[NSRCA-discussion] Klipped to repost Why not more Patternguys?

Tue Feb 28 17:50:08 AKST 2006

Rick,
this thread has gotten so long probably no one will even read this, but I like your post.  It might not be a good generalization, but if the recent Olympics were a reflection of what our society has become, then the decline of anything that requires humility is inevitable.  Ithe Olympics were full of gripers and posers.  Some complained about their hockey teammates, some actually said during the olympics that they didn't matter, one snowboarder did a showoff move and lost the gold.  sure they are great athletes but maybe we all have too much self esteem.  Pattern does not appeal to people with artificially high self esteem.  it's the pin for the self worth bubble.  Only the grounded survive.
Deflated,
--Lance

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rick Wallace 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ** Klipped to repost ** Why not more Patternguys?

  There's a lot of goodness in this discussion - cost, complexity, intimidation caused by turnaround -certainly all are factors in a guy's decision to fly Pattern. 

  Maybe there's another - maybe people aren't as interested in truly competing now as, say, 20 years ago. Society, as well as engines, planes, and sequences, has changed quite a lot.
  -- Not too many years ago everyone on the kids ball team didn't get a trophy. The best teams won and got trophies, and the rest got mentioned. You had to play to get an award; bench warming didn't get you a trophy. 
  -- A school kid might actually receive a failing grade if his work didn't meet the standard, even at the risk of causing a 'crisis in self esteem.'
  -- Cadets at places like West Point were rank ordered in General Order of Merit from #1 to (last) based on academics, 'military aptitude' and other factors - and the number was public. 

  Is the American system of "we're all winners" where 'failure' is a dirty word partly to blame for  reduced attendance in a hobby/sport whose essence is competition?

  Further, not too many years ago, it was an accomplishment to solo an R/C airplane, and the main R/C avenues for showing advanced skills were Pattern, Scale (often at the same contest) and racing.  There's LOTS more out there now in R/C flying- -- and besides R/C planes, there are TONS more leisure activities than flying toy airplanes. Real cars, boat, R/C cars, video games, computers, MP3, phones, hundreds of TV channels--- - there are more things for a person to spend his time on than there is time - at least that's true of my life and those around me.

  So why pursue something that's hard (like R/C flying) in the first place, and then go WAYYY out into the fringes of the hobby to actually compete - which involves 
  -- buying toys not generally available at the local hobby shop
  -- LOTS of hours spent at the field flying the same sequence over and over (try THAT on your average local fellow sport pilot...) -probly at times when other pilots aren't even present
  -- and then spend an entire weekend driving a LONG way to a contest- in preference to spending time w/ the neighbors or family ??? 

  and where at the end of the day most of us will be greatly humbled by being told we're NOT wonderful at it, and where we'll watch somebody else get the trophy or the plaque... and we go home with just a handfull of score sheets outlining  all the stuff we screwed up... 

  Yah, I think there's more to the current level of participation than just the perceived need for expensive toys, or the difficulty of turnaround sequences. 

  But there ARE still guys who have fire in their bellies and who want to do that maneuver just a little better this time than last, and who compete with themselves as much as with the other guys in their class. 

  And there ARE still guys who believe that you don't win Second place... you lose First. 

  I'm not sure Pattern is for everyone - but there's certainly a place for it in the hobby! 

  Exiting the soap box... 

  Rick 

  (Besides, if the Pattern guys die out, who'll test fly all the other guys' new models and set their needle valves for them and demonstrate that lightness rather than 'beefing up that kit design' may be the right answer??)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
    Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
    To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ** Klipped to repost ** Equipmentcostandpartiicpation --
    Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:23:09 -0500

    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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20060228/0c1ae540/attachment.html 