<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dave, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If we knew why we could probably fix
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Eric.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:59
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] **
Klipped to repost ** Equipment costandpartiicpation --</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Properly designed schedules can act as building blocks - turnaround style
or not.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Grow Pattern"
<pattern4u@comcast.net> <BR><BR>> I remember when turnaround came
about! I think that turnaround in its own <BR>> right is not the issue.
Why it came about was valid but is right at the root <BR>> of many of our
problems. <BR>> <BR>> The FAI world needed a more challenging set of
maneuvers. This is not a new <BR>> thing and it is not uncommon to see a
new maneuver cause design changes. In <BR>> this case the whole schedule
changed our design thinking. It then added a <BR>> degree or two more of
difficulty. You no longer could do your center <BR>> maneuver and then
re-group. You were in the judges eye the whole time. (I <BR>> don't think
that the judging guidelines or the schedule designs ever <BR>> completely
caught up either. For example a top-hat turnaround and all of its <BR>&!
gt; positioning issues!) <BR>> <BR>> Turnaround created a type of
competition flying where a judge had more <BR>> opportunity to find
errors and thus separate the "men from the boys". <BR>> Turnaround can
therefore be said to have succeeded for the top-end group of <BR>>
flyers. It was clear that they would not be discouraged by increased
<BR>> difficulty. It also grew and created better, but perhaps fewer,
pilots in <BR>> all of the classes. <BR>> <BR>> What it did to the
rest of us is what we are living with today. I believe <BR>> that it
reduced our ranks. Apart from the high performance equipment and the
<BR>> associated costs, you now need the whole sky to practice. You do
not have <BR>> option to bale out on the approach to a center maneuver
if, for example, a <BR>> sport-plane is on your radar. This drove us out
of local fields and we went <BR>> "stealth!". Pattern is almost as
invisible as pylon racing to a local club! <BR>&! gt; <BR>> Just for
fun, instead of theorizing a reply, just take a friend at your <BR>>
field, who is a good sport flyer, and ask him to do a three or four of our
<BR>> maneuvers with turnarounds. I doubt if you could inspire him to
take up <BR>> pattern. Then take a pilot and just have him do center
maneuvers, one at a <BR>> time, with a "free" turnaround to set-up. You
will see a big difference in <BR>> the enthusiasm to try that center
maneuver. <BR>> <BR>> I believe that the skill needed to fly a center
maneuver is in most sport <BR>> flyers today, just as it was in the 80's.
That did not change. But ask that <BR>> same skill to additionally
perform scored turnarounds with no mental break <BR>> and you will see
what I mean. I know that these are generalizations but in <BR>> my person
sample of hundreds of club pilots in 20 years of my time in <BR>>
pattern, I have seen it to be the norm. <BR>> <BR>> Last but not least
you can do most of the Masters and FAI center maneuvers <BR>> with any
reas! onably powered sport aerobatic plane. It was popular to let <BR>>
pilots chose a string of center maneuvers. Why did we take that away from
<BR>> our pilots? I hear "building-block-schedule design" all of the
time. Who <BR>> said that making all of our 401-406 schedules into
turnaround would make <BR>> good building-blocks. <BR>> <BR>> You
could have a system where only 406 (FAI) and 404 (Masters) flew <BR>>
turnaround and have an increase in participation. <BR>> <BR>> Should
have stirred this pot on Monday but was building :-) <BR>> <BR>>
Regards, <BR>> <BR>> Eric. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Del K. Rykert"
<DRYKERT2@ROCHESTER.RR.COM><BR>> To: <GEOBET@GIS.NET>; "NSRCA Mailing
List" <BR>> <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Sent: Tuesday,
February 28, 2006 7:33 AM <BR>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] ** Klipped to
repost ** Equipment cost <BR>> andpartiicpati! on -- <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> >I agree with many of the post I h ave been reading and very
much so with <BR>> > George's and Terry's post. When I look back at
the earlier days of <BR>> > pattern <BR>> > (70's) when all
maneuvers were done center stage a person with fair flying <BR>> >
talent could compete and have fun and good time. Some even came out and
<BR>> > compete for the local pattern event only practicing a little
during the <BR>> > week <BR>> > prior to the pattern contest.
The competition bar has been raised way <BR>> > beyond <BR>> >
that stage now and why we had a few leave when we went to turnaround. We
<BR>> > have been in steady decline for the most part since the
beginning of <BR>> > turnaround. Not looking only at NSRCA numbers but
attendance of local <BR>> > meets <BR>> > from those days. Due
to the cost and poor attendance at some contests <BR>> > clubs
<BR>> > have to do a serious look at justification of holding events
if low <B! R>> > turnout <BR>> > is result. Cost to compete have
risen and some have to pick and choose <BR>> > which <BR>> >
event we will attend. Not always monetary choice but time choice. I know
<BR>> > there was a time when I would travel 4 hours to a local
contest to have <BR>> > fun <BR>> > and be somewhat competitive
but now with the value of the airplane and <BR>> > cost <BR>> >
of getting to the events rising for me I have to look at justification if
<BR>> > I <BR>> > haven't practiced and don't know how the
equipment is performing I now <BR>> > choose to stay home work on
equipment issues. The sport has become more <BR>> > complex. One now
needs a professional caller at their beck and call.. Not <BR>> > just
some warm body from the flight line. This is for local events folks..
<BR>> > Not the Worlds or Nat's. All of these changes do have a price
that goes <BR>> > with <BR>> &g! t; them. It has improved the
caliber and quality of flying and only th ose <BR>> > very <BR>>
> strongly interested now participate. Many have used great and unique
ideas <BR>> > to help recruit new blood. Each idea will not work for
all people or <BR>> > areas. <BR>> > Unfortunately the old days
of just letting new blood approach us are <BR>> > mostly <BR>> >
gone. These issues sure have not helped encourage attendance and pattern
<BR>> > participation IMHO. <BR>> > <BR>> > Del <BR>>
> nsrca - 473 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion </BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>