[NSRCA-discussion] 2001 NATs
John Pavlick
jpavlick at idseng.com
Tue Jun 26 20:11:51 AKDT 2007
I thought it was the other way around... <VBG>
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "DwayneNancy" <dwaynenancy at suddenlink.net>
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2001 NATs
> On behalf of another that "shot" someone down there's never a complete
> forgetfulness from those included in the circle. We as members of the
> human
> race can forgive but not forget. Only God forgives AND forgets. Thank
> goodness. Dwayne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Lockhart
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:26 PM
> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2001 NATs
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.9/870 - Release Date: 6/26/2007
> 10:07 AM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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