Principles behind Writing New Patterns

Fri Jul 29 10:59:37 AKDT 2005

I think it's simply difficulty factor more than "wow" factor.  They're a
pain...at least to do well.   Add in all the variants...# of rolls,
reversing directions, a stiff cross wind...and it's the easiest
differentiator among the very top pilots.  

I wish I were one...

Personally, I think it's necessary to distinguish them at this level.

-M
(I would argue though that vertical rollers can serve the same purpose) 

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Jim Ivey
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 2:51 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Re: Principles behind Writing New Patterns

Dean
 I think the rollers should be deleted from our list of manouvers.At the
nats there was only one site that would allow the manouver,(site 1). If
done at the other two sites there would be overfly of the other sites.
The roller can't be seen and can't be judged properly and is  time
consuming.We talk about saving time and changing TO and landings.I know
this is FAI,but I don't understand the reasoning behind using it unless
it is the WOW factor.WOW is creeping into AMA pattern also.

my 2c
Jim Ivey
> 
> From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
> Date: 2005/07/29 Fri PM 01:19:10 EDT
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: Principles behind Writing New Patterns
> 
> Hey Don,
> Yes ... or is that I'm just jaded?  
> The old Procedure Turn and Figure 8 were "mostly useful" maneuvers.
> On a windy day, those were real skill maneuvers, but space
consumptive.
> In good conditions, they did little to help decide a contest.
> That problem is that now one of our design constraints is the
lessening our noise footprint.
>  
>  
> Now if we could just convince FAI to make all rollers in a vertical
plane!
> You see, even the supposed experts don't think some things through.
>  
> best 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 11:21 AM
> 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.

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.