[NSRCA-discussion] Klipped to repost Equipment costandpartiicpation --

Tue Feb 28 12:46:20 AKST 2006

Seems this discussion comes up twice a year.  Each time I offer the same explanation and for the most part am ignored but believe it is the true root of the problem (if one really exists)

  People, in our society DON"T WANT TO STRIVE anymore.  Growing up, if I or anyone else wanted to be an athlete, we worked at it, we hoped to make the last spot on the team, we practiced and there was pride in that.  Think back to the early 70's and how busy many public tennis courts were.  Now we see more tennis courts rotting away than being used.  We studied to maintain good grades to be on the team.  It didn't matter if we a natural or not,  Of course as Gray pointed out, there wasn't 10 cartoon channels, the internet wasn't there, gameboy was around.  However, most top athletes worked to arrive at their skill level.

  Skip to today, if someone isn't a natural most will not strive to become proficient.  Sadly, our society is perpetuating the idea win or you're not any good either!!  Most of us on the list have, and are made of the good stuff, we STRIVE to fly well.  We practice, we search for the better set-up/airplane.  Some of you constantly are testing new ideas, vs old ideas etc etc.  The difference here is we STRIVE for that illusive perfect sequence.

  Take most sport fliers, that can't fly wings level, let alone do a good 4 point roll.  The notion of pracitcing is out side of their thinking.  If it doesn't come naturally, they most of the time do not want to put the time in to make it better.  They may fain an effort but not really.

  2)    Lots of people are talking about pre-turnaround and the hey day of Pattern.  I don't know about anyone else but to me 20-30 is the perfect sized contest.  I really don't want 60 pilots at a contest.  Driving 6 hrs to fly 3 rounds really doesn't sound like fun.  

  3)     No one is mentioning the fact that IMAC is Turnaround also.  Spa is out there so I agree with someone that said.  Lets let this specific be buried.  Pattern has evolved as skills, imagination, and equipment has evolved.  In life to live, evolution occurs.  If a rolling circle became a part of the  Masters sequence, many would quit.  Remember this is in IMAC Advanced but doesn't scare people off.  Many would quit, making that the complaint, but within 3-4 years, those that wanted to compete, would accept it and slowly make the effort to learn new skills.  Of course 10 years later we would still be hashing the demise of pattern due to a wonderful, beautiful manuever, and extremely difficult maneuver, not alluding to the notion that those that tried would ultimately be much better pilots at that time.

       The dilution of the competitive pool, coupled with the numbers of opportunity, and the unwillingness of many to STRIVE are the real reason our contest numbers are down.  

  Just my honest opinion.  

  Ed

Grow Pattern <pattern4u at comcast.net> wrote:
          Dave, 
              No personal criticism intended but, the problem with looking at this from the position of a successful FAI pilot, especially if you were a good pilot from a very young age, is that you can't really feel that "leap of faith barrier" that a regular pilot feels, then or today. 

  I have spent most of last year with regular-club-pilots. Not a few guys that I practice pattern with. Did not have a pattern-plane with me. They were sort flyers that were pretty good aerobats with their own planes. based upon what I learned, I can tell you that turnaround is massively daunting to them. Much more daunting, in fact , than trying out a  difficult 3-D high alpha maneuver.

  You can't ignore the fact that pattern pilots left our sport in droves around and after 1985, and never came back. These guys were not the top liners. They were, however, the mainstay of the sport. They showed up, paid their fees (said another way paid for the trophies), they had a great time, created a fun environment and cared more about taking part than actually winning. They flew pretty simple planes that could still do most of center maneuvers today.  

  This is the group that is still missing in pattern. They were the ones that attracted new members. They were reachable and certainly not intimidating. It may well not be the schedules. IMAC, with more difficulty schedules attracted a large new following because you could fly your CURRENT plane in their classes. There are now plenty of pattern ARF's but the same thing is not happening, at least not yet.

  If we knew why we could probably fix it.

  Regards,

  Eric.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: DaveL322 at comcast.net 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ** Klipped to repost ** Equipment costandpartiicpation --

  Turnaround style pattern reduced noise, noisefootprint, and overflight area.  Pattern would have died (in some areas at least) without the change to turnaround.  The case could certainly be made that a reduction in numbers of pattern pilots was on the horizon, and while turnaround reduced the numbers of some, saved the event for others.

  Properly designed schedules can act as building blocks - turnaround style or not.

  Yes, the turnaround schedules today are more difficult than the non-turnaround schedules of the past, and at the highest levels, it does help distinguish the top pilots.  The increase in difficulty across all classes is not solely attributable to the turnaround format.  Today's entry and mid level classes are of higher difficulty because "we" have made them to be that way - continually escalating the difficulty in the entry and mid level classes with every rules cycle to alleviate "boredom" and give the lower classes the same amount of airtime as Masters/F3A.  Show me an Intermediate Pilot that can consistently a rectangular box (ends over the turnaround poles, flat lines at top and bottom of box) at 150m, and I'll bet you have a future NATs Champion in almost any class.

  Today, I believe the average pattern competitor today is interested in moving up in class when they can competently fly the class - compared to the past, when moving up was done after a higher degree of polish was achieved.  Today, it seems the challenge of pattern is getting through a sequence, and many move up before really learning the fundamentals in a sequence - compared to the past, when the challenge was to perfect a sequence, not merely survive it.  This is not to knock anyone currently flying pattern - just an observation on the changes I've seen.  Being able to learn and complete a new manuever or sequence is a worthy goal, just as is perfecting a manuever or sequence that is easy to do, but hard to refine.  I do quite a bit of coaching, and the vast majority of the time when a pilot has a problem with a specific maneuver, it is not the specific maneuver that is the issue - fixing the maneuver requires taking steps backwards to fix the! underlying basics which were are
 flawed - and likely would have been better learned if  more time had been spent in the prior class (or classes).

