[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences

[James Hiller]

I think most of us acquire the skill to fly more difficult combination
maneuvers when we have to and not before. After 35 years flying pattern I
just recently had to fly coordinated left slow rolls. If it wasn't in the
sequence I still wouldn't be flying them.
On another issue; flying lower classes through several sequence changes adds
greatly when considering a move up. It's all about getting comfortable
flying a variety of combinations lessening the intimidation factor when
first trying a new sequence. Maybe I didn't say this quite right but when
one can say 'been there done that' to about half of what's in a new schedule
it becomes much easier. For example flying a single intermediate sequence
proficiently doesn't prepare one to fly advanced. There are still new skills
available in different intermediate sequences. The more exposure the better.
Just my opinion:
Jim
 
From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of John Ford via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:08 AM
To: Anthony Romano; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
 
The issue is whether a pilot is OK (motivated, happy, etc) with flying a
sequence that contains elements beyond their skill level. 
The extreme limit of the situation would be if all 100 pilots at the Nats
agreed to fly F-15, the spread of scores would obviously be wide, because
for some, there would be many zeros, and for others, many tens. However,
faced with such a steep learning curve, would a current Intermediate pilot
stick with it long enough to ever achieve a clean "F" flight with no zeros?
In some countries, flying pattern has (or had) that same reality attached to
it. 
In the AMA Pattern world, we are genetically bred to think that being in
Advanced necessarily implies we can successfully fly all the elements. Does
this need to be the case?
So, it may mean that we need to get used to the occasional zero or five.
Harder to fly, easier to judge, but different rewards and less instant
gratification, maybe. As long as pilots keep doing their best, it probably
won't change who ultimately gets first, second, or third, however.
 
On the other topic, I think that limiting ourselves to a ceiling or
footprint in the design of maneuvers is a slippery slope, especially since
it is almost impossible to enforce or police.  
More than likely, pattern and a host of other model disciplines that
routinely exceed 400 feet will continue to exist, simply because they are
historically part of the nature of the discipline, and hard to
enforce/punish "constructively". 
I agree with many who believe that eventually, the FAA will ask us and our
planes to be licensed (or at least formally registered) to use the airspace.
That will be the end of that discussion. To paraphrase Capone, "you get a
lot further with a dollar and a nice word than you do with just a nice
word".
 
John
 
 
 
On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Anthony Romano via NSRCA-discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:



 
After several flights of the proposed schedules, I started writing this
thinking that both Advanced and Masters are too hard. Reading a comment
about the range of scores for the top eight from this years Nats made me
rethink my position. The difference in Advanced was about 40 points per
round and Masters was 109 points per round. If you look at the top seven
Masters drops to 49 points per round. Pretty tight competition when compared
to the FAI finals having a difference of 203 points per round. 
 
Does this help us? Do harder schedules make judging easier by forcing
egregious errors instead of requiring judges to scour each maneuver for
every little wing bobble? Just looking for a discussion not an argument. 
 
On a totally opposite point, given the attention that our hobby is getting
from external eyes, particularly in the area of altitude limits do we want
to be designing sequences with figure nines and hourglasses?  We seem to be
pulling out some of the worst FAI maneuvers to add to our sequences.
Agreeing with the earlier comment that turnaround was supposed to reduce our
footprint yet we continue to see FAI using rolling circles, KE triangles,
vertical eights in sequences. We should not follow this error.
 
 
Anthony Romano
 
_______________________________________________
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/20140818/5d22231d/attachment.html>