[NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Rules interpretation

[vellum2 at bellsouth.net]

Jon et al,
Regarding the stall turn, the 2005 description does not include the 3/4 up, 3/4 down that I could find.  I asked the question because the description for the 1 1/4 up, 3/4 down clearly states "In the flight direction" for the stall.  The 1/4 up, 1/4 down just says "180 degree turn".  Either way, I just need to see it in writing so I can judge it correctly from now on.  Incidently, I scored the stall for either direction given the lack of definitive information at the time.

Regarding the Split "S":  Since description says split "S", not 2 of 4 with a half loop, the pull must be immediately after the 2nd point.

Landing zone:  Boy, how fun was that!  Steve was clear at the meeting with how we were judging it at Tangerine, so as far as that contest goes, it should be a dead issue.  I can't imagine it would have changed the standings.  It really added a few more bounces to the landings though!  Now we are all clear for the next contest.  No harm , no foul.

Maybe this means we see the return of the trike gear?

One other fun topic came up though.  Judging.

Many of the new sequences can become a little hectic to follow along.  It was suggested that we make scribes mandatory for at least FAI and Masters and strongly suggested for the other classes.  I know there has been a lot of discussion on this in the past, but I am all for it.  It's hard enough to keep your eyes on the plane the whole time when you are fresh and don't need a pee break, but add to it being tired after 15 pilots in the hot sun (or cold rain!), having to figure out the next maneuver (especially if it is done slightly incorrectly), then adding a momentary glance down to scribble a score.  Spells disaster I tell you!  I have talked to RVP about his thought of having a pad and no scribe, this works well too, but only if you have the sequence committed to memory.  Having a helper there will increase consistency in judging IMHO.

Joe Walker
> 
> From: JonLowe at aol.com
> Date: 2006/12/11 Mon AM 11:48:19 EST
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Rules interpretation
> 
> All,
> We flew the 2007 sequences at the Tangerine this past weekend in Apopka.  A 
> couple of confusing things need some interpretation.
> 
> In the Advanced sequence, the first manuever after takeoff is the stall turn 
> with 3/4 rolls up and down, on center.  Some interpreted this a meaning that 
> you could stall either in direction of flight, or opposite to direction of 
> flight, but still exit after the roll in the direction of flight (in other words, 
> the stall turn portion could be in either direction).  The rule proposal and 
> the discription is not clear on this for the Advanced sequence, at least that I 
> could find.
> 
> In the intermediate sequence, the split s with a 2 of 4:  Some interpreted 
> this to mean that since there was a two of four, that you should pause after the 
> second point before pulling, the same length of time as you paused for the 
> knife edge point.  Others interpreted the rule as pulling as soon as you reached 
> the second point, as in a standard split s.  I'd interpret it the second way 
> (standard split s) , and pull immediately, as the rule proposal says: "Split S 
> with 2/4pt roll.  Model performs the same elements as the Split ?S? except 
> the model performs a 2 of 4 point roll in place of the ½ roll"
> 
> There was some confusion over landing in or out of the 30 meter zone.  Some 
> interpreted the rule as meaning that anywhere out of the zone was a zero.  The 
> rule pretty clearly states "If the touchdown is within the runway but not in 
> the landing zone it should be downgraded proportionate to the distance outside 
> the landing zone. "  The CD has an option :  "The Contest Director may 
> designate any landing zone appropriate to the field if safety considerations 
> dictate."  Since this was new to many of us, we should have had more discussion at the 
> pilots meeting on this in 20-20 hindsight.  The CD made a comment about 
> landing out of the zone during the pilots meeting, but I didn't interpret that as a 
> mandatory zero out of the 30m zone.  Others did.  There was no safety 
> consideration involved, so the rule exception for the CD really didn't apply.   I'd 
> highly recommend detailed discussion on this at early contest pilots meetings, 
> especially before judging seminars are held.
> 
> Just a couple of bugs to get clarified, but no huge deal.  We just need to 
> get consistent and all judging the same way.
> 
> Jon Lowe
> 
>