Wind

The thread about the wind meter, and some posts remarking that the winds "were blowing 20-25 mph"....got me to wondering.

Our AMA says that a contest should be called with sustained winds of 40 mph.
We suspended, then cancelled and entire round at the US Nationals this year because the wind was blowing 12-15 mph, with gusts to 25.

I have expressed my belief that top 20 day, 2003, was not so much a contest of Precision Aerobatics, but a survival deal.....

I think that we all pretty much agree that 40 mph is too much to be waving toy aeroplanes about....
but, if there were to be a rules proposal, where should the maximum wind speed be to have good and safe contests?
See Ya

You might be interested in making a home-brew wind speed meter. I built one some years ago.

Get a cheap "hobby" electric motor from the hobby shop. About $10

Attach a 12" balsa prop (for rubber models)

Buy a cheap dc voltmeter from Radio Shack. About $15

Connect the motor to the voltmeter and mount the thing on a tripod.

The motor will act as a dc generator. Voltage read will be proportional to wind speed. You must somehow calibrate the thing, but maybe someone has an accurate wind meter for calibration. Accurate calibration is not required. You only really need to sense changes in wind velocity.

If nothing else, it is a conversation starter.

I built this one for our club field http://www.otherpower.com/anemometer.html Used a Radio Shack digital readout instead of an analogue meter and calibrated it using a commercial hand held.

Worked great until the digital readout started loosing display segments due to the exposure to extreme temperatures. Next revision will be going back to an analogue meter. Sometimes hi-tech isn't the way to go

>The thread about the wind meter, and some posts remarking
>that the winds "were blowing 20-25 mph"....got me to
>wondering.
>
>Our AMA says that a contest should be called with sustained
>winds of 40 mph.
>We suspended, then cancelled and entire round at the US
>Nationals this year because the wind was blowing 12-15 mph,
>with gusts to 25.
>
>I have expressed my belief that top 20 day, 2003, was not so
>much a contest of Precision Aerobatics, but a survival
>deal.....
>
>I think that we all pretty much agree that 40 mph is too
>much to be waving toy aeroplanes about....
>but, if there were to be a rules proposal, where should the
>maximum wind speed be to have good and safe contests?
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

I agree, Rich, that the winds of 2003 were higher than they were this year when the suspended things. And 2003 was intolerable. We shouldn't have to risk planes that way. One of the things about this year was that the winds would start up slower in the morning, then work up to their heights within a couple of hours of the start of the contest. All three times that Matt flew, both on Wednesday when they finally cancelled the round, and on Thursday when he flew two officials, the winds at the times of his flights had reached over 20 sustained with recordable gusts at about 25 to 26. Now I say "recordable" because my our wind meter is the propeller type that takes a sustained wind to record. A quick gust will get missed. Still, I was getting readings of 25 to 26 during all of his flights. Overhead they had to be worse. At the time that things got shut down on Wednesday I recorded one gust at 32. I really think that is a bit much and Bily was hanging on for dear life (he was up at the time). Things dropped back again after that, and were no worse than when a lot of people had already flown, so I am not sure that it had to be cancelled since all but a couple of flyers had already flown in the stuff. If you are going to cancel, do so before you have the crashes.

I would think a maximum speed of 25 (including gusts of that variety) should be enough to cancel. That would be my vote. It would be more comforting to make that even lower, but it also becomes a factor of how low do you make it and still insure that contests will go on? However, if that is what it is expected to be, I would think it would be better to cancel before people put their planes at risk.

Dig out the '02/'04 rulebook, and check page 2, sect. "CB", "Delay or Cancellation of Events". While 40 mph is mentioned, it is not "cast in stone", and says so, right there in B&W. I'd have expected a NATS ED to get it right. Steve

Steve...I am fully aware of what the rulebook says....my issue is that I believe that a contestant has a right to know when the wind is too strong, and that it should either be outlined at the Pilot's Meeting, or, better yet, in the rule book. If 25 mph is too strong, it should so state. I believe that the FAI uses 26 mph?...

