[NSRCA-discussion] 2009-2010 Rules proposals

[george w. kennie]

I'll have to depart from the radii thing a little, but I have a judging 
question.

One of the guys at my field asked me this question last nite and I gave him 
MY answer, but I am not sure I was correct so enlighten me guys.

The maneuver is the Double Stall Turn @ center.  The wind is blowing 30 mph 
straight down the runway. The pilot enters the box , flies straight and 
level to the pole and pulls the correct amount of elevtor so that, in spite 
of the fact that the fuse is at a 30 degree angle to the flight path, the 
C.G. is tracing a perfect vertical upline. The power is lowered sufficiently 
to enable the stall and just at the point where the upward momentum stops 
and rotation commences, the plane is blown back directly over the pole. 
Rotation completes and down elev applied so that the downline stays on the 
pole and the pull for the other half of the maneuver is not quiite tight 
enough so that additional ground is lost and the next upline although wind 
compensated is now making the maneuver off-center by 1/2. On the next 
rotation the same thing happens again and the effect results in the total 
maneuver being 3/4 off-center with recovery being on the correct altitude 
line.

In responce, I indicated that I was not at all sure what the correct reward 
would be, but I told him that if I was in the chair I would probably end up 
giving him a 6 point deduction, i.e., 2 for each quarter, but I also advised 
that I wasn't sure that there wasn't something in the book to make any 
allowance like the spin entry weathervaning stuff.

I need some help on this one guys, so hit me.

Georgie





----- Original Message ----- 
From: <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2009-2010 Rules proposals


>I can answer for our area.  The concerns were two fold.
>
> 1) It makes one radius significantly more important than the rest.  A 
> mistake at the beginning of a maneuver would be far more penalizing than a 
> mistake at the end. Seemed to many to be inconsistent with how we normally 
> judge a maneuver.
> 2) Difficult to judge/ hard to properly enforce. Trying to evaluate if the 
> last radius of a horizontal 8 (the maneuver typical used when discussing 
> this) matches the first after seeing 6 other corners of variuos sizes is 
> next to impossible.
>
> Most had other ideas for possible solutions, and all would like to see the 
> guideline changed, but none felt this was better or preferable to what is 
> currently in place.
>
> Last comment is that feedback, at least in my district (3) was limited at 
> best.  I made an effort to ask people, but many didn't have an opinion. 
> "Tell me the rules and I'll follow them" was the general attitude. Which 
> is one of the reasons I'm an advocate of stable rules.
> The feedback I did get was all neutral or negative. There was no one that 
> seemed to champion this rule change in our area.
> -Mark
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Derek Koopowitz" <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
>
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:32:01
> To: General pattern discussion<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2009-2010 Rules proposals
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 


-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 11054 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len