[NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions

Tue Mar 3 11:48:33 AKST 2009

thuu, thuuu, thuuu-uu-thuuu-thhhhuuuuu. . . .

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> Keith's tongue was so far in his cheek when he wrote that last e-mail, I'm
> afraid he must have hurt himself.
> Ron
>
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:22 AM, billglaze wrote:
>
> Keith:
> With all due respect, (and I have an idea that lots of folks may do it your
> way, occasionally,) for years we have been trying to get around the
> "impression" aspect of judging,  It's hard to do, but that's why, (I
> believe) we have such detailed maneuver descriptions in the rules.  (Again,
> my idea.)  If this impression judging is extended, it could, in theory, be
> used for all judged maneuvers by some folks.  Or so it seems to me.  I
> understand the difficulty, and perhaps impossibility, of absolutely tying
> down each and every little thing.  I doubt, in fact, that it's possible.
> But I feel that we should still try; each attempt brings us a little closer
> to the absolute.
> The above is purely my opinion, and is subject to being revoked without
> notice!<G>
> Bill Glaze
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2009 11:06 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
>
> I would just give a score based on my IMPRESSION of the landing. . . it it
> looks good, then a 9 - 9.5 - or 10 depending on how I felt the pilots flight
> went prior to the landing and other previous flights I have judged.
>
> If anyone presses me afterward, I will just claim the "smooth and graceful"
> clause in the AMA rulebook. . . that covers everything!!!
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:36 AM, billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>  Don:
>> There are times when for one reason or another, the field is unmarked with
>> a landing zone, and the CD announces that the LZ is the entire runway,
>> making the LZ and the LA  the same.  That's what leads to doubt in judging
>> landings.  At least in my case, and, apparently, other folks also.  And,
>> like Georgie, I've also seen the 2 meter requirement mentioned; can't put my
>> finger on it right now, but I've seen it in some official document.
>> Bill Glaze
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Don Ramsey <donramsey at gmail.com>
>> *To:* 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:44 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
>>
>> I just check all the PowerPoint presentations on the website and they all
>> say the same thing.  LANDING AREA: the entire defined runway.  LANDING
>> ZONE is 30 m long and normally the width of the runway BUT not more than 30
>> M wide.
>>
>>
>> Georgie, the landing never has been required to be within 2 meters of
>> center for maximum points.  As long as I was judging chairman (and
>> before) it was 30 meters centered on the judges.  Landing in that area
>> could score max points. (The takeoff should lift off within 2 meters of
>> center for max points).
>>
>>
>> There is a lot of times when the aircraft may stop within 10 meters after
>> landing and there are many times when it may not.  For instance, grass
>> runway with high grass or a smooth cement runway and no wind.  The intent
>> of the rule was to allow max points for either case. I’ve flown in some
>> contests where if you landed in the landing zone (for max points) it was
>> almost impossible to keep the plane from exiting the end of the runway.
>> Solution: land about 10 meters before center, roll 10 meters and be
>> finished, then don’t worry about running off the end.
>>
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *George W.Kennie
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2009 11:23 AM
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
>>
>>
>> # 2 screw-up !!!!   It's not "roll to a stop within 15 meters",  it's 10
>> meters, but the "stop" is still the elementle crux, I think.  If it says "
>> no downgrade if the model rolls to a stop within 10 meters"  doesn't that
>> infer that if the model continues to roll beyond that distance it becomews a
>> downgradeable offence (1/2pt +)?
>>
>>
>> And if it's not a centered maneuver, where'd we come up with the axiom  "
>> for maximum landing points, touchdown should occur < 2 meters either side of
>> the centerline"?  Is that FAI ? Did I make it up? Am I totally losing it?
>> How the heck is anyone expected to keep all this stuff straight?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* John Konneker <jlkonn at hotmail.com>
>>
>> *To:* Discussion List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2009 11:32 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
>>
>>
>> Cut and pasted from the AMA website this morning:
>> *Landing: *The landing maneuver will be scored in half point increments
>> from 10 to 0. The maneuver will start two (2) meters from the ground. The
>> model flares smoothly to a nose high altitude, dissipating flying speed, and
>> then smoothly touches the ground, within the landing zone. The maneuver
