Well, by what is written, bouncing gets a point off per. 2 bounces, best possible score can be an 8.

I'm sure this is coming from the same person that told me a couple of years ago that a flopped stall turn did not deserve a 0 because a stall turn was made up of 7 maneuver elements.

1. Straight line
2. Radius
3. Straight line up
4. Stall
5. Straight line down
6. Radius
7. Straight line

How can one argue with that logic?

As explained to me, a flopped stall turn is a 0 because of the 1pt/15* rule. The plane is 180* out from where it is supposed to be and that would be a downgrade of more than 10 points.

That's funny that this is brought up cause it happened more than once at the Peach Classic contest. In the cases during my judging time, the plane flopped only 90-degrees off. I wasn't sure if the flop AND the correction were counted as the downgrade or just the flop. I gave a 3 for one stall turn and a 2 for the other (90-degree's off was 6 points off, plus other downgrades).

Seeing as the Nats are just around the corner, and just back from a contest, it might work to everyone’s advantage to see the link below and read through the rules for the AMA downgrades (page 18 on) for a fresh reminder.

Page 18 [link]http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/rulebooks/RC%20Aerobatics.pdf[/link]

Stall Turns: Stall turns are subject to the One Point per 15 Degree Rule, i.e., a “flopped� turn (rotation through the pitch axis rather than the yaw axis) should be downgraded one point for each 15 degrees of deviation from defined maneuver geometry. A flop of 45 degrees would earn a 3 point downgrade, while a flop of 160 degrees or more would receive a zero. These downgrades should be applied in addition to downgrades for any other defects observed in the maneuver. For example, a pendulum movement following the stall would call for an extra full point of downgrade, while a slight difference in entry and exit radii might merit an added half point deduction.

I actually questioned myself as to if there was a downgrade for the correction as well and wanted to refresh my memory as to what it was. There is no mention of it, so I was ok in what I gave as scores. They have some good notes. Like on the stall turn, 45-degree’s off is a 3-point deduction, 150+ degree’s is a zero. Add to it 90-degrees is a 6-point downgrade and it is a good “quick reference� for the stall turn.

My point being that he felt that a score should be given for the rest of the maneuver and not just for the stall itself. It is one maneuver - not 7 separate maneuvers. It may have 7 elements to the maneuver but one mistake will cost you on the entire maneuver.

Once you reach zero, there's no going back. If the first part of the maneuver was perfect then there's no deduction. If there is a severe error which results in zero (through accumulation of errors or a single error) then you are done. Points don't get added back.

Jason, I interpret the stall turn rule when I'm judging exactly the same way you do. I've always been told you don't downgrade the correction. So for an automatic zero the stall must flop 150 degrees or more. Not that much difference between a 2 or 3 and a zero, but they're still better than a zero. And proper scores as far as I understand.

In the F.A.I. rule book for 2008 manoeuvre P-09.01 says, "From upright perform 2 ponts of a 4-pt roll." In section 5B.7.3.D the description reads "Point-rolls within a manoeuvre must have the same roll rate, and the points must be of equal duration on each point." So, if you perform 2 points of a 4-pt roll the knife edge & inverted flight must be of equal duration. P-09.11 Reserve 4-pt. roll (2/4-pt. roll in one direction, 2/4 pt. roll opposite). From inverted, perform 2 points of a 4 pt roll in one direction, followed by 2 points of a 4 pt. roll in opposite direction, to exit inverted. The discription "perform 2 points of a 4 pt. roll" for P-09.01 and P-09.11 are written exactly the same. I have never see anyone do a reverse 4 pt roll and when the planes wings hit horizontal immediately reverse to knife edge. Everyone knows that all the points in a 4 pt - 8 pt are of equal duration. So, if you don't reverse and roll to knife edge immediately then you also don't push to an outside loop immediately in P-09.01, you fly inverted for a same duration as knife edge. This is NOT interpetation this is what the rule book states!

Well stated Mr. Kimbro.
Thanks,
Jim

Here's an interesting read for you Jim K... Not saying it's the answer, I know you've argued this up and down already..



LINES section on page 32, 5B.7.1

Whenever a type of roll or snap roll is placed on a line, the length of the line before and after the roll must be equal, except where there is no relation of the line with other elements in the manoeuver (example: immelmann turn)


This to me tells me that the line doesn't have to be the same in an immelmann or split s.

