[NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
billglaze
billglaze at bellsouth.net
Mon Mar 2 15:52:36 AKST 2009
Before I went with the Airline, I did a lot of Flight Instructing. The
hardest thing to teach a student? It wasn't landings; it was to fly
straight and level, same altitude, airspeed and heading.
Bill Glaze
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Lowe" <jonlowe at aol.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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