[NSRCA-discussion] 2001 NATs
Ken Thompson
mrandmrst at comcast.net
Wed Jun 27 10:52:38 AKDT 2007
Very glad to see others that don't have a problem showing their Faith,
Good explaination Dwayne!
God Bless,
Ken
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DwayneNancy" <dwaynenancy at suddenlink.net>
> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2001 NATs
>
>
>> Nope, man forgives man but remembers. Man must repent and ask God for
>> forgiveness and if man is in the right relationship with God, God will
>> forget the sin except that God wipes the slate clean when the above
>> conditions are met. The slate can get written on again but only for new
>> transgressions. Process will then be repeated starting with admission
>> repentance. Dwayne
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John
>> Pavlick
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:09 PM
>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2001 NATs
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 269.9.10/873 - Release Date: 6/26/2007
>> 11:54 PM
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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