[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