<!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>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>Dean,</DIV>
<DIV> I'd counter what you said
with this. I can see no point in doing a maneuver that is never done
in any of the classes above or where variants of it are not
done. Nor maneuvers that are unsuitable for turnaround
schedules.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Six years ago the three rolls were turned into two rolls because whole
families of two or partial roll variants exist. Two rolls build positioning
skills and maneuver control. Three rolls always had to be the last maneuver.
Very little chance of that having a turnaround after it!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Three loops never happen, but two loops do. Two are enough to develop
loop/rudder control skills. I rarely see a 401 pilot running out of "gas"
as they often did with three loops.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=d.pappas@kodeos.com href="mailto:d.pappas@kodeos.com">Dean Pappas</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 29, 2005 9:58 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [SPAM] Re: 2007 Advanced
Patterns</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>