Also, in the ROLLS section page 32 5b.7.3 it says rolls and part rolls may be flown as individual manoeuvres, or as parts of other manoeuvres..
Is it possible that this could mean that as part of the immelmann-split s, while being flown as an combined manoeuver, that the line (as stated from above) is not required to be the same length, as it's overridden by the above???

Also, in the LOOP/ROLL COMBINATIONS 5b.7.7 where it states that a visible line between the two components must downgrade by two points.. I know your argument here, that the visible line should start after the 2nd point.. But, it seems that in the lines section it overrules that..

I know Jon Carter got word back on how it is to be judged recently.. He is on the Judging Committee.. Maybe he'll chime in.. Maybe not..

I'm not trying to argue this with you Jim.. I know you have a strong opinion about this as we discussed it at Whittier.. And after you explained the sections to me, I agree with you then.. But I hadn't seen the Lines part.. It could factor in I'm guessing..

Either way, I'll judge it how they tell us to at the nats..

See you and Matt there!!

Chris

I think it comes back to the question, is a 4 point roll four 1/4 rolls with 3 hesitations OR four 1/4 rolls with 4 hesitations i.e. after the last 1/4 roll there is another pause at the end of the manoeuvre which is before the straight and level in between manoeuvres?

My view is it must be four 1/4 rolls with 3 pauses, not 4 pauses.

Let us take any manouevre with a 2 of a 2 point roll. Or possibly more relevant lets take the 4th manoeuvre in P09, the stall turn with 2 of 4 up and half roll down.

I assume we are all agreed that on the way down the half roll is in the middle of the line. The middle of the roll is when the model is side on to you - I hope no one can disagree with that. If the line is 300 feet and the roll covers 60 feet (assuming all is constant speed and roll rate etc) then at 120 feet down the line you start to roll; roll takes 60 feet and ends at 180 feet leaving 120 feet of straight line before the pull out starts - so roll exactly in the middle of the line.

Now, on the way up I would say that at the middle of the line the model should be in the middle of the pause. So we would have start vertical line; after 105 feet start first 1/4 roll which takes 30 feet; pause for 30 feet; next 1/4 roll takes 30 feet and rest of line (equal to line before the roll) is 105 feet. That would produce, in my eyes a geometrically correct and balanced manaoeuvre. And on that basis the 2 of 4 would be two 1/4 rolls and one pause.

For those pilots arguing that a 2 of 4 roll is 2 quarter rolls and 2 pauses the line on the way up would look like this

straight line of 90 feet; 1/4 roll 30 feet; pause 30 feet; 1/4 roll 30 feet; pause 30 feet and then another 90 feet upline after. Or put another way, 90 feet of staright line before the first 1/4 roll and 120 feet of straight line after the second 1/4 roll. Sorry guys but this would look geometricically out of balance, unpleasant to watch and simply cannot be correct.

On this basis any point roll must be the number of points with the number of pauses being one less. so 8 point roll 7 pauses; 4 point roll 3 pauses; 2 point roll 1 pause.

I know we will get into arguments about say two 2 point rolls in opposite directions and some will argue that on my basis of argument that after the first 2 point roll the model should rebound. I think some common sense should prevail. We all should accept that there will be a pause. As I see that manouevre it would be roll pause roll pause reverse roll pause revers roll with the middle of the manoeuvre being the middle of the upright in between the two rolls.

In any event on the manouevre in question - first one in P09 - we are judging it in the UK on the basis that the half outside loop must start immediately after the 1/4 roll.

PS - I am a flyer (although I fly a lot less than I used to) not a judge. Although I am judging for the first time in many years tomorrow (Sunday) at one of our team trial events. However, it is raining now and tomorrow's forecast is showers and strong winds. Glad I am judging!!!

Brandon

Brandon,

Your argument is very well made (as usual!), but could I also offer an alternative interpretation.

It starts with the important assumption that a 4-Pt Roll (from upright to upright say), commences the instant the aeroplane starts to rotate (deviate) from upright level flight.

The 4-Pt Roll then comprises:
# 4 ‘Rolling Transitions’ (From upright to knife edge, from knife edge to inverted, from inverted to knife edge and from knife edge back to upright)
and,
4 ‘Periods of non-Rolling Flight’ (knife edge, inverted, knife edge and upright).

