[NSRCA-discussion] 2001 NATs
Dave Lockhart
davel322 at comcast.net
Tue Jun 26 17:24:18 AKDT 2007
W. Hinkle,
I don't recognize your name or email address, so my apologies if I've
forgotten a prior meeting. In any case, I don't know your sources /
affiliations / etc, and I hope you don't mind me offering my recollection of
the topic you introduced.
I've known John and his Father Peter for many years. As a matter of fact, I
made a point out of recommending John for Team JR after watching him put on
an incredible freestyle display with a Midwest Cap at the Pocono IMAC one
year. At pattern contests, I watched John move up through the classes and
made a point out of offering advice and coaching John and Peter. Early on,
both John and Peter were very quiet, and very cautious about imposing upon
anyone's time. Being that they were from an area without many other
competition flyers, and being a Father/Son Team, it was very easy for me to
identify with them as my Dad and I had a very similar
experience/relationship when we started flying pattern competitively.
That year at the NATs (2001 to recall), John was just finishing a practice
flight at Site 1 one evening and I had finished some repair work and started
to test run an engine. Yes, John and I were on the same frequency (ch 29 to
recall), and his new Smaragd (<30 flights is a good #) was about 3 feet high
on landing approach. The plane went into an outside snap and smacked the
runway pretty hard (based on what I was told by several people, I only saw
the airplane rolling on the runway). Immediately, the flightline was
buzzing, and I realized what I'd done. I walked out to the flightline to
meet John and his Father. The damage to the plane -
- knocked off a couple of cooling fins on the OS140EFI.
- broke one of the plastic beams on the HydeMount.
- cracked the chin pan (ground off the front inch more accurately).
- scraped/ground about 1/4" of the bottom of the left wingtip.
- some stress cracks in the paint on, in front of, and behind the canopy, a
couple of the cracks were partially into the glass/Kevlar.
- I think the prop was broken, the spinner was damaged, and maybe a servo
gear set was broke, but I'm not certain.
John was understandably very upset about the plane, and Peter was
understandably not happy about seeing his son upset. I've been flying since
1976 and never shot anyone down except for that day - it is not a good
feeling and I don't wish anyone to be on either end of such an incident.
What I offered -
- I offered to complete structural repairs that night to John's plane so it
could be flown the next day, and figure out permanent repairs/finishing
after the NATs.
- I offered to take the Smaragd home with me, take time off work, and work
nonstop to restore the plane and then drive it back to them (~7 hr drive).
- I offered to replace the damaged EFI head with the one from my backup
engine (which was either NIB or had a couple break-in runs, I don't
specifically recall).
- I offered my plane to John to fly that evening and for the remainder of
the contest.
- I offered to let John take home my plane to fly until I repaired his plane
or he had a new plane flying.
- I offered to give my backup plane (not yet test flown, still needing
equipment installation) in exchange for his damaged Smaragd.
- I offered to buy a new Smaragd and spend all my free time to build/finish
it using the damaged Smaragd as the "model".
I can't think of anything else I could have offered at that time.
The above offerings were all discussed within hours of the incident.
Several very reputable flyers/builders were at hand offering additional
support. That night, Peter's biggest concern was not his ability (or mine)
to repair the model, but was the loss of a competitive edge for the next
day's flying, and emotional upset stemming from damage to a new model. That
evening, all options seemed (understandably) to be unappealing to John and
Peter. The last discussion I had that evening was with Peter (John was also
there) and he stated he did not want to see me "pay" for an honest mistake,
and was not comfortable about how to resolve the situation - it was
something he and John would have to further discuss when both had time to
cool down. Despite the encouragement of myself and several other guys at
Site 1, John seemed intent on leaving for home that night (again, an
understandable reaction).
The next day - I learned that John and Peter had started to drive home the
prior night, but came back to the site after speaking with Mike McConnville
(Mike was very recently the Team JR Manager at that time) during the drive.
The backup plane John had was Mike's Fashion (which had been with them since
the start of the NATs).
I spoke with Peter and John several times over the course of the day, and
the "favored" remedy changed several times. Others that approached me about
the issue were aware of the various options, and informed me of some new
ones I'd not heard of or discussed with anyone. A bit of confusion to say
the least.
The bottom line of it all was that I consistently offered to do whatever I
could to make things right with John and his Father. The recently new Team
JR Manager (Andy Pound, who held that position very briefly) was at the site
that day. As Andy and I had never met in person, Len Sabato, the Team JR
Heli Manager at that time, was with him as Len and I knew each other quite
well from working together at the WRAM show for many years. I do not know
the exact content of the conversation(s) between Peter/John and Mike M,
between Mike M and Len/Andy, or between Len/Andy and Peter/John. I did have
a private conversation with Len and Andy shortly after they arrived at the
site. It was immediately clear to the three of us that some confusion
remained (understandable given the number of discussions I'd heard during
the day). The group of us (myself, John, Peter, Len, and Andy) had a
private discussion to make sure we were all on the same page.
That day, from Site 3 (on a judging break), I spoke to Al at Central Hobbies
and "found" a replacement Smaragd kit (in very high demand at the time)
which was sent to Bob Noll to build (on my nickel). I agreed to order a
full package of accessories for the new plane when I returned from the NATs.
Before leaving the NATs, Peter gave me the original Smaragd (stripped of all
hardware). Upon my return from the NATs, I ordered (from Central) all new
accessories for the new plane - as that was what I had agreed to at the NATs
- I actually ended up keeping some of the new MK linkages as Peter would not
accept them (he retained the linkages from the original plane). Mike Stokes
(former Team JR Manager), the current Team Futaba Manager took the damaged
EFI to have it repaired no charge.
To be 100% honest, for a little while after the 2003 NATs, the interaction
was a bit awkward (for myself, my Dad, Peter, and John) compared to before
the NATs - I think this is very understandable considering the emotion
during the incident and the confusion with so much "hearsay". I feel that
awkwardness is long past now, and on the occasions that I see John and Peter
(John no longer flies pattern actively in the northeast), it is always
friendly.
Yup, I screwed up big and shot somebody down. And I'm now reminded it seems
some will never forgive an honest mistake. What I've known for quite some
time is that attaining a degree of success can put a target on your back and
draw unwarranted attacks from others.
I'd like to respect the intent of this list and the moderators request and
close this aspect of the thread. My direct email is listed below, should
any be so inclined. Thanks to my many friends (old and new) who've been
supportive on and off list the past week.
Regards,
Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of W. Hinkle
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:26 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
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
> ----- 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
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list