[SPAM] Re: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"

Mon May 23 05:34:47 AKDT 2005

Ed,

I agree with you to a point - IMAC is not a good judge of piloting skills
especially in the TO/landing arena.  The pilots that we attract are much
more inclined to be disciplined and I know that we are far ahead of the game
in enforcement of rules, specifically safety, at contests.  The tone starts
at the top and as long as CD's realize that they have the power to enforce
rules then safety violations won't happen as frequently as one thinks.

As for your argument about straight lines not being an aerobatic maneuver...
Don't even go there.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Ed Alt
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 4:23 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"

Derek:
Actually, there is a legion of IMAC pilots who can't takeoff or land without
threatening the safety of of others, mainly the guys at the other
pilot/judging station.  I have regularly seen close calls and dangerous
displays of model operation at IMAC contests during TO/landing.  You have to
recognize something about the hobby these days.  There is a alot of sex
appeal to IMAC because of the big'n'loud gas airplanes.  Everyone wants to
do it and is is quite often the case that the pilots wallet far outweighs
his skill and sometimes his common sense.  Guys now get into the hobby with
ease because of ARFs and easy to use equipment, but they don't always learn
the right way and frequently can't be told how to do it with right or with
safety in mind.  At IMAC contests that I have CD'ed, I made the explicit
point about the runway environment and how it was required that pilots
observe the deadline, including the fact that we would disqualify them if
they violated  it.  Why?  It has proven to be necessary based on
observations of close scrapes at the many dozens of contests I had attended
in the past.  It was the minimum thing I felt that I had to do to be
responsible as a CD.

I would say that Pattern is better off keeping the takeoff/landing score in
some form.  It is in fact a measure of pilot skill to be able to safely
control a model at low airspeed in various wind conditions, while in close
proximity to the ground, obstacles and people. Although it's not an
aerobatic flight mode, neither is a straight line between figures, but we
also measure that.  Should we extend the argument to allow banking left or
right to fix earlier mistakes and just worry about the figures alone, or
should we measure the skill of the pilots to control the model throughout? 
By having some objective way of measuring it and assigning a score as an
incentive to try to do it right, you can only make the situation easier to
manage.  Removing it can only heighten the risk of achieving what IMAC has
currently has bred, i.e., a free-for-all mentality by many pilots.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Koopowitz" <derekkoopowitz at earthlink.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:46 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"

> Jim,
>
> This is what I've proposed...
>
> I don't think TO/landing are maneuvers that should be scored at all. 
> These
> are legacy maneuvers that at one point in time needed to be scored but in
> todays proficiency age I feel that the maneuvers shouldn't even be in the
> sequence, let alone scored.  Scoring well on TO/landing does not a good
> pilot make (grammar purposely phrased that way) and I think precision
> aerobatics should be about aerobatic maneuvers not TO and landing.
>
> I know some incredibly talented race car drivers that can lap a track 
> faster
> than anyone else but have a hard time backing up a car into a parking 
> spot -
> is the point of being a race car driver seeing how well one can park a car
> or how fast one can go around a track?
>
> I would much rather see a great aerobatic flight with a crappy TO/landing
> than see a crappy aerobatic flight with great TO/landing.  To me... call 
> the
> box, scoring starts- fly the sequence, call the exit and scoring stops.
> Period.  We wouldn't have to worry about wording on rules for TO/landing.
>
> So how do we fix the current problem?  I think we really have 3 choices:
>
> 1.  Go back to the old rules and score the TO/landing
> 2.  Spend an inordinate amount of time rewording/rehashing the new rules 
> to
> fix the problem
> 3.  Remove TO/landing completely and not worry about it at all.
>
>
> My preference is for #3 - followed by #1 - both are simple and quick 
> fixes.
> Will #3 happen - probably not - but I guess I can dream/hope.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] 
> On
> Behalf Of Jim Ivey
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:45 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"
>
> Jerry
> I watched some IMAC nats last year and these guys takeoff while the other
> guy is on his final.Some of the planes were just pointed at the runway and
> turned loose across runway. Maybe that's what we need to do. We don't 
> score
> skills at takeoff  or landing anymore.Why not? Did I put a idea in 
> someones
> head?
>
> Jim Ivey
>>
>> From: "Jerry Stebbins" <JAStebbins at worldnet.att.net>
>> Date: 2005/05/22 Sun PM 09:46:36 EDT
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"
>>
>> Maybe so, but someone done writ it wrong and now we got rules that are
>> incomplete, unsafe, and conflicting.
>> Same ol simple "ifn it ain't broke don't fix it" but some thought it
>> was broke, had there own version of a "better way", and rammed it thru.
>> Jerry
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bob Pastorello" <rcaerobob at cox.net>
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 6:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"
>>
>>
>> > The idea was SUPPOSED to be "Takeoff - no aerobatic manuevers,
>> > doesn't
>> break
>> > safety line = 10".  "Landing - finish sequence in whatever
>> > direction, make turns necessary to land, no aerobatic maneuvers, no
>> > breaking the safety
>> line
>> > = 10".....
>> >
>> > Wasn't it ?
>> >
>> > Bob Pastorello
>> > www.rcaerobats.net
>> > rcaerobob at cox.net
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Larry Diamond" <lld613 at psci.net>
>> > To: "NSRCA" <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:57 PM
>> > Subject: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"
>> >
>> >
>> > >I know there has been much discussion on this, but after CDing a
>> > >contest  this weekend, I believe there needs to be a clear
>> > >understanding of what
>> is
>> > > expected in two areas.
>> > >
>> > > 1) When to call "Take-Off complete / Landing commencing". When
>> > > does it need to be called? After exiting the Box for the last
>> > > maneuver for Landing.
>> > > Prior to entering the box for the trim pass on Take-Off. This is
>> > > what makes sense to me from CDing a contest.
>> > >
>> > > 2) Is a Dead-Stick Landing a "Zero Landing"? At the beginning of
>> > > our contest I stated that we would not zero TO / L for calling. So
>> > > we scored all landings. However, if a dead-stick prevents
>> > > completing the prescribed maneuver, then a zero is really the most
>> > > likely result at the NATS. I don't believe this was intended.
>> > >
>> > > The Judging committee should really jump on this and get
>> > > clarification
>> out
>> > > as quickly as possible for the "Official Judge Ruling" People are
>> > > trying to practice this and although seemingly easy on paper, the
>> > > execution of calling and judging properly does get a bit
>> > > confusing...We need to make sure everyone is practicing this
>> > > correctly before the NATS or it will be a potential area of
>> > > concern for the CD's...
>> > >
>> > > Larry Diamond
>> > > NSRCA 3083
>> > >
>> >
>> > =================================================
>> > 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.