For the purposes of illustration let us also assume that:
# The ‘Rolling Transitions’ take T1 seconds (or cover D1 distance)
# The ‘Periods of ‘Non Rolling Flight’ take T2 seconds (or cover D2 distance)

Then:
# The first half of the 4-Pt Roll happens after time (2xT1 + 2xT2) or after a distance (2xD1 + 2xD2) has been covered
# The second half of the 4-Pt Roll commences with the start of the 3rd ‘Rolling Transition’ from inverted to knife edge flight (i.e. not ½ way through the 3rd transition)
# The second half of the 4-Pt Roll also happens after time (2xT1 + 2xT2) or after a distance (2xD1 + 2xD2) has been covered

With this interpretation, we have:
# An equal number of ‘Rolling Transitions’ and ‘Periods of non-Rolling Flight’ (4 of each)
# An equal period of time before and after the centre point (2 x T1 + 2 xT2)
# An equal distance covered before and after the centre point ( 2xD1 + 2xD2)

In other words, perfect symmetry! Easier to fly and easier to judge.

Clearly the same argument could be applied to any number of point rolls. With the 2 of 4 Roll up (PO 9 Manoeuve No 4), the centre of the line would be defined as the start of the second ‘Rolling Transition’ from edge on to belly on.

As you say, it all comes back to the question of how a Pt Roll is interpreted. Whatever the answer, my main argument is not with other pilots. As I said in Post #16:
# The fact that Manoeuvre No 1 is still being debated 6 months in the new season is testament to the fact that the original FAI description was ambiguous
# The ambiguity could easily be removed by the addition of a few more words

Having said all of the above, if you’re in the Judges Chair at the 3rd Centralised tomorrow, I will do my very best to fly the manoeuvres exactly how you want. With a gale force wind predicted, I think that any minor differences in interpretation will be the least of all my worries!!!

Kind regards

Bob

PS:
Single rolls or a 2 of 2 Pt Roll are different to Point Rolls in that there is no way of defining the 'Period of non Rolling Flight'. For that reason, I would define the centre of a 2 of 2 or a single roll in the same way as you do i.e. half way through the 'Rolling Transition'. This way of looking at things - coupled with the traditional interpretation of Immelmans - would also make it slightly easier for me to accept the need to push down immediately after the top 1/2 roll in Manoeuvre No 1!!!

Chris,
I think I may have figured out the confusion you and others have with the 2/4 point. You are confusing the point to be a line. 5B7.1 Lines; All aerobatic manoeuvers are started and ended by a horizontal line of recognisable distance. When you roll to inverted and fly inverted the same duration as knife edge this is a point not a line. If after flying inverted the same duration as knife edge you fly a little longer then that becomes a line and you should be docked 2 points, as is the case if after the full roll you fly a line before you push to the outside loop.

Hope this helps you and others to clear up the confusuion.

Hey Jim..

I'm not really confused, just judging it the way I've been told to really..

I agree with you 100%.. A point should be a point. But if the Judging Committee says to push as soon as wings are level, then if you want full points, this is how it is to be flown obviously. Until it gets worded differently in the rule book or there is an addendum page added. It needs to be more clear in there on certain manuevers..
It is crazy IMO that this even has to be debated.. IMO it is worded wrong.. Heck, it's worded wrong also in the Masters 2 of 4 split s.. We have to pull instantly also.. No visible line in our book, as also stated in the FAI book.. Do I like it, no, but I fly it that way for the points..
BTW, something you pointed out to me at Whittier has stuck with me. You mentioned most of us after our 2 of 4, when we start the split s, that we make the first part of the half loop tight, and the second loose.. You were right as I watched several of us.. Good catch!!


C

This brings up a question, what is a maneuver? To me, a maneuver is what is listed on the sequence, that being a Double Immelman. That maneuver is made up of components... 2/4 first and full roll second. If each individual component is declared as a maneuver, I could understand the need to demonstrate a line after the point. But having said that, technically in that case, a demonstration of a line would be necessary after the full roll before the push to inverted. If the components of the listed maneuver are considered maneuvers themselves then they should be separated and identifiable as such within the schedule and separated by lines, hesitations etc. But that's not how we fly it is it?

Personally I don't care, but the fact that there is even a question about how the maneuver is to be flown by multiple participants to me means that it was not written clearly.

That's a great point Tom.. The manuever has a line before and after, not each seperate part. The fact that it's an immelmann to me describes wings level, then pull or push.. Strange though with a 2 of 4, or a 4 point into an immelmann.. It defenitely isn't clear how they wrote it as there are other factors in other parts of the rule book that contradict it.

Hope things are getting better for you Tom.. Very sorry about your dad!!!

Chris