Landings (was Temple)

Tue May 25 07:12:48 AKDT 2004

Bob, I'm really glad you made the point that everyone was doing the best
they could and weren't trying to make poor landings. You're absolutely
correct that the allowance made by the 0-10 rule was the correct thing for
the CD to do. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that people were
intentionally smashing their airplanes so if that's the impression I left
then it should be know that's not what I meant. And you're correct, most
still performed nice take-offs, though I'm afraid that will fade as new
pilots enter the hobby in the coming years.

Of the bad landings most were caused by the wind, but the troubling thing is
that when the wind would have normally forced the pilot off the runway
pilots would sometimes force the plane back onto the runway causing and
impact, yet still get a ten. This didn't occur the majority of the time, but
it did occur often enough to ignite my questions on the new rule.

My points can really be boiled down to three items:

1) There are still a lot of open questions about how to apply the new
simplified rules (at least in my mind). I'd like to understand these.
2) The way the new rules are written it appears that a pilot can now get a
ten on a very poor landing which seems inconsistent with the spirit of our
pursuit.
3) If indeed landings and take-offs aren't aerobatic maneuvers, as the
proposal suggested, why should we score them at all? And if we do score them
shouldn't we have criteria that prevents the pilot with a beautiful landing
from scoring the same as the one that spot-lands with a whacking sound just
before the end of the runway.

Keith Black

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Pastorello" <emc2300 at yahoo.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:43 AM
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.