Earl's excellent observations

[mike mueller]

 Earl your point about agreeing on the stupidity of a rule is a valid one.Common sense must apply here. The important part to that is comunication. Like at the pilots meetings before the contest starts. The dumb rules should be discussed to aviod any problems. How can a description on a manuever as simple as a landing be confusing? I think the KISS system needs to apply here. Mike

Earl Haury <ehaury at houston.rr.com> wrote:The rules state that the turn to final should begin "approximately over the downwind marker". The airplane will  then be out of the box until near touchdown. 
 
So a pilot flying at 160m must turn in (or make a tight 15m turn out) 180 degrees to stay within the specified distance. He/she must then let the airplane somehow meander in or out so that it can begin the turn to final near the 150m box pole. Oh - add the drift in an incoming wind for the spin in P-05 - fly the exiting roll after the required line between the roll and the 1/4 loop - put a line after the roll, and turn on final before the box line!
 
Curious as to how this description is written - what were they thinking? For a process originally intended to prevent hot-dogging it sure has gotten specific. Then with a 0 or 10 choice no less. This thing is so dumb that all pilots should agree to ignore it and take the zero (no effect on competition outcome) until this nonsense is fixed. 
 
Earl
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: Earl's excellent observations


I saw three such landing examples at the F3A Finals, when the pilots turned into the runway (rather than away from it) to go downwind. Two exited the aerobatic zone to enter the downwind leg, which BTW required re-entry into the zone. I assumed that the term "Aerobatic Zone" was defined as the show stage between the +/- 60 degree lines. I tend to look at the rule this way: once the F3A pilot committed to enter the box, he should not exit it until his turn to final. 
 
Interestingly, the third pilot who made a turn toward the runway to enter his downwind leg,  did not exit the zone. The turn direction is at pilot's discretion. Pilot is allowed to make the turn to downwind leg in either direction; it's just easier to do it away. BUT, turning away he should not make it so wide that he violates the distance out rule. 
 
These two landing sequences also had the issue of the downwind turn being greater than 180 degrees. The verbiage of the rule is somewhat unfortunate because 180 degrees is a specified value. I believe the writer of the rule intended for the turn to be a simple directional reversal in the horizontal plane, but it isn't up to me to make that intrepretation. However, as a judgement call, I allowed it
 
Note that the verbiage in regard to the upwind turn to go to final approach, is less clear and I allowed the guys to exit the box to turn to final without assessing a downgrade. Also note that any downgrade observed in the landing sequence must be a 10 point downgrade (Don uses that terminology and I like it). 
 
I was told that I may have nitpicked a bit here, but, in my opinion, there is no room for "grey" in the landing (and take-off) sequence. It's either black or white and not both
 
Matt K
Zero
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Brian Young 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Earl's excellent observations


What if its not?

Don Ramsey <donramsey at cox-internet.com> wrote: The landing sequence also requires that the 180 degree turn to downwind be
in the aerobatic zone.

Don

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Ferrell" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Earl's excellent observations


> I can post your drawings in my personal web space, just send me a copy.
>
> Bill Glaze pointed out to me that the FAI landing sequence requires that
> once you begin your descent to landing, you can never gain any altitude
> according to the book. There would have been a lot of unhappy finalists if
> this was enforced at Muncie. The only available penalty is a zero...
>
> John Ferrell
> http://DixieNC.US
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dean Pappas" 
! > To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:25 PM
> Subject: Earl's excellent observations
>
>
> Hello All,
> wifferdil ... I just call 'em twinkle-rolls!
> What I would like to see is for our team members to have two new arrows in
> their quiver at the next Worlds.
> One is a real snap that comes out on heading or is quickly corrected.
(hint:
> the more deeply the airplane is stalled in the initial break, the less
lift
> is available for heading loss.) 




		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040731/144df19a/attachment.html