[NSRCA-discussion] I'm off to a contest....
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Fri Aug 17 14:12:10 AKDT 2007
Hi Chris,
I work for Honeywell in Phoenix and used to provide flight simulations
for our avionics test benches. I used to work for Singer-Link on
commercial flight simulators. Mainly the software simulation products,
aero, engines, nav and Avionics interfacing.
I now work on a team that provides Simulator support for the simulated
Honeywell products our group puts together. i'm currently heavily
engaged in 787 work. Our team is working with Flight Safety in a number
of areas.
John
White, Chris wrote:
>Hi Jim,
>I noticed your address is Baesystems....Can I ask what you do for them.
>I procure data and parts for flights simulators of all types of aircraft
>and wondered which division you worked?
>
>By the way....thanks for the nosering engine mounting stuff the other
>day...it is going to be useful very soon on a new Defiant MkII.
>
>Thanks again...
>Chris
>
>Chris White
>Sr. Liaison Engineer
>Data & Equipment Group
>FSI-SSD. 2700 N Hemlock
>Circle, Broken Arrow, OK 74012
>918/259-5526
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward,
>Jim
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:28 AM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] I'm off to a contest....
>
>John,
>
>Please give us enthused readers a short bio of yourself. Others like me
>may have missed missed getting to know you over the last several years.
>You write with some conviction of the topics to please detail some of
>your participation, district, etc.
>
>Thanks,
>Jim W.
>
>
>
>
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
>is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
>confidential and proprietary information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
>recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
>copies of the original message.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John
>Gayer
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 11:14 AM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] I'm off to a contest....
>
>Dave,
>Please read my comments below in red
>
>Dave Lockhart wrote:
>
>
>
>>......so I won't be reading 100+ emails the next couple days. I
>>
>>
>started
>
>
>>this new post because I simply couldn't decide how/which email to
>>respond to. So, forgive the somewhat scattered approach, but some
>>thoughts I have after the last few days -
>>
>>- Why is Masters the largest class? Maybe because guys like the class?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Maybe because it is a "comfortable home" without the added
>>pressures/demands of F3A? Do we want to force happy Masters into F3A
>>(or maybe force them out of pattern)? I'm not sure I see too many
>>people dropping out of pattern on their way from Adv to Masters. In
>>any case, I think any changes to the Masters pattern should be done
>>with the greatest of care - it is the largest single class on average
>>at any given contest.
>>
>>
>>
>this is a good argument for eliminating the class advancement system
>completely. I see no more reason for forcing someone into Masters than
>for forcing someone out of Masters. Perhaps the option year I proposed
>would work here.
>
>
>
>>- Difficulty between classes. So what is the jump between Advanced and
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Masters is a little bit bigger than the jump from other classes - I
>>think it should be. Pilots with more experience are the best suited to
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>handle larger jumps. Pattern pilots by nature (meaning approach to
>>practicing and learning, recognizing limits) are not likely to wreck
>>planes learning new maneuvers for Masters, and this is (I think) even
>>more engrained after making several prior transitions (Int to Sport,
>>Sport to Advanced). Besides, maneuver complexity itself is not the
>>only measure of difficulty between classes. Int is in part about
>>learning what the box is - that is quite a challenge for many. Sport
>>has more complex maneuvers, as does Advanced. To be competitive in
>>Masters, you absolutely must be very skilled with the throttle and
>>know not only how to fly the maneuvers, but how to present/link the
>>maneuvers and present a seamless pattern.
>>
>>
>>
>I agree completely. The only change I would make is to eliminate
>turnaround from Sportsman. Let them focus on geometry, centering and
>wings level before forcing them into scored turnaround manuevers. I see
>no particular problem with the Advanced to Masters transistion as the
>schedules are now.
>
>
>
>>- Differences between Masters and F3A. Many seem to think because the
>># of maneuvers, KFactor, and maneuver types are similar between
>>Masters and F3A (prelims), that there is very little difference
>>between Masters and F3A. I don't agree.
>>
>>1) To be completive in F3A, you must fly at a higher level, and in all
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>wind conditions.
>>
>>
>>
>I know Masters pilots are good flyers but how do they get the wind to
>die? Is this something I need to learn before making the jump to
>Masters? Also, flying at a higher level is always a requirement of the
>next class.
>
>
>
>>2) To be completive in F3A, you must be polished at both the prelim
>>and finals schedules - even if the finals schedule were the same
>>difficulty level as the prelims (and it isn't by any stretch), this is
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>not simply twice the work - it is more like 4 times the work.
