[NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
John Fuqua
johnfuqua at embarqmail.com
Tue Mar 3 13:52:06 AKST 2009
If we had 2 FAI classes one for you and one for me I might consider it.
Maybe we need 2 masters classes one that flies the FAI sequence and one that
fliers an AMA sequence.
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J Shu
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 12:54 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
See I was thinking that a few Masters pilots should move up to FAI and help
grow FAI...lol.
Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Budd Engineering" <jerry at buddengineering.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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