>> should be considered *complete once the plane has slowed below flying
>> speed and rolled 10 meters or comes to a stop and no further downgrades
>> shall be applied after that point*.
>> The landing zone shall be marked by lines placed perpendicular across the
>> runway and spaced 30 meters apart. The width of the landing zone is normally
>> the width of the runway but in no case shall exceed 30 meters. *Landing
>> is not a centered maneuver and there is no downgrade for displacement of the
>> touchdown point left or right from center as long as the landing is in the
>> landing zone.* If the touchdown is within the runway but not in the
>> landing zone it should be downgraded proportionate to the distance outside
>> the landing zone. The Contest Director may designate any landing zone
>> appropriate to the field if safety considerations dictate. If the landing
>> zone is anything other than standard it should be thoroughly discussed with
>> the pilots and judges before flying is started and no downgrade shall be
>> applied due to the touchdown in the non-standard landing zone.
>> Emphasis added by me.  This of course for AMA classes.
>> JLK
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> From: geobet4 at verizon.net
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:15:23 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
>>
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>>
>> This is probably inaccurate, but I notice that noone else has responded to
>> your inquiry so just to prove that I have not learned my lesson, here goes.
>>
>>
>> In the landing descriptor it states, " there is no down grade if the model
>> rolls to a stop within 15 meters".   I think the crucial word is STOP !
>> What does this mean to proper execution?   How many times have you seen a
>> plane touch down perfectly within one meter of the center line and then
>> proceed to roll perfectly straight down the center of the runway without a
>> single bounce for a distance of 150 feet?  A little hot maybe, but to most
>> observers, a beautiful landing. In light of the "Stop within 15 meters"
>> stipulation, it would appear that this becomes a downgradeable offence.
>> Sounds, to me, like maybe it's the pilot's responsibility to also control
>> the approach airspeed so that touchdown occurs just above stall speed
>> controlling the rollout distance, but maybe somebody will correct me on
>> this. I think this would also cover stuff like flipovers after the 15 meter
>> rollout.
>>
>>
>> If the pilot performs a landing and meets all the above requirements and
>> then encounters an obstacle, whether that be a hole or a hummock or
>> whatever, I would deem the execution faultless and rule "beyond the pilot's
>> control" and score a 10.  Flipovers usually occur as a result of either the
>> plane being outside the landing zone or equipment malfunction ( stuck wheel
>> e.t.c.) and would require discretionary judgement on the part of the scorer.
>>
>>
>> And yup, I agree, It's got to be a physical impossibility to enter and
>> exit a Split Esse at the same altitude. I think that needs correcting.
>>
>>
>> Of course, all this is my opinionated interpretation of matters and should
>> be so received.
>>
>>
>> G.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
>>
>> *To:* nsrca- discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 01, 2009 4:30 PM
>>
>> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
>>
>>
>> At the risk of starting another downwind turn discussion:
>>
>>
>> I've been reading over the excellent PowerPoint presentation, and I'd like
>> a question answered that I've had for a long time.
>>
>> On landing, if the plane overturns AT ANY TIME is it an automatic zero?
>> I've felt for a long time that it should be, yet I've had people tell me
>> "after 50 ft. landing roll, we've completely lost interest in the
>> airplane."  It can roll anywhere, do anything, and it doesn't affect the
>> score, is their idea.
>>
>> Also, if it TOUCHES DOWN in the landing zone, and then rolls immediately
>> into what awaits, (in some cases, a small canyon) is the landing zeroed?
>> I've been called for doing so once.
>>
>> Secondly, in reading the presentation for Intermediate, it states for the
>> Split S:  A downgrade if the entry and exit are not at the same altitude.
>> Seems to me to be an error that slipped by, but I've been wrong before.
>> (Honest; yes, it's happened!)<G>  I've been known to incorrectly
>> read/interpret also.  Standing by for the more knowledgeable brains on the
>> list!
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Bill Glaze
>>
>> NSRCA 2388
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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<http://www.spamfighter.com/len>
>> .
>> 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
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter<http://www.spamfighter.com/len>
>> .
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Keith Hoard
> Collierville, TN
> khoard at gmail.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090303/0dbd95b9/attachment.html>