Landings (was Temple)

Tue May 25 04:49:23 AKDT 2004

Bob, You're point is well taken....BUT...I would argue, that those conditions are exactly why the CD has the discretion to change the rules (I.e. allowing 0 or 10 for this contest) and that it was the SCORED take off's and landings from years of previous contests that forced the pilots to have the skills to do safe T.O. and Landings in those conditions.  

I think we will see those skills deteriorate over a few seasons...

Just my opinion.

-Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Pastorello
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:44 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Landings (was Temple)

A good article, Keith.  I'd like to share one additional insight.  Many
of the "arrivals" witnessed in those terrible conditions could have
resulted in airplanes being TOTALED *if* the "normal" landing rules had
been in effect.

Also, consider the high number of "normal" takeoffs and landings that
WERE made, despite the conditions, even though the 0-10 was in effect. 
My personal observation is that we witnessed attempts at operating the
airplanes SAFELY in conditions that COULD have had pretty unsafe things
happening, had those same pilots been attempting the "10" using the
existing rule.  A LOT of skill variations shows up when the winds are
doing what they were then.

BOb P.

--- Keith Black <tkeithb at comcast.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 

=====
Bob Pastorello 
rcaerobob at cox.net
emc2300 at yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 
=====================================
# 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.