Another box rule (discussion)

[Ron Van Putte]

On Mar 8, 2005, at 8:52 PM, Lance Van Nostrand wrote:

> The concept of a rectangular box, instead of one that is a "vee", is 
> intriguing.  It's hard to judge, but it would allow closer in flight 
> without detriment.

And we could say, "Gee, now we're flying just like IMAC."  I think they 
call it a "zoneless box", or something like that and they award "style 
points", or something like that.  Just what we need, no box and 
impression judging.  Back to the dark ages of judging!  : (

Ron Van Putte

> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: BUDDYonRC at aol.com
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 10:18 AM
> Subject: Another box rule (discussion)
>
>  There seems to be valid reasons to not change the present pattern box.
> There are also two seemingly valid questions / problems that the 
> present box arrangement presents.
> 1. Pilots flying optimum distance out increase the chance of mid air 
> collision.
> 2. Pilots who are somewhat vision limited who would prefer to fly 
> closer in.
> A possible solution would be to revise the box rules to allow a person 
> who in advance of his flight accepts a 2% total flight score downgrade 
> to fly in closer and violate the 60 degree box lines without further 
> downgrade.
> How about some comments and opinions and any other ideas which would 
> address these issues.
>  Please don't boot me off of the list again I'm just trying to do my 
> Job.
> Buddy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3732 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050309/4d0ccd85/attachment.bin