[NSRCA-discussion] Landing - Rules Interpretation ???

Ronald Van Putte vanputter at gmail.com
Mon Aug 7 11:17:12 AKDT 2017 

That’s interesting.  I remembered the first part about after takeoff, but couldn’t remember exactly what it said.

I did not remember the second part about before landing.

Ron

> On Aug 7, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Rule is still there (no hotdogging) between takeoff and entry into box and box exit to landing.  
> 
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 12:07:39 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landing - Rules Interpretation ???
>  
> Hmmmm.  No 360 degree turn on landing approach.  What about a loop on landing approach?  
> 
> It reminds me of a rule that was inserted, which basically prohibits aerobatic maneuvers after takeoff and before entering the box.  We used to call it Kimbro’s rule.
> 
> Ron
> 
>> On Aug 7, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Wow way via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> I would probably zero the landing once the plane turns base to final unless there was some good reason for the pilot to abort the landing other than a bad approach. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Aug 7, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> It's less about loopholes, and more about enforcing intent vs the letter of the regulation.  A pretty common American focus in our legal system.  
>>> 
>>> A big part simply depends on whether you're advocating for or against the pilot.    For example, doing a half roll rather than 2of 4pt.   The rule book says that missing a hesitation is a five point downgrade. If you're giving the pilot the benefit of the doubt.  If not, many will zero that as having performed the wrong maneuver. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 7, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Matthew Finley via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Seems to me like there are multiple loopholes, and variances on rules given the day, or how many birds chirped that morning 
>>>> 
>>>> My two cents 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Matthew E Finley
>>>> Q.C.I Technical Assistant
>>>> 248-794-8487 mobile 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>>>> Date: 8/7/17 11:57 AM (GMT-05:00)
>>>> To: "S. McNickle" <nelson_jett at comcast.net <mailto:nelson_jett at comcast.net>>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>, Don Ramsey <donramsey at gmail.com <mailto:donramsey at gmail.com>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landing - Rules Interpretation ???
>>>> 
>>>> I agree...
>>>> 
>>>> as a side note... It appears to be a loophole and you have a valid point as well
>>>> 
>>>> Somewhere in between is a good balance and perhaps a rule change to clarify.
>>>> 
>>>> As written, it shouldn't be downgraded, however, it should not be an unlimited approach attempts.
>>>> 
>>>> Let's work together for a rule change submission to close this loophole.
>>>> 
>>>> LD
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: "S. McNickle" <nelson_jett at comcast.net <mailto:nelson_jett at comcast.net>>
>>>> Date: 8/7/17 10:37 AM (GMT-06:00)
>>>> To: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com <mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com>>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>, Don Ramsey <donramsey at gmail.com <mailto:donramsey at gmail.com>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landing - Rules Interpretation ???
>>>> 
>>>> Not taking it personally, Larry, it's all cool.
>>>> 
>>>> Just want to know what the rule is for future reference.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>>> On August 7, 2017 at 10:25 AM Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com <mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Scott my friend, it was not my intent to personalize this... I was very careful in my wording and presentation to prevent that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Again, I did protest per the regulations. A decision was made, and I absolutely respected and accepted it. AND I still love you man !!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now the question is, what is the correct interpretation?
>>>>> 
>>>>> To imply a limit would mean adding opinion to the rule book. As the rule is written, there is no limit. However, in reality do we really think a pilot will abuse this interpretation? I don't think so, and it could have saved some planes, especially in the lower classes; and, help retain pilots just starting out. Also keep in mind the wind was very challenging about 15 degrees of crosswind blowing 10 to 15 and gusting to ???
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, since it is now out there...
>>>>> 
>>>>> The round was a throw away round. I knew it before I saw the scores as I zeroed a maneuver already. Even if I knew it would be a zero, I still would have done the same thing. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the landing was scored a 10 by both judges, It was still my lowest raw score and calculating the normalized score, it would have been the lowest of 6 rounds. The call didn't change the outcome of the round or the results of the contest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> With that said, I am not upset. I have been coached at one time to do exactly that, albeit, many moons ago.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So now, if I was correct, how many damaged planes could be saved by Sportsman and Intermediate by recognizing a bad approach without penalty vs deciding any score is better than a zero, and break out the gear or worse. This is my reasoning for asking on this forum.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The key is:
>>>>> 1) Plane does not drop below 2 meters at anytime on the approach.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) The pilot never calls the landing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3) No part of the plane crosses the center line .
>>>>> 
>>>>> LD
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>>>> 
>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> From: "S. McNickle via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>>>>> Date: 8/7/17 8:28 AM (GMT-06:00)
>>>>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>, Don Ramsey <donramsey at gmail.com <mailto:donramsey at gmail.com>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Landing - Rules Interpretation ???
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does this mean a pilot is entitled to unlimited landing approaches so long as he does not cross the center line or drop below two meters?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was one of the judges in Larry's original question.  He had been instructed to orbit for a short while due to an aircraft on the runway, was then cleared to land and did his go-around without crossing the center line on his own.  Was he allowed to do this as many times as he wanted?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On August 7, 2017 at 7:59 AM Don Ramsey via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Score the landing normally.  The pilot has not made any errors that result in downgrade of the landing using the Competition Regs. The model does not pass center more than twice, it is not in the landing maneuver when the turn was executed because it is above 2 meters, and it did not pass behind the judges.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Another situation is model is on a low long approach and goes below 2 meters then pops up higher, flies some distance, then the pilot calls landing.  I start scoring where the model first goes below 2 meters not when the pilots makes his landing call.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 10:04 PM
>>>>>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>>>>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Landing - Rules Interpretation ???
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Review the AMA Pattern Rules as follows and then judge the scenario as a “Zero” or “Scored Landing when called by the pilot”:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 14. Flight pattern and maneuvering area (pg 17, AMA Radio Control Aerobatics 2016-2017)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 14.1.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Each time the model passes in front of the judges, a maneuver must be executed, except after takeoff and before landing, where in each case a maximum of two (2) passes may be made. In the maneuver lists that follow (U) and (D) denote mandatory maneuver orientation (Upwind –Downwind). This orientation or Direction of Flight shall be determined by the direction of takeoff. The direction is the contestant’s choice and shall be announced to the judges prior to takeoff. In all classes, entry into the maneuvering area for the first maneuver after takeoff shall be in the same direction as takeoff.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 14.1.1.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The contestant or helper may request a different landing direction to that used for takeoff without penalty to avoid downwind landings. This option may only be used if the wind direction changes after the takeoff has started. If this option is used, a maximum of two (2) passes in front of the judges may be used to position the model for landing. However, any turns used for positioning the aircraft may not be made at center.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 14.3.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If an illegal pass (crossing a line perpendicular to and centered on the judges) is made, the maneuver which should have been executed shall be scored zero (0).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Scenario
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On a final approach for landing, the pilot evaluates the glide path is not correct and makes a 180 degree turn away from the flight line to a downwind  leg to restart the landing approach.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>                 Consideration:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1)The pilot has not called the landing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2) The pilot announces the aborted approach prior to the 180 degree turn to downwind leg.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3) The plane never goes below 2m, roughly about 5+ meters when the approach was aborted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4) The 180 degree turn is completed without crossing the centerline.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 5) Pilot calls landing on the next pass (approach) and lands the plane successfully.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Do you: (please explain your conclusion and reference the AMA rule supporting it)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A)    Zero the landing because the pilot only gets one shot at the approach once centerline is crossed on the downwind leg.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> B)    Score the landing made on the second pass  (approach) as a normal landing with no downgrades for the aborted approach.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> C)    Other.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> LD
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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/20170807/0325b058/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list