<DIV>Excellant point.<BR><BR><B><I>Ed Alt <ed_alt@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Derek:<BR>Actually, there is a legion of IMAC pilots who can't takeoff or land without <BR>threatening the safety of of others, mainly the guys at the other <BR>pilot/judging station. I have regularly seen close calls and dangerous <BR>displays of model operation at IMAC contests during TO/landing. You have to <BR>recognize something about the hobby these days. There is a alot of sex <BR>appeal to IMAC because of the big'n'loud gas airplanes. Everyone wants to <BR>do it and is is quite often the case that the pilots wallet far outweighs <BR>his skill and sometimes his common sense. Guys now get into the hobby with <BR>ease because of ARFs and easy to use equipment, but they don't always learn <BR>the right way and frequently can't be told how to do it with right or with <BR>safety in mind. At IMAC contests that I have CD'ed, I made the explicit <BR>point about the runway environment
and how it was required that pilots <BR>observe the deadline, including the fact that we would disqualify them if <BR>they violated it. Why? It has proven to be necessary based on <BR>observations of close scrapes at the many dozens of contests I had attended <BR>in the past. It was the minimum thing I felt that I had to do to be <BR>responsible as a CD.<BR><BR>I would say that Pattern is better off keeping the takeoff/landing score in <BR>some form. It is in fact a measure of pilot skill to be able to safely <BR>control a model at low airspeed in various wind conditions, while in close <BR>proximity to the ground, obstacles and people. Although it's not an <BR>aerobatic flight mode, neither is a straight line between figures, but we <BR>also measure that. Should we extend the argument to allow banking left or <BR>right to fix earlier mistakes and just worry about the figures alone, or <BR>should we measure the skill of the pilots to control the model throughout? <BR>By having some
objective way of measuring it and assigning a score as an <BR>incentive to try to do it right, you can only make the situation easier to <BR>manage. Removing it can only heighten the risk of achieving what IMAC has <BR>currently has bred, i.e., a free-for-all mentality by many pilots.<BR><BR>Ed<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Derek Koopowitz" <DEREKKOOPOWITZ@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 10:46 PM<BR>Subject: RE: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"<BR><BR><BR>> Jim,<BR>><BR>> This is what I've proposed...<BR>><BR>> I don't think TO/landing are maneuvers that should be scored at all. <BR>> These<BR>> are legacy maneuvers that at one point in time needed to be scored but in<BR>> todays proficiency age I feel that the maneuvers shouldn't even be in the<BR>> sequence, let alone scored. Scoring well on TO/landing does not a good<BR>> pilot make (grammar purposely phrased that way)
and I think precision<BR>> aerobatics should be about aerobatic maneuvers not TO and landing.<BR>><BR>> I know some incredibly talented race car drivers that can lap a track <BR>> faster<BR>> than anyone else but have a hard time backing up a car into a parking <BR>> spot -<BR>> is the point of being a race car driver seeing how well one can park a car<BR>> or how fast one can go around a track?<BR>><BR>> I would much rather see a great aerobatic flight with a crappy TO/landing<BR>> than see a crappy aerobatic flight with great TO/landing. To me... call <BR>> the<BR>> box, scoring starts- fly the sequence, call the exit and scoring stops.<BR>> Period. We wouldn't have to worry about wording on rules for TO/landing.<BR>><BR>> So how do we fix the current problem? I think we really have 3 choices:<BR>><BR>> 1. Go back to the old rules and score the TO/landing<BR>> 2. Spend an inordinate amount of time rewording/rehashing the new
rules <BR>> to<BR>> fix the problem<BR>> 3. Remove TO/landing completely and not worry about it at all.<BR>><BR>><BR>> My preference is for #3 - followed by #1 - both are simple and quick <BR>> fixes.<BR>> Will #3 happen - probably not - but I guess I can dream/hope.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org] <BR>> On<BR>> Behalf Of Jim Ivey<BR>> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:45 PM<BR>> To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>> Subject: Re: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"<BR>><BR>> Jerry<BR>> I watched some IMAC nats last year and these guys takeoff while the other<BR>> guy is on his final.Some of the planes were just pointed at the runway and<BR>> turned loose across runway. Maybe that's what we need to do. We don't <BR>> score<BR>> skills at takeoff or landing anymore.Why not? Did I put a idea in <BR>> someones<BR>>
