[SPAM] Re: 2007 Advanced Patterns

[Grow Pattern]

Dean,
         I'd counter what you said with this. I can see no point in doing a maneuver that is never done in any of the classes above or where variants of it are not done. Nor maneuvers that are unsuitable for turnaround schedules.

Six years ago the three rolls were turned into two rolls because whole families of two or partial roll variants exist. Two rolls build positioning skills and maneuver control. Three rolls always had to be the last maneuver. Very little chance of that having a turnaround after it!

Three loops never happen, but two loops do. Two are enough to develop loop/rudder control skills. I rarely see a 401 pilot running out of "gas" as they often did with three loops.

Regards,

Eric.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dean Pappas 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 9:58 AM
  Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: 2007 Advanced Patterns


  Hi Tom,
  I especially agree with the point you make about the teaching of the "multiples" maneuvers. The third roll is the one that demonstrates continued control!
  The third loop adds time (which may have been the problem) but it adds exposure! Exposure time, in a maneuver, is a large part of the difficulty (as opposed to complexity) and this is moreso in the wind.
  Regards,
      Dean

  Dean Pappas 
  Sr. Design Engineer 
  Kodeos Communications 
  111 Corporate Blvd. 
  South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
  (908) 222-7817 phone 
  (908) 222-2392 fax 
  d.pappas at kodeos.com 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of AtwoodDon at aol.com
    Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 9:40 AM
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: 2007 Advanced Patterns


    Well, I have avoided jumping in here for as long as I can but here goes.

    First, the proposals as presented are not cast in stone, nor mandatory changes to the current schedules, they are sets of proposed changes of which we are asking the pattern community (not just NSRCA members) to express their opinion by selecting one of the alternatives in each class (as a recommendation to AMA).  As previously stated in this discussion group, anyone (and everyone) is free to submit their own proposed sequences to the AMA for consideration.  However, we had hoped this approach would generate a preferred solution representative of most of our pattern community and help pave the way to improving the logical progression thru sequences.

    Second, these proposed sequences are not one person's idea, they were generated by a committee with many hours of thought and discussion and actual flying of the sequences to come up with not one, but two alternatives in each class.  This was done by volunteers for the committee that spent many, many hours working on this.  I doubt any single individual out there would have come up with a similar approach and results.

    Third, I was involved in early discussions about the approach to this exercise and spent quite a bit of time discussing the intent of this exercise with Troy. He and the entire Sequences Committee were very focused on generating new sequences as balanced as possible, but (get this, it is a very important part) also generating sequences focused on building progressive basic-intermediate-advanced flying skills that actually require the pilot to 'fly' the plane rather than relying on being able to bang the stick over and come out the other side of the maneuver.  In my opinion, about 10-12 years ago, we got so focused on making it easy to get into pattern with simple sequences we lost the part about learning some of the flying requirements.  What happened to having to do MULTIPLE loops or rolls.  Anyone can close their eyes and do one loop or roll then recover with recovery being the most active part of the maneuver.  The proposed sequences (either in each class) provide a logical and balanced (as much as practical) progression from sets of skill sets to the next level.  I would even guess existing pattern flyers in the entry classes may find the new sequences to actually be more difficult to fly (notice the word fly) well than the current sequences, however, in doing so they will have learned more about actual flying than they do now.  

    Sorry for the long winded message here, but I would ask everyone to consider the intentions of the proposed sequences as well as the sequences themselves.  I believe our current sequence schedules actually create more of a gap between the entry level classes and the higher classes because the lower class sequences actually lack some of the building blocks of developing flying skills which forces the competitors to take larger 'skill' steps as they approach the higher classes.  The proposed sequences smooth those gaps more evenly and introduce maneuvers designed to enhance those building blocks rather than just making it easy to get thru the entry sequences.  

    Personally, I think the Sequences Committee led by Troy Newman are to be commended for the thought they put into these proposals as well as their personal time discussing, flying, reworking and finalizing these proposals.  Obviously thankless work as witnessed by some of the comments and sniping that has gone on recently on this group.  Anyway, I have made my selections on the sequences, hope you all have to.  Thanks Troy and group, most of us appreciate your efforts and intentions.

    Don Atwood
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050729/d95b9503/attachment-0001.html