calling complete for new takeoff

Sat May 14 20:00:45 AKDT 2005

In the past, unfortunately, the judging committee has only been able to come 
up with a recommended common interpretation of rules.  This recommendation 
can not change the rule and it can not become the official interpretation. 
The contest board would not allow it.  I personally would value a judging 
cmte that had the power to create official rule clarifications and 
extensions, but this hasn't been the case in the past.  I want to be sure 
that any interpretation/clarification provided will provide a revised 
standard that can be applied at the Nats.  I don't want to get there and 
find the CD giving me a new interpretation than the one I've been practicing 
and judging all season.
   The passionate arguments to defeat this silly TO/L rules proposal was 
unsuccessful so we must get on board and embrace this until the next rules 
cycle.  That leaves us no option but to zero the guy that doesn't level his 
wings after the TO 90 or if he does during the Landing 180.  I just don't 
understand how the pilot does a 360 after the intermediate sequence ends 
downwind.  Herein lies an example of what I'm talking about.  A pilot 
finishes intermediate, turns 180 to head upwind, levels the wings to fly far 
enough to make another 180 turn to set up for the landing sequence (a 
decending 180 turn to touchdown).  If the judging cmte says this is fine, 
then they are changing the rule.  Please please tell me I'm wrong and make 
the airtight case.
--Lance
PS. I hope the contest board members on this list are paying attention. They 
are in part accountable for not thinking this through and approving it. 
It's bad enough that this rule contradicts the will of the membership, but 
on top of that the rule was poorly written.  We all must remember this too 
and learn that voter apathy gives undue clout to the special interests.  But 
these are lessons learned.  We need to make this work for 2005-2006 now.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Pritchett" <phelps15 at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: calling complete for new takeoff

