[SPAM] Re: calling complete for new takeoff

Sun May 15 03:11:45 AKDT 2005

The original question was should we, and if so when do we, call TO and
landing?  Difference is FAI doesn't have a rule similar to 14.6 (at least
none that I could find in the 2004 Guide.)

As for how we fly it, 14.7 describes the trim pass and also goes on to say
we can employ "any" simple 180 turn to position the aircraft for landing.
(I'd say that settles the wings banked/level issue...but just for the turn
to final!)

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Terry Terrenoire
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:17 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Cc: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: calling complete for new takeoff

Boy, are we making this tough!

As I remember the "intent" of the rule was to simplify the L/TO. For
years we have been doing this for FAI. What is the diff?
There has never been a problem in FAI, that I am aware of. Wings level,
wings banked, who cares? It is the execution of the proceedure turn, or
elimination of it that is the option of the pilot on take off, and the
lining up for final that also gives the pilot a little leeway.
The SOLE intent of these descriptions was to say that the pilot could not
"hotdog" while taking off, and preparing for a landing. It also
eliminates the opportunity to "practice" a maneuver one more time before
starting the routine.

Havn't we always referred to the pass downwind, after TO, as the "trim
pass"? It is one last straight flight to check everything prior to
starting maueuvers.

My conclusion is: I don't care how the pilot executes the TO/ or landing,
as long as he does not perform extaneous maneuvers!!!

Terry T.

On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:51:39 -0400 "Ed  Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com> writes:
> It seems like the best thing would be for the judging committee to
> make the
> interpretation/recommendation as soon as possible, have it taught
> consistently and hopefully everyone can just apply it consistently
> as a
> standard until the language of the rules catches up.  Consistency in
>
> applying a common interpretation is the most important thing to
> create an
> even playing field for all.
>
> Ed
> ----- 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.
>
>
>
=================================================
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.