>>
>>
>>
>True. That's why I proposed the option year. I think everyone should at
>least try competing at the next level before conceding it is not for
>them.
>
>
>
>>3) To be completive in F3A, you need to be quite comfortable with a
>>library full of integrated loop/roll maneuvers - and you need to be
>>truly comfortable rolling both directions in complex maneuvers.
>>
>>Bottom line of which is I would advocate a Masters schedule which is
>>of similar difficulty (# of maneuvers, KFactor, maneuver types, etc)
>>to the F3A prelims is indeed a step below F3A, and is indeed a good
>>stepping stone to F3A.
>>
>>
>>
>I contend that you are not a complete flyer until you can do integrated
>loop/roll manuevers. This should be a challenge, not an objection. I
>would definitely object to increasing the difficulty level of Masters.
>That slot is already taken by FAI. moving to FAI is also a two step
>process. Most will probably not have to worry about the finals schedule
>for a year or two.
>
>
>
>>- Point system / Advancement.
>>
>>1) At the end of the day, how many people are really affected by the
>>point system? Most advance when appropriate, if not sooner. My opinion
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>is that many advance as soon as they can consistently get through a
>>pattern - and they move up without developing any polish - which is
>>fine is the goal is not perfection. Recognize that participant levels
>>in different classes in different parts vary substantially, and vary
>>with time (speaking for the US) - no point system is going to be
>>exactly right all the time, and if we choose to, we can adjust it any
>>number of ways. And I think the only thing that matters is that we
>>technically have a point system on the books which can be employed to
>>force promotion of a clear "sandbagger". Does anyone want to see a
>>pilot in Int, Sport, or Adv who is not dominant in the class promoted
>>to a higher level where they may never be competitive, and may be
>>chased out of the event?
>>
>>
>>
>much of this can be handled by an option year allowing one to go back a
>class if the water is too deep at the next level. Or by eliminating the
>point system completely for all classes. Just declare your class at the
>beginning of the year and stay with it. Next year change to whatever you
>
>want. I only want consistancy. If Masters can stay put, than classes
>should have that option.
>
>
>
>>2) F3A is F3A, and it is a quasi AMA class as it is referenced/listed
>>in the AMA book. I say quasi because the maneuver schedules are not
>>determined by the US for the US, and the amount of input the US has on
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>the F3A schedules is quite limited (how many can actually name the guy
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>that represents the US to FAI?). Forced advancement from Masters
>>(which the US controls) to F3A (which the US has limited if any
>>control over) is not something I think should be pursued.
>>
>>
>>
>Ron Chidgey, as I stated a while back. I still don't understand the
>relevance of this argument. Schedules are schedules. Who cares who made
>them up. The question really is whether the pattern "flows" and is it
>too difficult for my skill level?
>
>
>
>>3) The goal of a feeder system of classes to "build" the best F3A Team
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>for the US is a great goal. However, not everyone has the time/desire
>>to pursue a spot on the US Team, and they need a "home" as well. As I
>>noted above, I think the current class structure does a good job of
>>feeding F3A, and it also has room for destination fliers in Masters.
>>Could a better feeder system be in place if Masters were not a
>>destination class? Maybe. But I think pattern as a whole in the US
>>(including F3A) would suffer if any measurable number of current
>>Masters pilots left the event due to changes to improve the feeder
>>system. The US pattern community is perhaps unique in the world of
>>pattern - at the top, we have very substantial depth for fielding an
>>F3A Team. We have enough pilots to have 4 very competitive classes
>>(including F3A) at the NATs every year. The "feeder" system in the US
>>is far better than most (if not the best).
>>
>>
>>
>Somehow this keeps sounding like it is OK for the current top level
>Masters flyers to hang around and compete for the top spots at the NATS.
>
>Its perfectly legal in Masters but is not OK in any lower class. Why do
>you suppose the up and coming kids bypass Masters and move directly to
>FAI from Advanced? and if the feeder system is working so well, then we
>should have the world champion and the world champion team year after
>year. After all, we probably have as many pattern flyers as the rest of
>the world put together. I believe having an FAI class where any of 15 or
>
>more people could win the NATS and have a good shot at making the team
>would increase the competition and create a stronger team(even if the
>team members don't change).
>
>Lastly, if the state of pattern is so good, why does the NSRCA
>membership keep dropping? It would seem we need to make some changes to
>remain a viable organization. I would love to see the membership numbers
>
>for the last 10 years.
>
>John
>
>
>
>>Regards to all
>>
>>Dave Lockhart
>>
>>DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>-
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070817/6c44265b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list