Spins -- Final Chapter

[excelpoint]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	Actually, Paffy, Bill still has not answered my real question. I'd really like it if he could give a quantitave anseer to a very distinct question, instead of ranting on about everything else in the world. the personal aattcks against me are realy beneath a person of his alleged station. How far, do we as judges, permit a plane to obviously deviate from a prescribed manuvers intent and design, before we zero it? It's that simple. He has not answered it, neither have you. There has to be a limitation on the length of the "break into the spin", otherwise why even have any rules concerning it in the first place. I really don't think there is any ambiguity to that question. Answering" read the rules" does NOT address the question, and if the plane never deviates off a wings level and straight ahead flight path, even descending at 10 degrees into infinity, the pilot could, in theory stretch a spin several hundred feet with no downgrades for it. Presuming that downgrades would occur, to an accumulative zero, is avoiding the issue. It's a simple question . .I'd like a simple answer. "I don't know" will suffice if that is the case.

Its very simple Kris. 100 degrees. Im sure you can figure out where that applys

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by excelpoint
	Its very simple Kris. 100 degrees. Im sure you can figure out where that applys

And the length of forward aircraft movement after the initial stall break?

I'd really hate to think someone can fly 1/2 mile in a stall and not be zeroed for it. . .

[excelpoint]

In that case he would be out of the box so you can start handing out box infringements. add up the deductions for wing wobbles, loss of track etc etc and you will be down to a zero in no time

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by excelpoint
	In that case he would be out of the box so you can start handing out box infringements. add up the deductions for wing wobbles, loss of track etc etc and you will be down to a zero in no time

We no longer have a box.

The point is, are we going to start considering the rules as the ONLY thing we judge by? Or are we going to make the effort to get the rules to follow some semblance of intelligent response to thsoe circumstances outside what is written in black and white?

Fred Johnsons admonition about "presenting the manuver in a proper manner" tends to trump blind loyalty to a few written words. Yes, the rules provide us with guidance for downgrades, and tell us what the manuver is supposed to look like. But, in the end, as in the case of the coasting stalled line, if the manuver is not presented as a "spin" but turns into a multi-segmented manuver that does not follow the prescribed manuvers shape, I feel it's time to use my better judgement.

Thankfully, we are no longer tied to having to agree on Zeroes. Therefore, I can, with a very clear conscience, zero such a flagrant violation of the manuvers prescribed shape and flight path. Since no one has given me ANY guidance, I'll just have to let my conscience be the determining factor. . after giving the pilot every possible benefit of the doubt, of course.

[paffy]

I think I answered it very clearly before - in front of me as a judge, you can mush around forever (picking up deductions on your way) before an autorotation commences. I base this on a premise that you can't make deductions for things that are not specified in the rulebook.

P.

[Shawn Berkheimer]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	I think I answered it very clearly before - in front of me as a judge, you can mush around forever (picking up deductions on your way) before an autorotation commences. I base this on a premise that you can't make deductions for things that are not specified in the rulebook. P.

This makes perfect sense. It won't take long for the pilot to get 10+ deductions and earn hinself a zero anyways. BTW I have NEVER seen a incedent when the airplane just mushed around for more than an airplane length or so, even in a downwind spin entry. Most guys are smart enough to figure out how to make their airplane appear to have stalled before the mushing starts to take place. Yes Kris this goes against the " Spirit " of the rule but guess what? The rule was written when airplanes were smaller and heavier and would actually stall with some concistancy. things change, get over it. This " Spirit of the rule " thing is crap!

I see you have made comments regarding Bill flying intermidiate and you flying advanced so that somehow puts you at an advantage in your debate however earlier in this thread you stated that my dominance in advance last season and my move to unlimited this season had no bearing. Again you contradict yourself amigo.

Shawn

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Shawn Berkheimer
	I see you have made comments regarding Bill flying intermidiate and you flying advanced so that somehow puts you at an advantage in your debate however earlier in this thread you stated that my dominance in advance last season and my move to unlimited this season had no bearing. Again you contradict yourself amigo. Shawn

Shawn, do you really think these things? I've said numerous times I don't give a hoot about what class Malvey flies in, or feel it necessary to compare flying skills. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Shawn Berkheimer]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	Shawn, do you really think these things? I've said numerous times I don't give a hoot about what class Malvey flies in, or feel it necessary to compare flying skills. Where do you come up with this stuff?

I'll delve into the "Performance considerations for Advanced IMAC Flight" part of the question as soon as Bill moves up to Advanced Class flying, or I shall merely rebut his meager attempt at pontificating with knowledge he does not have, since he has never competitively flown Advanced IMAC Flight.



I suppose you can remember all 5 sequences, 3 to 4 scores while judging without a scribe but you can't remember typing the above?

Shawn

[Judge]

I answered it, you just refuse to listen to the answer. See post #93 above.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	The point is, are we going to start considering the rules as the ONLY thing we judge by?

Yes. And this is why you get yourself all twisted up because you cannot grasp this simple concept. If it is not in the rules, then you cannot use it. Again, your hypothetical question was answered in post #93, but you continue to rant on and on. It is just so wearisome.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	I think I answered it very clearly before - in front of me as a judge, you can mush around forever (picking up deductions on your way) before an autorotation commences. I base this on a premise that you can't make deductions for things that are not specified in the rulebook. P.

If the plane is mushing along without any wing dips, loss of altitude or other deductions for changes in track, then there are no deductions for how long the plane can mush. But in the real world that would not be the case. The plane would more than likely be losing altitude, waggling its wings and so on. You would deduct for that stuff.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	If the plane is mushing along without any wing dips, loss of altitude or other deductions for changes in track, then there are no deductions for how long the plane can mush. But in the real world that would not be the case. The plane would more than likely be losing altitude, waggling its wings and so on. You would deduct for that stuff.

I think that's what I said . These posts are getting too confusing ....

P.