Landings (was Temple)

[Keith Black]

Oops, I got the wrong city, last month was Waco, this month was Temple.
Replace Waco in this email with Temple :-<

Keith Black

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Black" <tkeithb at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: Landings (was Temple)


> No kidding, that "no-aileron" landing by Richard Lewis was AWESOME and
would
> have scored better than many of the landings during the weekend.
>
> Last Saturday in Waco the wind was vicious. Sustained speeds were from 20
to
> 25 mph with frequent gusts going even higher. Landings were anything but
> routine and quite frankly down right scary. Planes would hit air pockets
and
> drop or rise five or more feet on final which made the reward of a safe
> landing more about survival than points derived from the landing.
>
> Due to the windy conditions the CD took a vote to see if we should only
give
> 0 and 10 scores on landings and take-offs, especially since that's how it
> will be done next year. The vote passed and we proceeded to fly. The
Temple
> runway isn't very long so it was decided that the entire runway would be
the
> landing zone, I'm guessing it's probably even shorter than the 100 meter
> landing zone as is described in next year's rules.
>
> What followed was a comical series of landings ranging from top fliers to
> the sportsman pilots. Planes were landing everywhere from one end of the
> runway to the other, bouncing all over the place, landing then
re-launching
> themselves due to the strong wind, landing on the runway then rolling out
of
> control off the side, slamming into the runway with broken props and parts
> flying here and there, and after each of these out of control landings the
> peanut gallery could be heard hollering "TEN". In fact when air pockets
> would abruptly lift an almost settled plane eight or ten feet into the air
> pilots would force the planes down in "glider-like" spot landings just
> before the end of the runway, WHACK.... "TEN".  I was even guilty of this
> once when my engine wouldn't die and a gust of wind lifted me just before
> touch down. I knew I had to get it down before the end of the runway and
> technique was not a factor... WHACK ... WHO HOO, TEN!! It wasn't pretty
but
> if I hadn't gotten that ten I wouldn't have taken first place in
> intermediate.
>
> Sunday dawns and the winds are much more intermittent and not nearly as
> strong. Sometimes they where still a factor, but not most of the time.
Guess
> what, the landing shenanigans didn't disappear! And those beautiful
> take-offs that I've always admired were frequently replaced by the typical
> sport flier take-offs, slam full throttle and yank it up. I personally
still
> shot for wheels up dead center, but people that enter the sport from next
> year on won't even know about this obsolete and beautiful aspect of the
> sport (very sad).
>
> So this got me thinking, what ARE the details of the new rules for
take-offs
> and landings?  Surely they weren't being applied correctly last weekend,
it
> was quite silly, frequently sending people into fits of laughter. So I
> looked at the new rule verbiage and found that we were pretty much
applying
> the rule correctly except for one item, the plane must roll 10 meters
before
> careening off the runway. The rules also say that landing gear cannot
> retract or collapse and the plane can't end up on its back, but I never
saw
> that occur. It doesn't state, however, that a plane can't violently hit
the
> landing area sending pieces flying off. It's possible that meeting terra
> firma in an unhealthy manner is covered elsewhere in the rule book, but
it's
> not specified in the new landing rule.
>
> The rule proposal mentioned that part of the logic in changing this rule
was
> to reduce time spent discussing landings and take-offs prior to each
> contest. No doubt this does always have to be discussed and frequently
> causes many disputes. Yet after this weekend I'm not sure there won't
still
> need to be discussion at each contest. This is the reason I'm writing this
> message, to discuss how this new rule will actually be implemented.
Clearly
> at each contest the CD will have to discuss at the pilots meeting where
the
> markings are for the 100 meter landing area, but in addition to that I
have
> the following questions:
>
> 1. Is it OK to smash your aircraft into the "landing area"?
>
> 2. If yes to #1, is it OK to send parts flying off of the plane? The new
> landing rules does not discuss this and the "Pattern Judges' Guide" under
> D.8 that covers items falling off the aircraft applies to airborne
aircraft.
>
> 3. Is it OK to land, roll ten meters "completing landing", then lift off
of
> the ground again and glide to a second landing outside the landing area?
The
> new rule says nothing about flying speed.
>
> 4. Is it OK to land, roll ten meters then roll off the runway in an
erratic
> manner at a very high speed?
>
> 5. Is it OK to land, roll ten meters "completing landing" roll off the
> runway *then* flip over on your back? If landing is "complete" how can one
> be penalized for what follows?
>
> 6. Is it necessary for the plane to stop bouncing before the ten meter
> roll-out begins (in other words is the ten meter rollout started at first
> touch down or after the bouncing stops). This isn't specified in the new
> rule.
>
> 7. If you touch down gracefully nine meters before the end of the "landing
> area" and roll off the end are you given a zero because you left the
landing
> area before rolling ten meters (sort of like rolling off the side of the
> runway before a 10 meter roll-out)? If so should we mark 10 meter marks
> before the end of the landing areas?
>
> I'm sure there are many other questions, but these are a few that came to
> mind after the events this weekend.
>
> BTW, I don't want to leave the impression that the Temple contest was run
in
> anything less than a top notch manner. As CD BW did an excellent job, kept
> on top of things at all times and made sure everything took place in an
> organized and safe manner. The decision to judge 0 or 10 was to increase
> safety by allowing contestants more flexibility in getting their planes to
> the ground with the high winds. I appreciate him doing this and his
concern
> for the pilots.
>
> Keith Black
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "flyintexan" <flyintexan at houston.rr.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Temple
>
>
> > Just gotta talk about that save by Richard Lewis at Temple....
> >
> > NO ailerons (one trailing), 25+ mph wind, and he put that G-trick on the
> > centerline of the runway.  Nice job Richard.
> >
> >
> > -mark
> >
> >
> > >On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:54:05 -0500 Keith Black <tkeithb at comcast.net>
> wrote.
> > >Ditto! 36 pilots, 6 rounds, over 210 flights. It's so nice to get in
six
> >
> > >rounds. Great job of keeping things moving!
> >
> > >
> >
> > >The Temple club, and BW's family, were out in force to pull this off. I
> was
> >
> > >surprised to hear how many club members have assisted in every Temple
> >
> > >pattern contest over the last 15 or 16 years since the contest was
> >
> > >initiated. Thanks to everyone who made this possible.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >Keith Black
> >
> > >
> >
> > >----- Original Message ----- 
> >
> > >  From: Mark Hunt
> >
> > >  To: discussion at nsrca.org
> >
> > >  Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 6:48 AM
> >
> > >  Subject: Temple
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  I wanted to say thanks to the guys (and Ladies) at Temple who did an
> >
> > >outstanding job running a great pattern contest.  More than 30 pilots
and
> 6
> >
> > >rounds of flying.  Well done.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >  Thanks again.
> >
> > >
> >
> > =====================================
> > # To be removed from this list, go to
http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> > and follow the instructions.
> >
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>

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