[NSRCA-discussion] Landings and Takeoffs
Chad Northeast
chad at f3acanada.org
Tue Mar 3 18:03:13 AKST 2009
Here is a different view (for FAI anyway, which the rules are really
about the WC's)
There have been incidences at past Worlds of damaged aircraft on landing
because of extreme weather conditions that change during the flight...I
was in the ready box when a pilot pretty much landed on us standing
there. With the current changes it gives the pilots options to go
around and change direction if required without penalty.
IMO this was a much needed safety measure....understand that not all
pilots at the WC are Jason's :-) Some are there who have barely flown FAI.
Chad
Stuart Chale wrote:
> You (FAI) still have to take off and land. How much longer would it
> take to make a pretty take off and landing instead of what you do
> now. I suspect the landing would be the same as you still have to
> slow down to landing speed :) The takeoff may take what 3 or 4
> seconds more to fly smoothly to 2 meters before turning somewhere?
> Keep the time limit as it is on the flying portion and just score the
> takeoff and landings 1 to 10.
> Done :)
>
> J Shu 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 <http://www.shulmanaviation.com>
>> www.composite-arf.com <http://www.composite-arf.com>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Budd Engineering <mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com>
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> *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
>> <mailto: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 <http://www.shulmanaviation.com>
>>> www.composite-arf.com <http://www.composite-arf.com>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* George W.Kennie <mailto:geobet4 at verizon.net>
>>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *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 <mailto:jshulman at cfl.rr.com>
>>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *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 <http://www.shulmanaviation.com>
>>> www.composite-arf.com <http://www.composite-arf.com>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Tim Taylor <mailto:timsautopro at yahoo.com>
>>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *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
>>> <mailto:geobet4 at verizon.net>>/* wrote:
>>>
>>> From: George W.Kennie <geobet4 at verizon.net
>>> <mailto:geobet4 at verizon.net>>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landings and
>>> Takeoffs
>>> To: "General pattern discussion"
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>>> *To:* bob at toprudder.com
>>> <mailto:bob at toprudder.com> ; General pattern
>>> discussion
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> *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>
>>> [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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto: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
--
Chad
www.chadnortheast.ca
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list