head?<BR>><BR>> Jim Ivey<BR>>><BR>>> From: "Jerry Stebbins" <JASTEBBINS@WORLDNET.ATT.NET><BR>>> Date: 2005/05/22 Sun PM 09:46:36 EDT<BR>>> To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>>> Subject: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"<BR>>><BR>>> Maybe so, but someone done writ it wrong and now we got rules that are<BR>>> incomplete, unsafe, and conflicting.<BR>>> Same ol simple "ifn it ain't broke don't fix it" but some thought it<BR>>> was broke, had there own version of a "better way", and rammed it thru.<BR>>> Jerry<BR>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>>> From: "Bob Pastorello" <RCAEROBOB@COX.NET><BR>>> To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>>> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 6:26 PM<BR>>> Subject: Re: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> > The idea was SUPPOSED to be "Takeoff - no aerobatic manuevers,<BR>>> > doesn't<BR>>>
break<BR>>> > safety line = 10". "Landing - finish sequence in whatever<BR>>> > direction, make turns necessary to land, no aerobatic maneuvers, no<BR>>> > breaking the safety<BR>>> line<BR>>> > = 10".....<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Wasn't it ?<BR>>> ><BR>>> > Bob Pastorello<BR>>> > www.rcaerobats.net<BR>>> > rcaerobob@cox.net<BR>>> > ----- Original Message -----<BR>>> > From: "Larry Diamond" <LLD613@PSCI.NET><BR>>> > To: "NSRCA" <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>>> > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:57 PM<BR>>> > Subject: Take Off & Landing "Reality of a Contest"<BR>>> ><BR>>> ><BR>>> > >I know there has been much discussion on this, but after CDing a<BR>>> > >contest this weekend, I believe there needs to be a clear<BR>>> > >understanding of what<BR>>> is<BR>>> > > expected in two
areas.<BR>>> > ><BR>>> > > 1) When to call "Take-Off complete / Landing commencing". When<BR>>> > > does it need to be called? After exiting the Box for the last<BR>>> > > maneuver for Landing.<BR>>> > > Prior to entering the box for the trim pass on Take-Off. This is<BR>>> > > what makes sense to me from CDing a contest.<BR>>> > ><BR>>> > > 2) Is a Dead-Stick Landing a "Zero Landing"? At the beginning of<BR>>> > > our contest I stated that we would not zero TO / L for calling. So<BR>>> > > we scored all landings. However, if a dead-stick prevents<BR>>> > > completing the prescribed maneuver, then a zero is really the most<BR>>> > > likely result at the NATS. I don't believe this was intended.<BR>>> > ><BR>>> > > The Judging committee should really jump on this and get<BR>>> > > clarification<BR>>>
out<BR>>> > > as quickly as possible for the "Official Judge Ruling" People are<BR>>> > > trying to practice this and although seemingly easy on paper, the<BR>>> > > execution of calling and judging properly does get a bit<BR>>> > > confusing...We need to make sure everyone is practicing this<BR>>> > > correctly before the NATS or it will be a potential area of<BR>>> > > concern for the CD's...<BR>>> > ><BR>>> > > Larry Diamond<BR>>> > > NSRCA 3083<BR>>> > ><BR>>> ><BR>>> > =================================================<BR>>> > To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>>> > http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>>> > To be removed from this list, go to<BR>>> > http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>>> > and follow the instructions.<BR>>> ><BR>>> > List
members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from<BR>>> > the<BR>>> list.<BR>>> ><BR>>> ><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> =================================================<BR>>> To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>>> To be removed from this list, go to<BR>>> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>>> and follow the instructions.<BR>>><BR>>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the<BR>> list.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR>> =================================================<BR>> To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>> and follow the instructions.<BR>><BR>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
<BR>> list.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> =================================================<BR>> To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>> and follow the instructions.<BR>><BR>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the <BR>> list.<BR>><BR>> <BR>=================================================<BR>To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>and follow the instructions.<BR><BR>List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>