Landing Direction

[Ed Deaver]

Have been following this discussion closely.  Finally feel compelled to throw in a different perspective.
 
The question is what defines an "Aerobatic Manuever(AM)."    If we want to look at this we have to ask, is Straight and Level flight in Sportsman and AM.  Is a vertical line, or a 45 degree line up or down an AM.  It is easy to argue these simple parts of complete manuevers simply aren't AM.  However, we stand up and say, but they build skills, needed to compete better!!!!
This is very true because in other disciplines, the ability to fly wings level and straight is usually a big standout for what isn't done well.
 
So, back to the original question, what defines an AM.  Lets see, take off, wings level through out procedure, yes.  Control of climb out, yes.  Control of crab to maintain a specific line, on the runway, yes.  At a specific point, wheel up and rate of climb constant, yes.  I simply don't see any difference between the above maneuvers.
 
Landing.  Wings level through out procedure, yes. Control of decent as constant from some point(another discussion), yes.  Touch down within a specific area, to me no different than centering a manuever on the center poll, yes.  Controlled roll out till manuver completed.
 
So, what defines an AM.  In my eyes, TO/L fill the bill.  There is symetry to maintain.  There is a wings level criteria.  There is a fly on a specific line, not 150 meters out, but center of runway.  There is a smoothness/gracefullness criteria.  I don't see the difference between trying to center a snap, on a 45 downline over the poll, fly wings level to start, maintain a line, perform the snap, or landing in my scenario, complete the line, and finish the manuever.
 
I/m not a proponent because it has been that way, or just because, but because it really encompasses everything we strive for at 150 meters also.  I have personally seen a number of people in IMAC, that COULDN'T land their own plane under certain circumstances because it wasn't required and therfor not striven towards.  Yes, this is scary.  I would much rather stand in the pilots box with a pilot that has the basic understanding that TO/L was a part of there sequence, and more than likely worked on some.  To me this is actually safer than the non scored scenario.  Which way we land may be the key to settle some arguments.
 
As far as being faster.  I'm sorry here.  Again, I have seen pilots not even start up until the other pilot is off the runway, even though the CD enthusiastically and politely said, C'Mon lets keep the line moving.  It would take a lot of work to get these pilots to take off and walk to the pilots box, not to mention the danger of falling tripping, looking down all of a sudden and loosing your plane(Imac planes are much easier to reaquire in the air visually)  Get rid of the not moving forward rule, but that is all I'm for here.
 
The new rules poll will indeed be interesting.  Hopefully, many are not scorched from the URP against the membership previous vote, as I know of several NSRCA pilots that don't believe it is worth filling out.  This is due to the proposal, from NSRCA Admin, against the popular vote.  Why take the time when no one will listen anyway, is the attitude(not mine per se, but others I know)
 
Ed
 
Jerry Budd <jerry at buddengineering.com> wrote:
Well, I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. Many have said 
that takeoff and landing were aerobatic maneuvers but no one has 
offered up any rationale as to WHY they think that it is. Simply 
asserting that you think that they need to be scored isn't rationale, 
just opinion. I understand that TO&L's don't have to be aerobatic 
maneuvers to be scored, I just don't think they're particularly 
relevant as part of the scored sequence of competition maneuvers 
(there's nothing aerobatic about them). Do they require skill to do 
well? Sure they do, but so do a lot of things that don't have 
anything to do with flying pattern (flying a limbo in a fun fly 
contest comes to mind as one example, I'm sure there are many others).

What I have heard is that many are in favor of scoring TO&L's because 
it's a matter of "tradition", kind of a "since we've always done it 
this way then we should always do it this way" attitude. I find that 
kind of attitude to be archaic and counter productive in a 
competitive environment. It breeds stagnation and in a competitive 
environment you're either moving forward or you're moving backward - 
there's no in between. Don't get me wrong, traditions based on solid 
fundamental rationale are worth perpetuating. But making a case for 
something based on tradition "for traditions sake" is a hollow 
argument that won't stand up to objective scrutiny.

The other thing I've heard is a variation on the "Chicken Little", 
"the sky is falling" argument. Along the lines of since TO&L's are 
no longer scored, they'll soon look like crap. Well, FAI hasn't 
scored TO&L's for a number of years now, and I fail to see the 
problem there (those in FAI who can't make decent TO&L's tend to not 
score very high even though they still get "10's" on them). 
Professional pride and peer pressure (Verne - would that be called 
ridicule in D4/D5? ;-)) provide the remaining incentive.

Here's an observation and my final comment on this issue:

/rant/

There seems to be some mentality among the group that membership in 
the NSRCA dictates that one should cow down to the groups wishes, 
once they are known via some mechanism such as a survey or poll (ever 
hear of the phrase "group mentality", it's generally not meant as a 
complement...). Some even suggest that it's the democratic way to do 
so, the will of the majority, etc. They are wrong. The ultimate 
responsibility of a democracy is to protect the rights of the 
minority in spite of the will of the majority. The reality is that 
we live in a democratic republic, where the elected representatives 
are charged with making decisions that they determine to be in the 
best interest of their constituency, whether the constituency likes 
it or not. That's their job. If you don't like it, elect someone 
else (just be careful what you wish for).

/rant off/

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050614/c9287bb8/attachment.html