[NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
Budd Engineering
jerry at buddengineering.com
Tue Mar 3 09:47:27 AKST 2009
Ok, that makes sense. Sounds like we should consider dropping the
scoring of TO's & L's in Masters to save time since Masters always
runs long at our contests?
Hey to RVP! - What's the over/under on how long this thread will run?
I figure if we can get Keith H. involved we can keep it going for a
week or more! : )
Jerry
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:07 AM, "J Shu" <jshulman at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Because it takes time to make a perfect take-off and landing, and
> currently the time stops after the half roll after the 45-downs. We
> wouldn't have enough time unless the time limit was raised.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> www.shulmanaviation.com
> www.composite-arf.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Budd Engineering
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
>
>
> Why would FAI have less time for scored TO's/L's than any other
> class? With the exception of Sportsman (and possibly Intermediate),
> FAI flys the shortest sequence. Masters in particular takes way
> longer.
>
>
> Jerry
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 8:25 AM, "J Shu" <jshulman at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm certainly not THE expert... I'm just going by my observations
> of pattern now to pattern when I was a kid. Like Stuart said,
> nothing beat a nose high take-off or landing down the centerline...
> and not many could do it. At least back then the only planes I
> remember running from weren't pattern planes, but scale planes!
>
> I used to always lose bets with my brother for the best take-off
> and landings cause his Ugly Stick was the perfect plane for that. He
> would line it up on the center line and roll down the runway, lift
> the nose just before the judges and break ground just after... 10.
> And then do the same thing for landing and get 10's there too. But
> his loops always ended up in the next county so I won the flying bets.
>
> FAI doesn't need to have scored take-offs and landings... we
> don't have time for it. But I don't see why AMA shouldn't be scored
> (and taught) on take-offs and landings. If you're a good pilot, then
> these should be freebie points for the taking.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> www.shulmanaviation.com
> www.composite-arf.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George W.Kennie
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
>
>
> There you have it from THE expert !!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J Shu
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 6:06 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 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
>
>
> ---
> ---
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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