calling complete for new takeoff

Sun May 15 10:31:40 AKDT 2005

 What do you mean by that comment, George?

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of George Kennie
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:26 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: calling complete for new takeoff

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.

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