Landing Direction

[george kennie]

I vote for Ed, next Chair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed Deaver wrote:

> 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/20050614/8615b0ff/attachment-0001.html