  If the appeal of the event is now more focused on more exciting and flashy maneuvers and longer sequences, compared to precision flying, then that is exactly the direction pattern has moved.  Nothing wrong with that, if that is what "we" want.  A well executed pattern sequence is very boring to most, and the elements that appeal to the average pattern guy are not noticeable to the average spectator - that is something that has always been, and always will be.

  Regards,

Dave Lockhart
  DaveL322 at comcast.net

  -------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net> 

> I remember when turnaround came about! I think that turnaround in its own 
> right is not the issue. Why it came about was valid but is right at the root 
> of many of our problems. 
> 
> The FAI world needed a more challenging set of maneuvers. This is not a new 
> thing and it is not uncommon to see a new maneuver cause design changes. In 
> this case the whole schedule changed our design thinking. It then added a 
> degree or two more of difficulty. You no longer could do your center 
> maneuver and then re-group. You were in the judges eye the whole time. (I 
> don't think that the judging guidelines or the schedule designs ever 
> completely caught up either. For example a top-hat turnaround and all of its 
&! gt; positioning issues!) 
> 
> Turnaround created a type of competition flying where a judge had more 
> opportunity to find errors and thus separate the "men from the boys". 
> Turnaround can therefore be said to have succeeded for the top-end group of 
> flyers. It was clear that they would not be discouraged by increased 
> difficulty. It also grew and created better, but perhaps fewer, pilots in 
> all of the classes. 
> 
> What it did to the rest of us is what we are living with today. I believe 
> that it reduced our ranks. Apart from the high performance equipment and the 
> associated costs, you now need the whole sky to practice. You do not have 
> option to bale out on the approach to a center maneuver if, for example, a 
> sport-plane is on your radar. This drove us out of local fields and we went 
> "stealth!". Pattern is almost as invisible as pylon racing to a local club! 
&! gt; 
> Just for fun, instead of theorizing a reply, just take a friend at your 
> field, who is a good sport flyer, and ask him to do a three or four of our 
> maneuvers with turnarounds. I doubt if you could inspire him to take up 
> pattern. Then take a pilot and just have him do center maneuvers, one at a 
> time, with a "free" turnaround to set-up. You will see a big difference in 
> the enthusiasm to try that center maneuver. 
> 
> I believe that the skill needed to fly a center maneuver is in most sport 
> flyers today, just as it was in the 80's. That did not change. But ask that 
> same skill to additionally perform scored turnarounds with no mental break 
> and you will see what I mean. I know that these are generalizations but in 
> my person sample of hundreds of club pilots in 20 years of my time in 
> pattern, I have seen it to be the norm. 
> 
> Last but not least you can do most of the Masters and FAI center maneuvers 
> with any reas! onably powered sport aerobatic plane. It was popular to let 
> pilots chose a string of center maneuvers. Why did we take that away from 
> our pilots? I hear "building-block-schedule design" all of the time. Who 
> said that making all of our 401-406 schedules into turnaround would make 
> good building-blocks. 
> 
> You could have a system where only 406 (FAI) and 404 (Masters) flew 
> turnaround and have an increase in participation. 
> 
> Should have stirred this pot on Monday but was building :-) 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Eric. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Del K. Rykert" 
> To: ; "NSRCA Mailing List" 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:33 AM 
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] ** Klipped to repost ** Equipment cost 
> andpartiicpati! on -- 
> 
> 
> >I agree with many of the post I h ave been reading and very much so with 
> > George's and Terry's post. When I look back at the earlier days of 
> > pattern 
> > (70's) when all maneuvers were done center stage a person with fair flying 
> > talent could compete and have fun and good time. Some even came out and 
> > compete for the local pattern event only practicing a little during the 
> > week 
> > prior to the pattern contest. The competition bar has been raised way 
> > beyond 
> > that stage now and why we had a few leave when we went to turnaround. We 
> > have been in steady decline for the most part since the beginning of 
> > turnaround. Not looking only at NSRCA numbers but attendance of local 
> > meets 
> > from those days. Due to the cost and poor attendance at some contests 
> > clubs 
> > have to do a serious look at justification of holding events if low > > turnout 
> > is result. Cost to compete have risen and some have to pick and choose 
> > which 
> > event we will attend. Not always monetary choice but time choice. I know 
> > there was a time when I would travel 4 hours to a local contest to have 
> > fun 
> > and be somewhat competitive but now with the value of the airplane and 
> > cost 
> > of getting to the events rising for me I have to look at justification if 
> > I 
> > haven't practiced and don't know how the equipment is performing I now 
> > choose to stay home work on equipment issues. The sport has become more 
> > complex. One now needs a professional caller at their beck and call.. Not 
> > just some warm body from the flight line. This is for local events folks.. 
> > Not the Worlds or Nat's. All of these changes do have a price that goes 
> > with 
> &g! t; them. It has improved the caliber and quality of flying and only th ose 
> > very 
> > strongly interested now participate. Many have used great and unique ideas 
> > to help recruit new blood. Each idea will not work for all people or 
> > areas. 
> > Unfortunately the old days of just letting new blood approach us are 
> > mostly 
> > gone. These issues sure have not helped encourage attendance and pattern 
> > participation IMHO. 
> > 
> > Del 
> > nsrca - 473 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion     
---------------------------------

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060228/bee1669a/attachment-0001.html 