[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
Lisa & Larry
lld613 at psci.net
Tue Jun 26 16:18:05 AKDT 2007
Derek,
Based on what you have stated and understanding from my discussions with
you, I need to be the first to apologize to the NSRCA and Board members as
promised in a previous e-mail.
I do believe that the NSRCA was working with the AMA. For those that ask if
the rules were followed by the NSRCA, the answer is yes. I was one of those
people that initiated this line of questioning early with strong comments. I
do believe the NSRCA Board acted in the best interest of the NSRCA while
working with the AMA. This doesn't mean the decision is popular. Most
correct decisions are not.
With that said, we need to start looking forward and beyond. Eric has rights
to address this with the AMA and request an appeal. As tough as this may
sound, even the finest judicial system in the world is not perfect and
innocent people get sentenced. If confronted with information that indicates
wrong doing by someone, I would deliver a decision based on the information
in front of me.
I have much respect for Eric and all those being named in previous. If not
for them and their individual sacrifices, we would not have the NSRCA. I'm
not a well known pilot in pattern, but all those that I have meet I hold in
high regard.
I'm done with this thread..signing off
Larry Diamond
NSRCA 3083
AMA 5024
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek
Koopowitz
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:25 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
I've seen some really good words flying around this topic lately - banning,
lynching, secretive, uninformed, etc. None of it is true.
The NSRCA worked in concert with the AMA on these charges - everything was
done on the up and up and we were in consultation with them from the
beginning and they fully supported the outcome. There are other issues
beyond the bias charges that the AMA has dealt with (or is dealing with)
concerning the individual and since we host the pattern Nationals the AMA
asked us to review the data and to make a determination as to whether the
bias allegations were valid, and then to make a ruling as to what the
punishment would be. We ruled on that after reviewing all the data - and,
yes, it is mathematically/statistically possible to make a determination
based on one round of data. The full scale aerobatic community uses TBLP on
a round by round basis to determine potential bias - we did not use TBLP but
the data supports the bias allegations.
The NSRCA board did not jump up and down screaming "yahoo" when the outcome
was reached - I think every person on the board was a little saddened by it.
I think the bottom line that everyone should remember is that regardless of
who the individuals were and what their character is like, bias was present
and we needed to make a decision as to the punishment. As someone from D1
mentioned to me in a private email - there has been a long history of
acrimony/bias between the people concerned and unfortunately it showed
itself in one round of scoring at the Nationals.
On 6/26/07, W. Hinkle <whinkle1024 at msn.com> wrote:
Dave is a good pilot but character being beyond reproach is a bit of a
stretch. Ask John Glizellis about when Dave shot him down and haggled over
the price. This was to replace a brand new model with less than 30 flights
on it at the NATS. The incident was at the NATS during practice at the AMA
field. We all make mistakes, but to penny pinch the guy that just cost his
new model part way through the Nationals. JR had to step in and forced the
hand. If it had not been for Dave the sponsorship threat Dave would still be
argueing the price of a new built model. Dave replaced it after some debate
with JR. This is not character beyond reproach? Dave may be a good guy just
don't be on the same freq. He'll tell how poor your model is built and its
not worth the price of a professional built kit.
I'll agree that both parties in this fight are not angels. I'm not a fan or
Eric's but my question to this forum
Why is the NSRCA involved at all?
Doesn't the NSRCA have better things to do with its time and energy than
lynching a judge at the request of a couple pilots that have character
beyond reproach?
I feel this is another sign of the NSRCA just wasting resources, time and
money in the name of being the Savior of pattern flying. Beware people
beware. Come on. Getting two of Dave's best buddies in D1 to write a program
to damn a person that they and David hate with a passion. To me is smells
like old shellfish. These were the same judges who claimed in the past the
judge that gave the zero was the one that got it right.
