<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Chris,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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. <br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
White, Chris wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midFE4F8D9DAB8F8045940ECCF0E1B0A52DE3F43C@ssdmx.ssd.fsi.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] 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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] 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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">......so I won't be reading 100+ emails the next couple days. I
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->started
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Difficulty between classes. So what is the jump between Advanced and
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- 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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">wind conditions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">not simply twice the work - it is more like 4 times the work.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- 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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">the F3A schedules is quite limited (how many can actually name the guy
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">3) The goal of a feeder system of classes to "build" the best F3A Team
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->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
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Regards to all
Dave Lockhart
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net"><mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net></a>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->-
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>