Landing Direction

[Verne Koester]

Mark,
As you know from our conversation at the Shootout, that's the approach I 
prefer too. I also noted how the 0-10 rule sped things up. There was no 
messing around with carrying planes way down the runway so the pilot could 
lift off right in front of the judges, no engines that quit out on the 
runway due to an idle being lowered too far to keep the plane from rolling 
on the pavement and so on. I also think it added a degree of safety, 
particularly to the pilot/caller/judges on the line upwind of a pilot taking 
off. We had a fairly stiff wind blowing out and I noted that virtually 
everyone was adding a little more rudder than necessary on takeoff to make 
sure that the pilot already flying on the other line didn't get buzzed from 
a plane crabbing in on takeoff. The time savings was significant since we 
had to fly until 8p to get everyone 4 rounds on Saturday. BTW, our take on 
the rules was to announce takeoff and get the thing in the air. As long as 
you didn't go off the edge of the runway, it was a 10. At the end of your 
schedule, you could turn around however you wanted as long as there wasn't 
any "showmanship", announce the landing and land. As long as it was on the 
pavement, it was a 10. I never got buzzed a single time as a pilot or caller 
and I can't remember the last contest where I could make that statement.

Verne


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: RE: Landing Direction


Personally Jerry,  I'd like to see us score landings and take offs for 
Sportsman and Intermediate.  Given the k-factor of their total schedule it's 
a meaningful part, and the ability to land well in a high crosswind is 
something they'll need to be comfortable with, so it's worth rewarding ann 
motivating the practice required to do it well.

Given that, I think those two classes should go back to what we had...  Take 
off's from 0-2 meters, Landings starting at 2m.  Forget all the sequence and 
box issues.

For the higher classes...all pilot's option with a simple guideline for 
getting into the box in an efficient manner (no practice or hotdogging).

Here's my suggestion for you...  Take Ron's approach.  Write it up...and 
submit it!!

-M

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On 
Behalf Of Jerry Budd
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 1:30 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Landing Direction

Hi Mark,

I think you've pretty well captured my point of
view on this topic.  I don't consider takeoffs
and landings to be aerobatic maneuvers, in fact
we're pretty much the only aerobatics
organization that does.

Lets look at it another way.  In the old "B"
pattern there used to be a touch-and-go, which is
a lot like a takeoff and landing rolled up into
one.  Does anyone think a touch-and-go is an
aerobatic maneuver?  I don't.  Does it take skill
to do well?  Yes, a lot like the skill required
to do a well executed takeoff and a proper
landing.  But the fact that it takes a lot of
practice and skill to execute them well doesn't
make them aerobatic maneuvers.

>My question is if no one considers Landing a
>"aerobatic maneuver"ŠAn argument I'll save for
>another dayŠ  Then why do we even score it at
>all??  Let's face itŠthe Zero or 10 rule
>basically takes it out of the contest.

I (and it appears that I'm not alone in this opinion) don't think we should.

I've always felt that the reward for a good
takeoff was that you got to fly that flight, and
that the reward for a good landing was that you
got to fly the next flight.

>Buddy makes a good point here.  IF we're not
>going to make a change back to truly scoring the
>T/O and landing, then just simply get rid of ALL
>the crap, no scores except for maneuvers in the
>air, and T/O's and Landings are completely
>pilot's option.  Get the thing up and down
>safelyŠwe'll score what's in the air.

That's pretty much the idea.  The interesting
part is how many people will be willing to
honestly consider it.

Thx, Jerry
-- 
___________
Jerry Budd
Budd Engineering
(661) 722-5669 Voice/Fax
(661) 435-0358 Cell Phone
mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com
http://www.buddengineering.com
================To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.

================To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.


=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.