Landing Direction

[Keith Black]

After observing at the last two contests I don't really think it saves much if any time. They could have fixed the previous t/o landing rule by simply removing the requirement for the plane to sit still at idle. This alone would have fixed the biggest complaints, engine quits and caller having to hold plane until the idle was low enough.  

BTW, I like the point that Larry Diamond made about setting us apart from others. I always have that attitude of "we don't do it because it's easy, we do it *because* it's hard".

Keith Black


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MargueriteVG at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 7:42 PM
  Subject: Re: Landing Direction


   Kieth  
     Sounds like a mess for sure.  I see some mails state that this was done (not score t/o and landings) also to save time at a contest?  This certainly does not sound a like a solid reason to change the standards that have helped make pattern flying what it is. A disciplined precision flying schedule starting with take off and ending with landing.
  We should always encourage a precision t/o and landing. 
  stepping out of the wars  ;-)
  Marguerite

  In a message dated 6/13/2005 11:19:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, tkeithb at comcast.net writes:

    Actually, I don't think you're alone on this issue. The NSRCA poll showed overwhelmingly that the membership wanted scored t/o and landings as did the public outcry after the majority's desires were disregarded. Apparently even the contest board would have voted to keep the old rule but the question was worded in such a way to confuse two of the contest board members. 

    Now that the new messed up rule has caused so much confusion I think everyone is getting so fed-up with it that many would rather have nothing at all than what we have now. To me this has more to do with being sick of all the ridiculous discussions than a real desire of pattern pilots to not score t/o and landings.

    I for one have been paying attention to take-offs and landings this year and find it a real shame that we don't have those beautiful centered liftoffs and gentle climb outs. The new guys coming into sportsman will miss out on this discipline.

    Keith


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: MargueriteVG at aol.com 
      To: patternrules at earthlink.net ; discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 8:58 AM
      Subject: Re: Landing Direction



      Good Morning...... oh oh  here goes...
       I agree it is important to encourage good landings and take  and I will add to your statement... why not all classes with take off and landing.  Yes, for the most part the pilots in the higher classes will ace the landing.   I have seen the higher classes mess up on the landings (yes and almost hit me while I was in a contest flying)
        Take off and landing perfectly all the time is the goal for any pilot.  This seems to be getting so involved. I know I am out for the most part alone on this issue and that is  fine with me.  ITs just that I would like to see the pattern community respect this issue and set a good example for all pilots joining on to Precision Aerobatics.
        A well done take off and a well done landing is certainly part of flying aerobatic competition in all classes. Its the start ... and it should be.  I was glad to see someone out there was thinking along the same lines here. 
      Marguerite

      In a message dated 6/13/2005 8:23:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, patternrules at earthlink.net writes:

        > 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050614/4514bd50/attachment.html