<!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 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV><SPAN class=731095613-29072005>Hi Tom,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=731095613-29072005>I especially agree with the point you make
about the teaching of the "multiples" maneuvers. The third roll is the one that
demonstrates continued control!</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=731095613-29072005>The third loop adds time (which may have
been the problem) but it adds exposure! Exposure time, in a maneuver, is a large
part of the difficulty (as opposed to complexity) and this is moreso in the
wind.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=731095613-29072005>Regards,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=731095613-29072005> Dean</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Dean Pappas</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Sr. Design Engineer</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Kodeos Communications</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman">111 Corporate Blvd.</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman">South Plainfield, N.J. 07080</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman">(908) 222-7817 phone</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman">(908) 222-2392 fax</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman">d.pappas@kodeos.com</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf
Of </B>AtwoodDon@aol.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 29, 2005 9:40
AM<BR><B>To:</B> discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [SPAM] Re: 2007
Advanced Patterns<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial>
<DIV>
<DIV>Well, I have avoided jumping in here for as long as I can but here
goes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>First, the proposals as presented are not cast in stone, nor mandatory
changes to the current schedules, they are sets of proposed changes of which
we are asking the pattern community (not just NSRCA members) to express their
opinion by selecting one of the alternatives in each class (as a
recommendation to AMA). As previously stated in this discussion group,
anyone (and everyone) is free to submit their own proposed sequences to the
AMA for consideration. However, we had hoped this approach would
generate a preferred solution representative of most of our pattern community
and help pave the way to improving the logical progression thru
sequences.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Second, these proposed sequences are not one person's idea, they were
generated by a committee with many hours of thought and discussion and actual
flying of the sequences to come up with not one, but two alternatives in each
class. This was done by volunteers for the committee that spent many,
many hours working on this. I doubt any single individual out there
would have come up with a similar approach and results.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Third, I was involved in early discussions about the approach to this
exercise and spent quite a bit of time discussing the intent of this exercise
with Troy. He and the entire Sequences Committee were very focused on
generating new sequences as balanced as possible, but (get this, it is a very
important part) also generating sequences focused on building progressive
basic-intermediate-advanced flying skills that actually require the pilot to
'fly' the plane rather than relying on being able to bang the stick over and
come out the other side of the maneuver. In my opinion, about 10-12
years ago, we got so focused on making it easy to get into pattern with simple
sequences we lost the part about learning some of the flying
requirements. What happened to having to do MULTIPLE loops or
rolls. Anyone can close their eyes and do one loop or roll then recover
with recovery being the most active part of the maneuver. The proposed
sequences (either in each class) provide a logical and balanced (as much as
practical) progression from sets of skill sets to the next level. I
would even guess existing pattern flyers in the entry classes may find the new
sequences to actually be more difficult to fly (notice the word fly) well than
the current sequences, however, in doing so they will have learned more about
actual flying than they do now. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sorry for the long winded message here, but I would ask everyone to
consider the intentions of the proposed sequences as well as the sequences
themselves. I believe our current sequence schedules actually create
more of a gap between the entry level classes and the higher classes because
the lower class sequences actually lack some of the building blocks of
developing flying skills which forces the competitors to take larger 'skill'
steps as they approach the higher classes. The proposed sequences smooth
those gaps more evenly and introduce maneuvers designed to enhance those
building blocks rather than just making it easy to get thru the entry
sequences. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Personally, I think the Sequences Committee led by Troy Newman are to be
commended for the thought they put into these proposals as well as their
personal time discussing, flying, reworking and finalizing these
proposals. Obviously thankless work as witnessed by some of the comments
and sniping that has gone on recently on this group. Anyway, I have made
my selections on the sequences, hope you all have to. Thanks Troy and
group, most of us appreciate your efforts and intentions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don Atwood</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>