Proper Distance

[jivey61 at bellsouth.net]

> Del

 You could put him in a steel cage like pylon judges.

Jim Ivey
> From: "Del Rykert" <drykert at localnet.com>
> Date: 2004/07/29 Thu AM 10:10:19 EDT
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: Proper Distance
> 
> Earl..  
>     Good observations but how would you suggest incorporating a distant judge? You can't put a live body out there.
>  
>                          del 
>                NSRCA - 473
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Earl Haury 
>   To: Discussion List, NSRCA 
>   Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 9:56 AM
>   Subject: Proper Distance
> 
> 
>   Distance in pattern has been (and still is) one of the great unknowns. (Spins & snaps are the others.) There are varied individual definitions of what is proper, regardless of how much clarity or definition is inserted into the rules.  
> 
>   I've been around long enough to see the trend move in and out several times, often the out times are well outside of the rules. Then there are times when others decide that there are more points in really tight! Unfortunately, distance out is hard for the both the pilot and the judge to discern with accuracy. 
> 
>   A pilot can practice with spotters to establish a good feel for distance. That "feel" comes both with visible size recognition and time from box line to box line at the "comfort" speed. In too close and one is rushed or must slow below the "sweet spot" speed, too far out and the opposite occurs. So the pilot has the opportunity to tune for his / her chosen distance
> 
>   It seems that, on the judges side, there are distance police. Anything that might be approaching the limit is downgraded by them. Then there are others that don't downgrade if they can see (or hear) something out there! More evidence that distance evaluation is difficult, especially when viewing airplanes of different size, visibility, and speed. Maybe the only was to achieve judging accuracy regarding distance is to use a "distance judge" at 175 & 200m and let them assign distance downgrades? Seems that the variable application (with good intentions) of distance downgrades presently experienced dictate consideration of an alternative method. 
> 
>   From the judges chair I find very few close in flights accurate or smooth. There are usually inaccuracies brought on by lack of time, box violations, and errors forced by wind. The good thing about these is that they are over quickly. Out flights often have better maneuvers as the pilot has more time, box violations are few, and wind effect is better handled (and/or less noticeable). But they do take forever and the distance downgrades offset the advantages. So what to do? Take a clue from the rules "for a large, highly visible model aircraft a line of flight approximately 175m in front of the competitor may be appropriate". Judges take note of the "in front of the competitor" statement, as the judges are 7 to 10m behind the competitor. This moves the acceptable flight line 7 to 10m further away, so 185m (from the judges) is not to be downgraded for the large models (anybody seen small models lately). Even the rolling circle distance issues can then be handled by rolling in then. A 100 to 125m roller in would still leave a 50+m buffer between the pilot and airplane.
> 
>   So - consider that the rules are OK. Big airplanes are best flown at the outer range of the rules. Some judges may need help in accurately assessing distance. Maybe a distance judge would help. There are no benefits and more risks to flying too close if to only appease "inaccurate" distance police. Hmmm - imagine that, flying within the rules gets the best score..
> 
>   Earl
> 
> 
> 

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.