calling complete for new takeoff

Sun May 15 10:25:25 AKDT 2005

When the Chair is dictatorial, the result can often be chaotic!

Del K. Rykert wrote:

> 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.

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