<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Clear Day</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"><BASE
href="file://C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Stationery\">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; COLOR: #0033cc; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:008b01c6e6f0$f1b63eb0$6401a8c0@xppro>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>I agree with most of your concerns. I have been trying
to deal with these "issues" since I started in pattern.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>If there is to be an unadvertised change in the rules I
feel the pilots are entitled to a vote and that vote must be
UNANIMOUS!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>The sequence is too short: I think it places way too
much emphasis on each maneuver. Every flight becomes a sudden death scenario. I
abandoned the entry level class way to soon simply because it seemed pointless
to travel to a weekend contest that would take less than a 20 oz tank of
fuel.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>Opponents of a longer sequence feel that the current
length is enough to wring out a beginner. They have a point. A local compromise
is to fly two flights back to back without rotation. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>The only solution I see is to get out of the class as
soon as your nerves will allow and you can safely fly the next class
up.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>TO & LANDINGS: I prefer that one who cannot execute
a reasonable. departure/arrival not fly a contest. It presents a terribly unsafe
environment. I believe the move toward unscored landings is a concession to
aircraft with primitive landing gear. I DO NOT think overly harsh downgrades are
wise.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>Those who choose to fly airplanes with hard, narrow
gear deserve the downgrades that come with them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>The matter of flying airplanes that cannot fly certain
maneuvers is a competitors problem. It is not a rule book problem. You can learn
a lot with a marginal airplane but it won't take you all the way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000>Btw, in my several years of working the Nats I have
come to believe the number 1 disaster in Master's class is the stall turn or
some variant of it!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>John Ferrell W8CCW<BR>"My Competition is not my
enemy"<BR><A href="http://DixieNC.US">http://DixieNC.US</A><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=fhhuber@clearwire.com href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.com">Fred
Huber</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 02, 2006 12:45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] If you don't
score by the rules.... don'tadvertise a rulebook event</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This has been annoying me for a long time....<BR><BR>At Sportsman level
the K=1 takeoff and landing scores can significantly <BR>affect the contest
results.<BR><BR>The all too common practice of changing the rules at the last
minute, to <BR>give Sportsman 0 or 10 on take-off and landing, is
inappropriate. <BR>(Inappropriate to chane the scoring system for any maneuver
at ANY level!) <BR>Of course all the higher level pilots will agree to it...
it does not affect <BR>them. ANY ONE PILOT in Sportsman (or whatever
other class is affected) <BR>contesting the change without it having been
advertised as a rule <BR>modification in advance should prevent the
change.<BR><BR>Yes, the takeoff and landing scoring is something that I think
has affected <BR>my outcome at contests. I flew a plane that had a large
problem with stall <BR>turns... with a 6 being a good result for that
maneuver. Full opposed <BR>aileron wasn't enough to prevent the plane
from rolling when rudder was <BR>applied. But I figured my quality of
takeoff and landing would more than <BR>make up for the poor stall turns, so I
showed up for the contests. And <BR>every contest I showed up at... they
on the spot said "Sportsman gets 0 or <BR>10 takeoff and landing" When
all the marginal takeoffs of the other pilots <BR>in my class got 10's (Many
deserved 5's... or 2's... and I was consistantly <BR>getting
complimented on the smoothness of my takeoffs and landings.) it took <BR>away
the ability for me to make up for my known problem with the stall
turn.<BR><BR>Next contest I go to... if they decide to change the rules on the
spot... I <BR>want my entry fee back. (applies to some other events I have
been to <BR>also...)<BR>If they advertise in advance that the scoring won't be
by rulebook... I <BR>won't show up.<BR><BR>I kept quiet about it (except
discussing it with a couple of local flyers) <BR>when it occured. Too
many much more accompished pilots were in favor of the <BR>change. IT
HAD NO EFFECT ON THEM! They shouldn't have been part of the
<BR>discussion at all.<BR><BR>You want to change a rule that affects only one
class at the pilots' meeting <BR>before the first flight... ANY ONE PILOT in
that class opposing the change <BR>prevents it. And pilots in other
classes have no vote.<BR><BR>If the wind is too much for the pilot to think he
wants to risk getting a <BR>bad score on takeoff and landing... maybe its too
much wind for that pilot <BR>to bother making a takeoff. All of the
other pilots in the class will be <BR>dealing with the same wind. It has
just as much chance of preventing them <BR>from getting a 10.<BR><BR>Any
contest that decides to give Sportsman 0 or 10 for takeoff or landing
<BR>should list it as non-rulebook in advance. If you are going to do
the <BR>2-passes through the sequence without the full stop landing and
another <BR>takeoff... you need to advertise that too.<BR><BR>I oppose the
flying of 2 "flights" of Sportsman with one takeoff and one
<BR>landing... The takeoff and landing are scored maneuvers, suppposed
to be <BR>able to get a score other than 0 or 10, therefore cutting half of
the <BR>opportunities to do well or poorly on them is changing the scoring vs
the <BR>rulebook. (see above... I moved this paragraph due to changes in
the below <BR>from the original version)<BR><BR>Also... the Sportsman sequence
is relatively short for a reason. This is an <BR>introductory
class. The contestants are not used to competing... not used <BR>to
getting judged. They need the ability to do one competition round... go
<BR>back and talk with others about what they did right, what they did wrong
and <BR>how to improve. They also need a bit of timne to RELAX between
the scored <BR>flights.<BR><BR>Considering how nervous some people are in
thier early competition rounds... <BR>its a wonder to me that a first time
Sportsman level competitor ends up with <BR>thier airplane in the air by the
end of a second sequence within one flight.<BR><BR>The first contest someone
flys in, they typically fly too close in, and <BR>because of this ALL
maneuvers are extremely rushed. By the end of the <BR>flight some
contestants are so frazzled that they have severe problems doing <BR>the
double-immelman AT ALL. Then you want them to immedately turn around
<BR>and run the sequence again? Why not just tell them to land at the
judges <BR>feet so the judges can stomp on the model?<BR><BR>Thats not a
formula to promote more participation... its a formula to scare <BR>off
beginners. If the pilot is ready to run the sequence twice in a row FOR
<BR>THE JUDGES.. they are probably ready to start working on
Inermediate.<BR><BR>Most people I have seen move up from Sportsman, its been
due to seeking the <BR>higher challenge of Intermediate... not due to getting
the points forcing <BR>the move up. "Sandbagging" Sportsman is
rare.<BR><BR>Also... it is justifiable for someone competing at Sportsman to
set up thier <BR>plane for one round flight durration. If they average 4
minutes to do a <BR>round... and put in a tank which gives 6 minute fuel
supply, then the <BR>2-rounds in one flight is a guaranteed dead-stick before
completion of the <BR>second round. Do you force Master's level pilots
to carry enough fuel for 2 <BR>passes through the sequence? Would they
tollerate that?<BR><BR>Forcing a competitor to carry the DEAD WEIGHT of the
fuel for a second round <BR>through the first round is inappropriate. At
Sportsman level... the type <BR>models which are competitive include models
which would have severe CG <BR>change with the fuel depletion...<BR><BR>If you
think a Sportsman competitor needs to be able to run 2 times through <BR>the
sequence nonstop, you probably also think everyone needs to buy a $3000
<BR>plane, capable of flying the Masters sequence, in order to try out
<BR>Sportsman. Its totaly unnecessary, inappropriate and shuts out
beginners.<BR><BR>FHH <BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>