The CD / ED certainly can prevent flights when there is danger in any weather conditions...but I do feel that there are a lot of rules in CLPA that need clarification.

See Ya

So when is someone going to put in a rules proposal? If I think it is too windy I don't fly. DOC

Had you been in the 2003 Open finals, you would have had that privilege. I could foresee the teasing I'd get back home if I didn't fly, so I had to press on.

Come on Howard, did you forget the days at Swope Park? DOC

"..uses 26 mph" - 12 m/sec for 60 sec, close enough. But only allows delayed start or interruption, not cancellation of part of the results.

>"..uses 26 mph" - 12 m/sec for 60 sec, close enough. But
>only allows delayed start or interruption, not cancellation
>of part of the results.

This should be the rules proposal.

I think the entire thing was incredibly weird. There were only 3 experts left to fly, 2 were from Texas and READY TO GO. Throwing out the entire round seems entirely innappropriate for the situation *however* it appears to be supported by the rulebook.

I would say to adopt the FAI standard for determining appropriate wind and I would also say that the action defined by the FAI is much more fair and reasonable (delay the contest).

Rich, I will co-sign a proposal adopting the FAI "wind" section.

Is 26 mph a reasonable and proper wind speed?

Or should it be lower?

I do agree that the contest should be suspended until the wind becomes "flyable".....two guys flying in front of me flew because they figured that "the wind was less than 40".

The issue becomes: what if flyer #5 passes because the wind is above his comfort level, and #6 is excused because the wind had climbed to a level past what the rule book designates? I guess that a pass is a pass?

See Ya

Too much wind is when "facing downwind, the air blowing through my wifes little ear ring holes in her ears, whistles".

>>"..uses 26 mph" - 12 m/sec for 60 sec, close enough. But
>>only allows delayed start or interruption, not cancellation
>>of part of the results.
>
>This should be the rules proposal.
>
>I think the entire thing was incredibly weird. There were
>only 3 experts left to fly, 2 were from Texas and READY TO
>GO. Throwing out the entire round seems entirely
>innappropriate for the situation *however* it appears to be
>supported by the rulebook.

I overall thought this was a good idea, even though I was well up on my circle and probably would have been first or second. It didn't really work out all that well, only because the next day was nearly as bad. But you can't know that ahead of time.

If you are going to cancel flights, you *have* to toss the entire round! Otherwise, the last guys who flew in the bad weather are at an extreme disadvantage to those who fly after the wind abates. It woudn't have made any difference this year, but there are many instances where there was a bad spot, and later we got good conditions.

Heck, suppose you were one of the guys who just got done crashing - and then they delay the contest so everyone else gets it easier?

The whole point of having rounds is to avoid what happens (and happened this time) in FAI - luck as it relates to weather. It can still happen - except that in this case you are intentionally doing it instead of leaving it to luck.

Brett:
I would agree, except that if there was a denfinate "cut point" that all were aware prior to the event it would apply in a less than arbitrary manner.
In 1993 (92?), the flying was stopped because of a steady downpour....flyers adjourned to lunch, their rooms, etc...then were recalled and the contest was resumed....no "re-flys"...
I believe that there should be every effort to remove arbitrary decisions from contests..........
If it's a windy day, and the contest were to be halted because the wind exceeded, say, 26 mph, I would venture that resuming after a period of, say, no winds exceeding 26 mph being observed, that the conditions would not vary any more significantly than they do during a normal round?

See Ya

>Brett:
>I would agree, except that if there was a denfinate "cut
>point" that all were aware prior to the event it would apply
>in a less than arbitrary manner.
>In 1993 (92?), the flying was stopped because of a steady
>downpour....flyers adjourned to lunch, their rooms,
>etc...then were recalled and the contest was resumed....no
>"re-flys"...
>I believe that there should be every effort to remove
>arbitrary decisions from contests..........

I believe there should be an effort to restart on the same day, even if you have to wait until dark.

Who knows if the second you throw out the round and stop the wind will stop in the next half hour.

