Agreed. My sense is that the true purpose of the schedule is to gather the manuvers that are key to establishing the pilot's skill at each respective level of accomplishment, in a format where the pilot can demonstrate those skills to the judges in a few minutes at a contest. Should we now ask if the schedule itself is expected to do anything more than that <u>at the entry level of achievement</u>? And should reducing the length of the Sportsman sequence be considered as an aid to participation...

On the one hand we have some who have mastered the Sportsman, gone on to Intermediate or higher, or who can fly the current schedule and wish it to remaing as is because they enjoy the challenge it poses. From these points-of-view we do not get much sympathy for the <u>hypothetical noob</u> (who just needs to practice more and get over it). What can be done to increase participation in the sport is much the same as has been done to date, just more of it: Advertise, recruit, train, coach, encourage practice, compete, critique performance, repeat, etc. What we do not hear about are those who try but do not continue, are lost along the way. We just assume this pattern stuff is not for them, not fun at all, or they don't want to do hard stuff. Fair enough.

On the other hand we have some who are also beyond the Sportsman, CDs and Judges perhaps, who remember the Sportsman as a kinder and gentler schedule flown when smaller craft prevailed and many tried their hand, when glow fueled flight times were not limited by single LiPo capacity. When the current Sportsman sequence is examined in long form, we see that while the right manuvers are in the mix, <u>the schedule itself</u> stands to get in the way of the skill demonstration for the new competitor due to its lengthy complexity. The question here is do we need so many repetitive elements in the demonstration flight to judge the Sportsman's skill level; repetitive here as evidenced by entering and leaving the box 3 times; 2 straight flights; both a half Cuban and a REV half Cuban; a 45 downline and a Cobra without rolls; double-I and an Immelmann; or a vertical upline when one of those is already performed as part of the Stall Turn? And then there is the question of all-centered manuvers vs. the current turnaround format. In the end, the benefit of reducing the schedule is not that it will become easier to fly; rather it will allow the new and nervous pilot to focus on executing a few key manuvers as well as can be done, without the distraction of managing a longer flight over extended airspace.

On to more ideas and suggestion. Would it make sense for the Sportsman pilot to fly a full Cuban-8 as a centered manuver? A well done one seems like it would be a good first step towards mastering turnarounds and it can be done with less altitude change for the judges if it is not an end-box manuver. One concept that can be challenging to the sport pilot is the box itself. Perhaps retaining one pair of end-box manuvers, without a centered element, is a good way to demonstrate flying in the box? Is a stall turn on one end and an Immelman on the other enough to demonstrate box skills? The Immelmann can come last which gives the nervous noob altitude and space to set-up for landing (or deadstick if the flight was mismanaged). A lot of experience on this thread, would be interesting to hear if there are any other ideas along these lines. If flying pattern is all about making improvements to ones performance; then it should be the same for the sport itself and we should not shy away from a critique of what we are using for any part of it, including the schedule. Good discussing! Dana



<br type="_moz" />