Landings (was Temple)

Tue May 25 08:07:23 AKDT 2004

Also - even the most neophyte with an ARF trainer soon learns that rough
landings = broken airplane. By the time anyone reaches pattern competency
they have for sure "learnt" that! Then there's the 90 degree to runway
takeoff that takes a wing off on a pilot station barrier - hmm no barriers
on the ends of the runway.

Earl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Black" <tkeithb at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Landings (was Temple)

> 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.
>

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