>I believe there should be an effort to restart on the same
>day, even if you have to wait until dark.
>
>Who knows if the second you throw out the round and stop the
>wind will stop in the next half hour.

I would agree with that although it could be hard on the judges (and the contestants) if they have to wait around.

There is no perfect solution. What Brett says is true, but often someone who gets an early draw around 8 or 9 o'clock will get better wind on those days when the wind comes up. On the other hand there are situations where it goes in reverse. I remember the first Nats that Matt entered (as Advanced) he was next up in qualifying when the contest was paused because of a thunderstorm about to come through. When it passed the contest was resumed under some pretty stiff winds (that weren't there before hand). Ironically he got a better score on that flight than he did on the one before under calm conditions.

On another occasion (Nats again) the winds were coming up and got progressively worse as the morning wore on. Matt was second last to qualify in the first round. The winds were pretty bad by that time. After the break he was first up for the second round and again had to fly in the goodly winds. And then, when the third flyer in the circle set up for his flight, the winds, for whatever reasn, just died and they stayed dead for the rest of the flights.

Those things are just the breaks of the game and nothing we can plan for or complain about. Conditions were flyable and people flew. There will always be those inequities. However, I do agree as seems to be the consensus here, that there should be a reasonable limit and a point where things are suspended should the winds exceed those limits.

Suspend, don't cancel, and then resume again when conditions improve (somewhat).

>Brett:
>I would agree, except that if there was a denfinate "cut
>point" that all were aware prior to the event it would apply
>in a less than arbitrary manner.
>In 1993 (92?), the flying was stopped because of a steady
>downpour....flyers adjourned to lunch, their rooms,
>etc...then were recalled and the contest was resumed....no
>"re-flys"...
>I believe that there should be every effort to remove
>arbitrary decisions from contests..........

This wasn't arbitrary - it's just that you (and I) weren't aware of the criteria.

I do think it would be better to have a more concrete rule, and/or to make everyone aware ahead of time.

But it's also reasonable to do it based on other things, too. For instance, I'd be a lot more willing to let the contest continue at high winds if it was top 20 or flyoff day, than the first round of qualifying. Just becase you presumably have filtered out those of lesser skills, who might be tempted into trying it without realizing when they were getting in over their heads. If you want to be a Top-20 hotshot, you ought to be able and allowed to make your own decisions on continuing.

Calling off contests is always going to be a controversial thing, and I don't see a lot of way around that.

Brett

p.s. I would be a lot more concerned about lightning than wind. I was dismayed at what happened at the W/C - people's* hair was standing on end in the pits for at least half an hour before it got called, finally, after a nearby strike. Fortunately the first close strike wasn't on Billy's lines.

Maybe we need a field strength meter. But *bad things* were happening well in advance of it being called, and the W/C (or even the NATs) is not worthing getting zapped for.

*p.p.s. not mine, of course.

> This wasn't arbitrary - it's just that you (and I)
>weren't aware of the criteria.

This apeared to bethe case for me. I assumed (wrongly) that the decision to throw out the round was arbitrary. Upon further examination, a discussion with Dave Cook reveiled that apparently this is spelled out as the procedure somewhere (Dave mentioned a guide for Nats competition that I am trying to get for myself).

> I do think it would be better to have a more concrete
>rule, and/or to make everyone aware ahead of time.

This would certainly be ideal, and I think these types of issues should be addressed in the future. I am currently in the process of trying to obtain all of the guidelines that are currently being used for determining the procedures for the Nats. Since I ahave yet to obtain these documents, I really have no comment as to what is addressed and what isn't. I would assume that most every situation is covered, but as Brett said, I think most everyone competing is not aware of the criteria.

I think a good idea would be start some type of publication procedure in SN ( I think this would make a far superior column topic than say "crash repairs").

If you want to be a Top-20
>hotshot, you ought to be able and allowed to make your own
>decisions on continuing.

