[NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs

[Budd Engineering]

I've always felt that your reward for making a good takeoff is you get  
to fly your flight, and that your reward for making a good landing was  
you get to fly your next flight.

That and peer pressure is all the incentive one needs.

Jerry


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2009, at 3:06 PM, "J Shu" <jshulman at cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> 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 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, my 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.
>
>
> JM2CW
>
>
> 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 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090302/7fe76504/attachment.html>