[NSRCA-discussion] I'm off to a contest....

Sat Aug 18 03:05:58 AKDT 2007

Hi John,

That's cool.... Thanks for that information, good to put an occupation
with a name:-)   Yes, we work with Mike Sharp, Ed Erfort, Dave
Humphries, and of course Karen Calabrese quite a bit.   I used to do the
Avionics portion of the jobs until we had to section off in to Avionics
Specialists, so now my buddies do the interface with them.   I used to
work with Don Stylinski a lot...do you remember him.  He was into
restoring old Datsun Z cars, a really nice guy.  Cool that you're
working the 787, it is one of my simulator development projects as well.
( Funny, I have a brother in law working the actual aircraft lift
components at Spirit in Tulsa too.)   Actually the way the supplier
architecture is on that airplane half the pattern flyers in the country
may have something to do with it before its all said and done,
huh?...:-)LOL

If you're ever coming through Tulsa, give me a buzz and we'll do lunch
and a tour.

Chris White

Sr. Liaison Engineer

Data & Equipment Group

FlightSafety Simulation.  2700 N Hemlock

Circle, Broken Arrow, OK 74012

918/259-5526

________________________________

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 5:12 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] I'm off to a contest....

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>
<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/20070818/5829c422/attachment-0001.html 