<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>To the best of my knowledge, Chidgey was
the instigator of turnaround and noise reduction, and this was a concern
worldwide, not just in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
In the Northeast US, we absolutely had problems with overflight areas
(regardless of the noise), but the majority of the problems were with the noise
footprint itself – the volume of noise made at the site and how far away
from the site noise carried, which was dramatically further with AMA style vs
turnaround style. Most of the fields lost in the early 80s to early 90s
were from ballistic pattern planes. From 1990 to today, 90+% of the
problems (noise and overflight) come from large gas burners (typically IMAC
style stuff, whether flown for IMAC, or huckin’). The remaining 10%
balance fits in the pylon category (loud).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>At fields in the Northeast where pattern
is making a comeback, it is only because the needed overflight area is smaller,
AND the noise is less. The average pattern sequence today requires less
space and has a smaller noise footprint than most casual sport flyers.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So far as AMA and FAI…..ditto.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Dave<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Bob Richards<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, October 20, 2009
2:35 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Rules proposal 11-6 question</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dave L mentioned the "noise footprint",
but I am not sure that is a major reason (maybe it was?) that we went to
turnaround. I was not heavily involved in pattern at that time. However,
"noise footprint" can be divided into two parts, "noise"
and "footprint". The fact that, as Dave mentioned, some sites in
the NE are starting to fly pattern events again may be due more to the noise
level than the overall flight footprint. So, the turnaround aspect may not be
the saviour in this case as much as the noise reduction itself. Either way,
thanks can go to FAI because that is where the noise reduction
technology came from, and it filtered down to the AMA flyers. IMHO.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>All that aside, I have always felt, and expressed my
opinion, that the AMA rules and schedules should be geared towards what
is best for the sport of precision aerobatics IN THE USA. I don't think
we should pick schedules for any class, including Masters, with the major
concern of helping prepare our pilots for FAI. FAI is another class, and
if you think about that, here in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> it is almost two classes in
itself: Those that fly at national/world level, and those that don't. If
someone is really aspiring to fly at a world level, they will find the FAI
class all by themselves. The fact that we do fly the FAI class at all
contests is, IMHO, all we need to do to help them prepare for world level
competitions. There is no need for us to put an FAI flavor in the
Masters sequence, unless it will benefit pattern flying in general.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Again, this is JMHO.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Bob R.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
--- On <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Tue, 10/20/09, John Gayer <i><span
style='font-style:italic'><jgghome@comcast.net></span></i></span></b>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:4.2pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div id=yiv1158923941>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>As I recall, the ONLY
reason AMA is now flying turnaround is because F3A went to a turnaround
format. The "powersthatwere" were concerned that our team would not
have the relevant experience to compete on the world stage. This started a
process of conversion to turnaround by including the FAI pattern and then
expert turnaround in AMA pattern contests.<br>
The pendulum has now swung the other way where the AMA pattern community,
while overly committed to turnaround, rejects the patterns, rules and
concepts of the FAI.<br>
<br>
While I no longer see a need to use the current(or past schedule as we have
already done) F3A pattern as the Masters pattern, I believe it is important
to address whatever is new and challenging in the upcoming F3A patterns and
consider introducing similar elements into the Masters pattern.<br>
<br>
At the other end of the spectrum, I believe that the Sportsman class should
have the turnaround elements removed completely. Perhaps some of the center
maneuvers could be upgraded in difficulty at the same time. The sportsman
flyer needs more focus on learning the maneuvers and where to place them.
Making them fly the box simply insures that they aree not in position to do a
proper center maneuver. This is not intended as a first step in getting rid
of turnaround but rather creating a progression in the learning process.<br>
<br>
John Gayer<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>