[SPAM] Re: calling complete for new takeoff

Sun May 15 04:01:57 AKDT 2005

Thsnk you, Terry.

Bob Pastorello
www.rcaerobats.net
rcaerobob at cox.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Terrenoire" <amad2terry at juno.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Cc: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 5:17 AM
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.