This would have been my only point of contention for the 2003 decision, as I know that that the Open contestants left to fly were not consulted. If they had, I know at least 2 out of the 3 would have chosen to fly. I do not know who the 3rd contestant was, so I have no idea of his opinion. It seems the decision almost affected everyone in arrears. We do not, afterall, wnat to leave a loophole for a flier to nullify his poor standing if had not performed well in the round in question. Some people rely on the wind to elevate their standing, and flying in the wind is favorable.

> Calling off contests is always going to be a
>controversial thing, and I don't see a lot of way around
>that.

True. I think this type of discussion (and maybe some helpful rules proposals that could come from it) could lead to minimizing the controversy. Maybe a "stair step" outline for calling a contest would be good ideal. Say, implementing a fixed delay period (maybe one hour at a time, with a total of two allowed) to determine if the contest could be continued. If after a fixed period of time the contest is called for the day. At that point, throwing out the scores could certainly be considered. It would also be important to consult the remaining contestants.

>p.s. I would be a lot more concerned about lightning than
>wind. I was dismayed at what happened at the W/C - people's*
>hair was standing on end in the pits for at least half an
>hour before it got called, finally, after a nearby strike.
>Fortunately the first close strike wasn't on Billy's lines.
>
> Maybe we need a field strength meter. But *bad things*
>were happening well in advance of it being called, and the
>W/C (or even the NATs) is not worthing getting zapped for.

My wife and I left the tarmac three fliers before Werwage. I was stunned that no one got static stuck from far off ground strikes. I had this happen to me, it is no fun and I nearly lost an airplane. Ijust assumed there would be some controversy because the contest was not called sooner. Also Billy got to refly, none else did. As it turned out, no one said a word, no protests, nothing.

I would rate the dangers as (barring a tornado or something):
1. Lightning
2. Rain.
3. Wind.

The wind is only dangerous to airplanes.

In combat, both guys get the same wind at the same time. There's less luck involved.

>Steve...I am fully aware of what the rulebook says....my
>issue is that I believe that a contestant has a right to
>know when the wind is too strong, and that it should either
>be outlined at the Pilot's Meeting, or, better yet, in the
>rule book. If 25 mph is too strong, it should so state. I
>believe that the FAI uses 26 mph?...
>
>The CD / ED certainly can prevent flights when there is
>danger in any weather conditions...but I do feel that there
>are a lot of rules in CLPA that need clarification.
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

The AMA '02/'04 Rule Book does NOT say 40mph is required to cancel or delay flying officials. Your first post said it does state that, when in fact, it does not. How can you say that you know what the book says, when you make a statement like that?

My point is that the rulebook gives the CD/ED power to set a limit for the type of models being flown. We are not stuck with 40 mph or 26mph or 15 mph. What PAMPA should do, IMO, is to come up with a set windspeed (and measuring equipment and calibration specs) to make it a limit that CD's, ED's and contestants can all understand and expect to cause a halt to the flying, at least at the NATS, where most folks do long drives.

I'd think the judges would be ok with catching some z's and resuming flying later. Question then becomes, how do you deal with it if you can't get all the flights in before it's too dark to fairly show the model's flight. I think it's more reasonable to finish the next day than trash a whole day's results. There would come a point where folks would not be allowed to take an attempt in hopes of flying the next morning in gentle breezes. Probably when flying is resumed (late), would be the time to make that known, not as dusk approaches. Steve

Check these out;

Anemometer 1960 AM Nov p21 Morgan, H.
Anemometer 1977 RCM Mar p92 Meyers, David G.
Anemometer 1978 RCM Apr p36 Chappa, Fred
Anemometer 1981 RCM Mar p66 Denson Paul F.

Tom...

The issue is not how to gauge wind speed, but rather to seek a definitive speed at which flying activity is stopped and, I believe, to define a period of POSTPONEMENT, rather than cancellation.

I am not sure that the FAI's measure of 26 mph (approx) is correct.....does anyone fly or practice in winds that strong?

The wind speed at which such actions is taken, along with the actual procedure needs to be clarified and/or modified....

