[NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
George W.Kennie
geobet4 at verizon.net
Tue Mar 3 12:56:21 AKST 2009
Boy Bill,
I know that a lot of guys are probably fed up with this thread, but I have really enjoyed it. What fantastic ENTERTAINMENT !!!!!!! I think some of these people would break your TV if they caught you watching Saturday Nite Live.
And Jim, You've come forward with more due diligence than I.
What fun there is to be had here !
Great stuff everybody,
Georgie
----- Original Message -----
From: billglaze
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
Any time, Georgie, any time!<G> Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: George W.Kennie
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
I love that revocation clause, Bill.
I'm going to file that away for future application, If it's O.K.
----- Original Message -----
From: billglaze
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging Questions
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
To: General pattern discussion
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
To: 'General pattern discussion'
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
To: Discussion List
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
To: nsrca- discussion
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.
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.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090303/299960a8/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list