<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi All,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I think the worst example of what cross
box maneuver can do to a pattern is in this current masters pattern. It
completely bucks the stated trend and desire of having pilots flying on
a closer line to the pilot. If the pilot is learning the craft, wind
correcting, and able to fly over the poles, the cross box maneuver with
out the option to leave it on the line, just takes you out of the box.
If you are flying even close to the poles, the automatic decision
is take the cross box maneuver out (issue is beat to death I'm sure). </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In the P05 pattern, there is only 1
cross box maneuver and it has options to leave it on the line (unless you
consider a "spin" a cross box maneuver during a cross wind, in
which case the P05 pattern has two). At this point, I haven't found
the need to practice this option to take it in or out because all the other
elements flow together to leave it over the poles. Speed management,
wings level, and heading control all lead to the pilot being able to keep
the plane where they want it, easier.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jim W.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Bill Pritchett"
<phelps15@comcast.net></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">06/09/2005 12:04 AM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
discussion@nsrca.org</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><discussion@nsrca.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: New Sequences</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Verne:<br>
Thanks. One of the keys to this is "with options"......
We really could use <br>
some creativity on turnarounds that give the pilot the option of moving
<br>
their line in/out or staying the same...... Right now there simply
aren't <br>
enough.<br>
We are really looking forward to this weekend - if Kane's buying, most
of D4 <br>
will be trashed....... Since D5 is always trashed, it should be
great fun!<br>
Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message ----- <br>
From: "Verne Koester" <verne@twmi.rr.com><br>
To: <discussion@nsrca.org><br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:34 PM<br>
Subject: Re: New Sequences<br>
<br>
<br>
> Bill,<br>
> I've been pretty much in the thick of the crossbox discussions. There
are <br>
> only two points I've been trying to get through. The first is that
a <br>
> "forced" or no options crossbox maneuver should never precede
a rolling <br>
> maneuver. The reason is that if a pilot is anywhere near the ideal
<br>
> distance of 150 meters out, the only logical option is to go out to
avoid <br>
> making the box too small for the upcoming roll. This in turn, forces
the <br>
> pilot to be further out than desired. I'd never even thought about
it <br>
> before tackling the current Masters schedule.<br>
><br>
> The second point is that it would be nice if we could conjure up some
new <br>
> turnaround maneuvers with options so the pilot would have the option
of <br>
> preserving the line he was on or making adjustments.<br>
><br>
> I absolutely agree that crossbox maneuvers are a necessity. Ideally,
they <br>
> should occur twice during a schedule. The first one being about 1/4
to 1/3 <br>
> of the way into the schedule with the second one being 3/4 to 2/3
of the <br>
> way through. In addition, they should immediately follow a snap maneuver,
<br>
> if there is one (or two) since a snap usually involves some degree
of <br>
> line displacement.<br>
><br>
> When one considers all the parameters involved in designing a good
<br>
> schedule, or set of schedules, it becomes quickly apparent that saying
<br>
> "great job" isn't nearly enough for you and your team. Having
said all <br>
> that, GREAT JOB!!!!!!!<br>
><br>
> See ya this weekend,<br>
> Verne<br>
><br>
> BTW, Kane's buyin, he needs exhaust washers.....<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message ----- <br>
> From: "Bill Pritchett" <phelps15@comcast.net><br>
> To: <discussion@nsrca.org><br>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 8:03 PM<br>
> Subject: New Sequences<br>
><br>
><br>
>> Rodney:<br>
>> Both proposed Advanced schedules are "easier" than the
current Advanced <br>
>> schedule. This was one of the criteria that we worked with,
based upon <br>
>> overwhelming opinion that the jump to Advanced is currently too
much. I <br>
>> like both schedules (not because I'm on the committee...hehe),
but what <br>
>> this WILL do is make the jump to Masters much bigger for the guys
that <br>
>> will come through these schedules. I am sort of a victim
of having made <br>
>> the current jump, and now that I've made it, felt that I could
<br>
>> objectively help others coming up in seasons to come not deal
with some <br>
>> of the issues current Advanced flyers have had to handle. Our
current <br>
>> schedule calls for 10 maneuvers prior to a cross box turnaround.
<br>
>> Although there is discussion on the list right now about being
on that <br>
>> "line", and a cross box being a bother, let's face it,
most Advanced <br>
>> flyers need to adjust in/out earlier than 10 maneuvers in. Lots
of <br>
>> thought and discussion went into these, and I'm sure that everyone
on the <br>
>> committee hopes that the NSRCA membership takes a deep collective
breath <br>
>> before making any judgments. One thing we all tried to do
is make it <br>
>> more even in jumps between classes, up to Masters. We all
seemed to <br>
>> agree that Masters should be the "big" jump, and a jump
that provides a <br>
>> class of "Destination" for some, and FAI prep for others.
I hope that <br>
>> you, and others, will look at the proposed Advanced schedule as
a part of <br>
>> the whole, and not a direct comparison to the present.<br>
>> Thanks<br>
>> Bill<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Bill Pritchett<br>
>> 765-744-9322<br>
>><br>
>> =================================================<br>
>> To access the email archives for this list, go to<br>
>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<br>
>> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<br>
>> and follow the instructions.<br>
>><br>
>> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from
the <br>
>> list.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
> =================================================<br>
> To access the email archives for this list, go to<br>
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<br>
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<br>
> and follow the instructions.<br>
><br>
> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from
the <br>
> list.<br>
><br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
=================================================<br>
To access the email archives for this list, go to<br>
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<br>
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<br>
and follow the instructions.<br>
<br>
List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt></font>
<br>