calling complete for new takeoff

Sun May 15 01:56:29 AKDT 2005

I don't recall voter apathy as much as some ignoring what the membership 
stated in the survey and a different proposal was submitted and voted 
through by the contest board.  Is my sometimers showing again?

            Del
  nsrca - 473

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: calling complete for new takeoff

> 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.
>
> 

=================================================
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.