[SPAM] Re: 2007 Advanced Patterns

[George Kennie]

Boy Dean,
I'm in total agreement with you on this one! The third loop was
always the one that would get away from you after doing two really
nice ones, and just to clarify, nobody ran out of gas as it was in
the middle of the sequence and additionally the 3 rolls proved that
you really FLEW all three and not arced over two hoping you could
catch the elevator in time to not screw it up too badly and they
also were not the  last maneuver as they were followed by a 1/2cuban
and a square loop.
I guess that other fellow never flew the old Intermediate sequence,
but I still do as a practice routine for just the skill maintenance
you point out. RIGHT ON!
G.

Dean Pappas wrote:

>  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/20050729/420fb09d/attachment.html