> What is all of this???  At one time, I thought I could fly at a pattern 
> contest........ am I missing something?  Are we actually talking about why 
> people aren't getting into pattern??  Last season I had a takeoff zero'd 
> because I didn't call it's start.  At first it upset me, but then I 
> realized that this is the rule and the judge has every right to impose 
> that rule.  As the 2005 flying season is upon us, this needs to be cleared 
> up ASAP.....   I was absolutely against the removal of judged takeoffs and 
> landings - now we are exposed to even more "interpretation"???    Didn't 
> this new rule regarding takeoff and landing come as a result of wanting 
> less "interpretation"???  Don?  Lamar?  The judging committee needs to 
> address this immediately.
> There, I feel better. (and, when it stops raining and I can go flying, I 
> will REALLY feel better)
> Bill
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Keith Black" <tkeithb at comcast.net>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:05 PM
> Subject: Re: calling complete for new takeoff
>
>
>> Two items that confused issues at the first contest here in D6 where the
>> turns after take-off and prior to the landing.
>>
>> Takeoff: "Model takes off within the landing zone then turns 90 degrees
>> towards the line defined by the box end poles. When approximately over 
>> the
>> line the model turns either 90 degrees or 270 degrees..."
>>
>> The question here was what if a pilot takes off, turns 90 degrees then
>> immediately turns the second 90 without a straight line (a 180 degree 
>> turn).
>> Based on the rules this is incorrect and since the maneuver is scored 
>> only 0
>> or 10 having no straight line before the second 90 deg. turn would be a
>> zero. It's hard to believe this is what was really intended. One side 
>> note,
>> we found that following this procedure seems to increase the potential 
>> for
>> mid-airs. There were several times pilots had to cross the path of the 
>> other
>> plane in order to fulfill the straight line between the two 90 degree 
>> turns.
>>
>> Landing: "Execute a 180 degree turn to downwind (or optional 360 degree 
>> turn
>> if flight is completed on a downwind maneuver). Fly a downwind leg and 
>> then
>> turn 180 degrees into the wind for final approach to the runway..."
>>
>> Does this mean that if the 180 degree turn has a straight segment in 
>> order
>> to line up for the runway the landing is a zero?  Certainly this wasn't 
>> the
>> intent, but according to the new rule any straight segment in any of the
>> prescribed turns would be a zero.
>>
>> Seems to me that this new rule has actually complicated things. 
>> Previously
>> the contestant and judge didn't have to worry about anything above two
>> meters, now a landing (supposedly) can be zeroed by the presents, or lack
>> of, a straight line when turning around for landing.
>>
>> Keith Black
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Lewis, Richard" <richard.lewis at idmcontrols.com>
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:18 PM
>> Subject: RE: calling complete for new takeoff
>>
>>
>> When to call the takeoff/landing and the required downgrade is a good
>> question ...I think you have to call it as described by Scott below...
>>
>> The new takeoff/landing sequences are a poor manifestation of the what I
>> think was intended.  I think the intent was to simply eliminate scoring
>> takeoffs and landings, but in the process of writing the rules, a whole
>> other problem was created.  It could be very difficult for sportsman
>> pilot and even many higher ranking pilots to get scored on these
>> maneuvers if they are judged by the book.  These are strictly defined
>> maneuvers with NO room for any error at all...If judged per the written
>> rule, some pretty subtle, otherwise benign deviations should yield a
>> zero scores since any downgrade at all must result in a zero.  If you
>> think the new landing procedure is weird, try the intermediate sequence
>> where the last maneuver is downwind, it opens even more points for
>> discussion and even seems to contradict the rule allowing a maximum of
>> two passes after takeoff and before landing.
>>
>> This was discussed at our judging seminar taught in Houston, and all he
>> could do is read the rule as written and agree that it needed
>> clarification.  At our first contest this year, judging these maneuvers
>> came up at the pilots meeting.  After considerable discussion with no
>> concensus with regard to the clarification of the rule and how it should
>> be judged, the CD decided that for his meet, a landing in the zone was a
>> 10 and landing outside the zone was a zero without regard for the
>> published landing sequence.
>>
>> IMO - There urgently needs to an amendment to the rules doing one of
>> these three things...
>>
>> 1-Put it back the way it was.
>> 2-Keep the landing/takeoff sequence but allow it to be scored normally.
>> 3-Eliminate the landing and takeoff as a scored maneuver entirely.
>>
>> IMHO I like option 2 above best, option 1 second, and option 3 is worst.
>> If you are in favor of option 3, you should go to an IMAC event and
>> watch those guys takeoff and land, you'll see what an unscored
>> takeoff/landing looks like..:)
>>
>> The current push toward certifying and ranking judges, and the doctrine
>> being preached to the newcomers to judge per the rules and only per the
>> rules has the potential to make pattern flying into a premier class of
>> competition for fair judging that acccurately asseses the quality of
>> pilots skills relative to the standard.  Having poorly thought out rules
>> such as this new landing/takeoff that requires a CD to modify them at a
>> contest because they cannot be clarified to a point where accurate
>> judging can be done goes against all that is good about pattern.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
>> On Behalf Of Scott Smith
>> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:18 AM
>> To: discussion
>> Subject: RE: calling complete for new takeoff
>>
>> Good question Steve!  I believe you do have to call it, but when exactly
>> does the takeoff finish, and the landing begin?
>>
>> According to 14.6:
>>
>> "14.6. In all classes, the contestant or helper must call out the
>> initiation and completion of the takeoff and landing maneuvers and all
>> maneuvering area entries and exits."
>>
>> So I guess after completing the downwind turn (last maneuver described
>> in takeoff sequence) you call "takeoff complete", then a moment later
>> "entering the box"?
>>
>> Same with landing..."exiting the box...begin landing"...start the upwind
>> turn?
>>
>> Should we also assume that failure to call box exit prior to landing
>> would result in a 0 landing?
>>
>> "Failure to correctly call an entry or exit of the maneuvering area
>> should result in a major downgrade of the maneuver immediately following
>> the failure to call."
>>
>> And since it's 0 or 10....
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Steven Maxwell
>> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:31 AM
>> To: discussion
>> Subject: calling complete for new takeoff
>>
>>
>> So I take it that under the new rules calling complete for takeoff
>> isn't needed now because it would have to be done on the trim pass, same
>> for starting the landing because of the procedure that has to be done
>> now on both?
>>
>>
>> Steven Maxwell
>> patternrules at earthlink.net
>> EarthLink Revolves Around You.
>>
>>
>>
>> =================================================
>> 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.
>>
>> =================================================
>> 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.