you missed something Dean.
Brian feels that there should be no displacement, however he recognized at both the Chandler class and at the Shootout that the IMAC rules DO NOT define a downgrade. As long as the track of the plane prior to and after the snaps roll is parallel then it is OK. A snap is a stalled maneuver and we cannot downgrade for a displacement that may occur during the stalled portion and autorotation.
Bill Malvey
Chairman IMAC Rules Committee
I'll agree with you up until you start adding your comments..
"As long as the track of the plane prior to and after the snaps roll is parallel then it is OK. A snap is a stalled maneuver and we cannot downgrade for a displacement that may occur during the stalled portion and autorotation."
I don't remember that being stated in either of the judging classes. What was said is that it didn't matter whether not is was possible to do a snap without displacing. If/when it happens, find a consistent was to apply a deduction. The whole deal about stalled conditions is discussed in stall turn and spin judging, I would agree. But those are trying to address the flight path moving because of wind during a stalled condition. It's real stretch (and wrong) to apply stall turn and spin "wind drift" allowable deviations to a snap.
The displacement after a snap doesn't have a defined deduction criteria. Very true. Neither does the deduction for the shape of a loop. But as a judge we find a consistent way to apply the deductions based on how bad it is.
Obviously, we're all speaking for Brian. It sounds like he's on the right committee to address the question. I was just giving you all warning that it doesn't take a rule change to start deducting for snap displacment. The rules already state that the "competitor is required to make the shape of all maneuvers perfect". Whether or not that's possible is irrelevant. I do remember Brian's comments that even though it may not be possible to snap without some displacement of the line doesn't mean we can ignore it. We just have to find a consistent way to apply a deduction. The less there is, the less of a deduction.
There are a few deviations from "perfect" allowed by rule (you mention a couple above), but having a different exit line when adding a snap element on a line isn't one of the allowed deviations from "perfect" geometry.
Again, the problem at the Shootout was that someone added a new allowed deviation from "perfect" on the "judging reference" card. It was only created for convenience, it isn't the rules. The only point I'm trying to make is that removing the statement that doesn't have a basis in the rules is an easy correction that doesn't require any rules changes. It was just a tool created for convenience and isn't the official rules.
We'll let Brian deal with it!!
Take care,
Dean