See Ya

The 12m/s (23 kt, for comparison a C172 has a 15 kt crosswind limit) limit is do-able, from my experience, but far from comfortable. At the lower end of the skill scale (includes me) some models will be lost and some flyers will call an unflown attempt.Associated turbulence is another factor.

If a finite limit is set, like the 12m/s & 60 sec rule, it is really important to have a recording wind speed gauge. Then the discussion goes like this:" well, I'm sorry but as you can see the wind was over 12 m/s for only 58 sec, so your score stands" or, "well, the wind was over 12 m/s for 61 seconds, so you get a refly". Cancellation is not an option.

Human nature: no matter where the line is drawn, someone will moan!

Slightly different subject: does anyone have the complete scores from the cancelled round 1?

>The 12m/s (23 kt, for comparison a C172 has a 15 kt
>crosswind limit) limit is do-able, from my experience, but
>far from comfortable. At the lower end of the skill scale
>(includes me) some models will be lost and some flyers will
>call an unflown attempt.Associated turbulence is another
>factor.

That's 27.84 MPH, which was about what it was in 2003 on Top 20 day. Doable but very much on the edge, and very much on the edge of the equipment's ability to stay together. Allen Goff's airplane (on .018 lines) broke loose completely, and I could definitely feel my lines stretch.

>Human nature: no matter where the line is drawn, someone
>will moan!
>
>Slightly different subject: does anyone have the complete
>scores from the cancelled round 1?

No - they were never added up. I have (had) mine, and I know what some other people got. On my circle, Andrew Schreck, Billy, and I were probably all pretty close. Andrew got good air early on, I got mediocre air, and Billy's air was such that I think it was a factor in deciding to cancel. If the world champ is just holding on and hoping, that means it's probably too windy.

Brett

"If the world champ is just holding on and hoping, that means it's probably too windy."

That flight was the slowest lap time Billy had over the two week period. His lap time was much slower than he had been flying. This, along with the fact that he was on the "ski ramp" circle, caused it to be rather exciting. It was bad, but we should have finished the round. It just wasn't that bad overall. We might have waited for the second round till later in the pm. It still wouldn't have been great but we would have followed the path that was advertised. When we start changing the rules in the middle of the process we run into a Florida election situation.

In '92 Chicoopee we got one flight on Wed and made up the second flight on Thrusday am. Then did the two Thur rounds. It was windy on Thurs am. We've got a lot of daylight in the middle of the summer. I come to the Nats to fly model airplanes not swim in the hotel pool. The worst though was the year in Vincenes where we were rain delayed for the first flight and then cancelled the second flight because "it would have kept the judges on the field too long" The judges spent the day just like the competitors, sleeping in the car. We were eatin cobler when we should have been flying.

That year didn't bother me cause of the draws I had, (I'm sure some did get shafted that year) but this year was different, especially with the WC hangovers. I had a medium draw for Wed. and late draws for Thurs. That was the luck of the draw, I knew that going in ... I had to do the best I could on Wed. and hope for better air on Thur. and I did, and then it just got thrown away. The wind measurements on the runway just wern't that bad. Not enough to cancel the whole day and head to the pool. I should have written the protest. I'm not down on Warren, I just wish there had been more substantial set of contingency plans. One thing for sure, if we are going to drop a round, it should be automatically appealed to the Nats CL event director for sustainment.

>"If the world champ is just holding on and hoping, that
>means it's probably too windy."
>
>The wind measurements on
>the runway just wern't that bad.

Don't have to tell me! I flew on the same circle, 1/2 hour -45 minutes earlier. And I was not entirely pleased with the decision at the time, since I had done a pretty good flight. In retrospect it didn't effect me, but I'm sure it did effect some people in both senses.

I still think that it's a little different when it's the first round of qualifying. The carnage was just beginning, and using the effects on top pilots as a gauge on how the air might be is not all that bad an idea. When they have rain at NASCAR races, they ask the most experienced drivers to evaluate the condition of the track. I don't see how this is a lot different.