The NSRCA has no business in this arena. I find it appalling the Board even
had this on the agenda. I also find it appalling that a ruling was made,
then Eric was notified of the charges and the conviction. As Eric stated, no
statistics can determine what the judge actually saw or better yet what the
pilot actually flew. So Eric's scores were below the average for a given
pilot. Maybe the pilot flew below average in Eric's eyes. This is why the
NATS uses more than one judge. This is a fact of life. This looks very one
sided by the NSRCA.
The NSRCA has no place in this squabble.
>From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org >
>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:27:00 -0400
>
>Len,
> All of the people involved were from D1 - I thought the good ol' boys
>were in D2 and D3! <LOL>
>
>John Pavlick
>http://www.idseng.com <http://www.idseng.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leonard Rudy
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>
>
> John,
>
> The conflict may have blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict, but in
>the NHL
> those "with the power" hear both sides and let each side present their
>case before
> the powers to be assign penalties. After the penalties are imposed, the
>player or
> individual still has the right to appeal the decision.
> You say Eric should take whatever the powers to be want and don't
>make any
> noise or waves.
> This is a clear message to others who will be judging at meets in
>the future. DO NOT GIVE THE GOOD OLD BOYS GROUP any low or bad scores or
>you may be on the receiving end of some form of penalty that you will not
>like.
>
> Len Rudy
> "Life is easier if you learn to plow around the stumps" or in other
>words, do not
> hand out low scores to the Good Old Boys or you will pay dearly for it
>one way or
> another.
>
> Fred Huber <fhhuber at clearwire.net> wrote:
> The penalty does not appear appropriate...
>
> It also sounds like it was not applied in a manner consistant with the
>rules system.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Ferrell
> To: Don Ramsey ; NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>
>
> I have the good fortune to not be involved in this dispute. I am
>only aware of the conflict.
>
> Not being very good at staying out of arguments, I offer the
>following observations:
> A heated difference of opinions occurred.
> Every one involved is considered a valuable asset to the Pattern
>Game.
> Things were said that should not have been said.
> Every one thinks they are right.
> There was probably at least one (or may be several) bad call(s) by
>some one.
>
> The conflict blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict and the net
>result was those with the power and responsibility treated it like a Hockey
>Game Conflict! A serious "time out" was assigned to the individual at the
>focal point of the conflict. It was their duty to put the problem on ice.
>
> The expectations of the rest of us who value the game and its
>players is that right or wrong the referee's call must be honored. The
>referee has the power to impose further penalties if the individual
>continues to make waves. Right or wrong, this is the was disputes are
>handled in the world of competition.
>
> If the individual was drawn into the conflict by goading it is still
>he who gets the penalty.
>
> Conflict resolution is not something that is natural to the human
>condition. Conflict is.
>
> Eric needs to take the penalty and get on with things.Those in power
>need to accept that the penalty has been applied and to continue the game.
>
> WE ALL need to be aware that we either play nice or get sent to the
>showers!
>
> Another factor to consider is that the higher profile one achieves
>in this sport the greater the need to hold that individual to higher
>standards.
> Eric is certainly a "high profile" player.
>
> John Ferrell W8CCW
> "Life is easier if you learn to plow
> around the stumps"
> http://DixieNC.US
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Ramsey
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>
>
> I would like to thank Eric for the nice complement in his comment,
>"To circumvent this conflict of interest problem and to keep the Nationals
>above reproach, I steeped out of line and asked Don Ramsey to independently
>choose the judges, Dave could not refuse this method, but I will tell you
>that he got extremely mad at me for doing it."
>
> I must respond that for good or bad I've been choosing the finals
>judges for many years. I started that process when Jeff Hill was Event
>Director. It must also be stated that I've never had any pressure of any
>kind from contest management regarding who I choose to judge. I try to
>pick the best candidates and rotate those so no single judge can influence
>the outcome extradionarly.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date:
>6/23/2007 11:08 AM
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Building a website is a piece of cake.
> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
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/20070627/2b04ea58/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list