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

Mon May 23 05:52:32 AKDT 2005

 Good points Ed, I think we all can get lax with out the scored TO/
landing. I didn't know that my asking a question from a sportsman pilot
would start such a long thread but looks like it was needed.
 Steve Maxwell

> [Original Message]
> From: Ed  Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Date: 5/23/2005 6:22:37 AM
> 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.