[SPAM] Re: 2007 Advanced Patterns

[Jim Ivey]

Dean and Don
Try on SPA for a change. It will bring out your gray hairs..We do it in the South.
Verticle eights Figure M's 3 rolls and 3 inside and outside loops.All done in the center.
It is good practice for AMA pattern.

Jim Ivey
> 
> From: AtwoodDon at aol.com
> Date: 2005/07/29 Fri AM 11:21:18 EDT
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: 2007 Advanced Patterns
> 
>  
> Hey Dean, do you think our gray hair (or lack thereof) is starting to  show?  
> I think Sportsman should try the old Procedure Turn and  Horizontal Eight 
> (whoops, can't do that one, it heads for the judges at the end  and would be way 
> too long  ;-)  But talk about 'exposure',   yikes!!!
>  
> Don
>  
> In a message dated 7/29/2005 6:59:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
> d.pappas at kodeos.com writes:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.