Any info about the "proposed" new sequences for 2016-17 ? Not posted yet, but by summer, the
NSRCA site usually has something up about what has been proposed by the sequence committee .

Proposed 2016-17 Advanced and Masters sequences now up on nsrca.us
Woodie

Looking at the new sequence for masters and with the up in the air standing with the FAA, I'm thinking maneuvers such as the 4 point rolls on vertical uplines which put us 7-800 feet above ground level should probably be rethought?

My primary field is at a small airport and the 2015 Advanced schedule easily puts one well above 600 AGL. Several center maneuvers are space hungry which requires the end box turnarounds to really pinch the 180 degrees. With all that is coming down from the FAA, we need to be cognizant of limitations.

Once again the sequence committee has done an excellent job with the proposed 2016-017 Advanced sequence. It appears to flow well and in my opinion has he right level of difficulty. I only hope it doesn't get watered down before the final vote.

Yes, I agree with Glen, the Sequence committee has done an excellent job developing the 2016-2017 Advanced Sequence. I've moved from Intermediate into Advanced this season and find the sequence quite challenging and fun. In walking through the new Proposed Advanced Sequence, it looks as though it will be equally challenging and fun. I don't think that we should really concern ourselves too much with the 600+ AGL however, because we're definitely hitting that attitude and higher when we perform the Hourglass, Triangle, and Three Turn Spin maneuvers, just to name a few. We have the AMA as our advocate and should just leave it to the AMA and the membership (us) to work things out with the FAA.

Happy Practicing!!

So why not make the maneuvers smaller? There is no requirement to fly 800 ft maneuvers is there?
Dave

The sequence committee could make contestant judging a lot easier by eliminating take off and landing from the sequence. It would mean less total time a judge would have to watch the airplane and would give them more time to get score sheets in order before and after the flight and other administrative duties. Also would be less tiring on the judges by having a longer break between flights. Take off and landing are not aerobatic maneuvers anyway. FAI eliminated them years ago.
Dave

Dave,

The charter of the Sequence committee is to create schedules within the boundaries of the Sequence Development Guide. We sometimes propose changes to the is guide, which the BOD must approve. Currently the guidelines specify judged take off and landing for every class. I think there have been debates in the past over this issue, I personally wouldn't object to this change, but as is, it is a requirement we need to follow.

Dale
Sequence Committee Chairman

So, is the sequence development guide so sacred it can't be amended? Would the BOD agree to a change if it was proposed by the development committee, or members, or just pattern flyers?
OK, I guess not - let's just leave everything as it's always been!

I have flown both of the patterns and they are very well thought out. The Advanced pattern is structured such that new Advanced fliers will be able to develop the skill sets required for further advancement. The Master's pattern is exactly what I would expect for that class. Thank you to all members of the committee for their efforts. Properly structured patterns are vital to our activity.

Robert Fish

Gentlemen,
With all due respect, can we keep this thread focused on the 2016-2017 proposed patterns, and start fresh threads on other subjects such as altitude considerations and such? These areas are worthy of their own thread.

Best regards,
Robert

The altitude matter is EXACTLY why I started this thread. It should be discussed here.

I see that you are the OP. I do not see anything in your opening post concerning altitude, rather it was a general inquiry about the proposed patterns.
please pardon my indiscretion.

Robert

I agree with Robert. If the OP was interested in the impact of potential altitude restrictions on proposed sequence development, OP could have done a better job making that clear in the thread title.

I don't think 4-points on uplines would pose much of a problem, just get into your line quickly and don't roll slowly

Real quick, 400' isn't very high.

Yup, 400 ft isn't very high, but it does make it more challenging and exciting to fly the longer Masters and FAI sequences. The only places I have access to are either very space limiting or right next to a regional airport, so I've had to work on getting everything tight and quick to move on with the times. Anyways, the new sequences look great and cant wait to judge them!

I have to ask why an Avalanche is a 3 K factor maneuver in Advanced while a 4 K factor in FAI. You would logically think the k factor would be reduced as the class level is increased.

We did notice this discrepancy, in the AMA guide the Avalanche is listed as a K3, as far we we could find, it has always been a K3. We don't have any control over the FAI K Factors, but the Sequence Committee felt K3 was most appriopiate. I think you will find previous F3A sequences also had it as a K3.

Dale

I agree that the K3 for the Avalanche has ample precedent and is a reasonable number, I was just curious as to why there was a difference. I noticed it when I was judging a p-15 round this past weekend. Thanks for the insight into the process. I have not flown the sequence yet but my stick plane is getting better at it here in the office!!LOL Seems like the sequence will flow well.