[NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs

Jon Lowe jonlowe at aol.com
Mon Mar 2 14:26:24 AKST 2009


Amen.  I guess no one remembers the mess we had a couple of years ago 
with 0 or 10 takeoffs and landings.  Suddenly, everyone forgot how to 
do it safely.  And I disagree that it is not an aerobatic manuever.  
Very hard to do perfectly, but good ones are beautiful.  Is straight 
and level flight "aerobatic"?  We judge it in every class.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: J Shu <jshulman at cfl.rr.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs














I'd much rather see take-offs and landings
be judged. What's the incentive of having a pilot learn how to learn a
proper (and safe) take-off and landing if there is no 10 to shoot for? 
And not a
0 or 10, but scored. Just because it wouldn't be scored doesn't make a 
pilot try
and make a safe take-off or landing.



Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com





----- Original Message -----


From:
  Tim
  Taylor


To: General pattern discussion



Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:53
PM


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings
  and Takeoffs














I agree, TO's and Landings shouldn't be judged. Add one turn around
         and center maneuver to 
the classes that score them. Exit the 
box down
        wind then they can make a 180 to landing.


Tim

--- On Mon, 3/2/09, George W.Kennie <geobet4 at verizon.net>
        wrote:



From:
          George W.Kennie <geobet4 at verizon.net>
Subject:
          Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
To: "General pattern
          discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday,
          March 2, 2009, 4:44 PM







I think that dropping the scoring
          of  TOs and LGs with the intent of reducing risk will be only
           minimally effective. There are always going to be individuals 
who
          will experience difficulty with crossing winds, turbulance,
           ineptitude, whatever, no matter how many times they go 
around. I can
          think of individuals who would include me in the group.


 


G. 


 


 


 


 




----- Original Message -----


From: J N Hiller


To: bob at toprudder.com ; General pattern discussion


Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009
            3:13 PM


Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
            Landings and Takeoffs








You make a good argument
20            for dropping takeoff and landing scoring. I have aborted 
landings
            more than once.



Jim










-----Original
          Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
           [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of 
Bob
          Richards
Sent:
          Monday, March 02, 2009 10:28 AM
To: General pattern
          discussion
Subject:
          Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs



















I'll
                 say it here, JMHO. I personally don't think takeoffs 
and
                 landings should be judged. These are the maneuvers that 
put the
                 plane closest to the pilots/judges/spectators. I've 
seen some
                bad takeoffs and landing approaches pushed to dangerous
                 situations when they would probably have been aborted 
had they
                 not been scored maneuvers. At the very least, the 
airplane is at
                 risk. At the most, people are at risk. I've had one 
plane fly
                 behind my head at the Nats (between myself,20my caller, 
and the
                 judges) during a landing when the plane got away from 
the pilot
                 during one such occurance. I've also seen a plane slam 
into a
                 person in the pits at full throttle, just after lifting 
off the
                 ground, when the plane first veered away from the pits 
and the
                 pilot forced the takeoff by kicking rudder to get it 
back on the
                 runway. At no point did he back off the throttle. In 
most
                 situations such as this, anyone would have aborted and 
started
                 over, but because they are being judged they keep on 
pushing a
                bad situation.











And,
                 no, niether situation involved someone in the Sportsman 
or
                 Intermediate classes. These were both contestants that 
had flown
                pattern for several years.











I
                thank god they don't judge takeoffs and landings in
                IMAC.











JM2CW0D











Bob
                R.







---
                On Mon, 3/2/09, George
                W.Kennie <geobet4 at verizon.net>
                wrote:









I don't feel the same way as John on the
                 landing maneuver being relegated to a non-skill 
element.





 



All
                 aerobatic maneuvers that we perform competitively 
require that
                 we demonstrate to a judge that we have developed some 
precise
                 degree of control over the airframe under our command. 
To
                 achieve this control further requires intense 
concentration on
                 the part of the pilot. I would offer that there are 
many
                 airborne maneuvers where the degree of concentration 
required by
                 the pilot are significantly lower than that required to 
bring
                 the airframe back into contact with terra firma and 
demonstrate
                 complete and confident control. This is a skill that is 
worthy
            20   of reward in my viewpoint.










G. 












































_______________________________________________
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.
We are a community of 6
        million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 25177 of my spam
        emails to date.
The Professional version does not have this
        message.




_______________________________________________
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







_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion







More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list