Of course, it wasn't a lot better the next day, either. And I was (obviously) surprised by how many passed their were in the afternoon - which is one element of how I got caught out on the order and had my pathetic little hissy fit.

>Not enough to cancel the
>whole day and head to the pool. I should have written the
>protest. I'm not down on Warren, I just wish there had been
>more substantial set of contingency plans. One thing for
>sure, if we are going to drop a round, it should be
>automatically appealed to the Nats CL event director for
>sustainment.

I'm guessing that would have been upheld. I heard somewhere that *none* of the events that day finished. And the rule book definitely leaves it to the ED discretion.

At the same time, Palko was doing okay with his flashlight powered critter.
What the reigning World Champ did should have no bearing on anything.....if Ted had won the Worlds would we have cancelled the Nats?

See Ya

>At the same time, Palko was doing okay with his flashlight
>powered critter.
>What the reigning World Champ did should have no bearing on
>anything.....if Ted had won the Worlds would we have
>cancelled the Nats?
>

Uh, what? Lost me on that one.

>>At the same time, Palko was doing okay with his flashlight
>>powered critter.
>>What the reigning World Champ did should have no bearing on
>>anything.....if Ted had won the Worlds would we have
>>cancelled the Nats?
>>
>
>Uh, what? Lost me on that one.
>
> Brett

Maybe what he is saying is that Billy appears to have had two contests stopped for his benefit in one year. Man, that is lucky.

Of course, Rich loses me too. Ha!!!

>>>At the same time, Palko was doing okay with his flashlight
>>>powered critter.
>>>What the reigning World Champ did should have no bearing on
>>>anything.....if Ted had won the Worlds would we have
>>>cancelled the Nats?
>>>
>>
>>Uh, what? Lost me on that one.
>>
>> Brett
>
>Maybe what he is saying is that Billy appears to have had
>two contests stopped for his benefit in one year. Man, that
>is lucky.

"Gee, that's a lovely dress, Mrs. Cleaver."

Brett,
Nice choice of words--Love your sophistication.."Mrs Clever was fine, don't you think?"-LOL...
DAve

>
> "Gee, that's a lovely dress, Mrs. Cleaver."
>
> Brett

Brett,

NOW THAT"S FUNNY!

You are improving. Good belly laugh. Start my morning right before I meet Bob G. at the field for some patterns.

I was not at the Nats, I have only what I was told from the fliers present. I was at the Worlds, and IMHO it looked bad for us. I already said that before, so no Eddie Haskell there.

I do not wish to spoil the thread, because it is a good one. I think we all agree we either need to do some more homework on the rules, or update the existing stoppage criteria. I am currently doing dome homework, once I have the criteria I will suggest a rules change if it is needed. Please, do not stop the discussion.

Brad

Flyer's safety issues are pretty well spelled out in the rule book....

I think that there should be a determination / clarification of the wind speed rule. I believe that all competitors have a right to know if/when a contest is going to be called/postponed instead of an arbitrary ruling.

The winds here are supposed to be 20-30 tomorrow....ought to clear the leaves from the trees. I may drag my tuna -pipe critter out and fly some.

See Ya

>Maybe what he is saying is that Billy appears to have had
>two contests stopped for his benefit in one year. Man, that
>is lucky.
>
>Of course, Rich loses me too. Ha!!!

Somehow I get lost in how the stopping of the contest that day benefitted Billy at all. First of all, it was merely a qualifying flight. Billy was going to qualify. So, my next question is, how did this benefit him? The truth is, nobody told him that they stopped the contest and he flew the entire pattern through that wind for nothing. He was, in fact, putting his plane at risk in a contest that had already been stopped (but he wasn't told.) No, he didn't benefit from that at all.

>
>>Maybe what he is saying is that Billy appears to have had
>>two contests stopped for his benefit in one year. Man, that
>>is lucky.
>>
>>Of course, Rich loses me too. Ha!!!
>
>Somehow I get lost in how the stopping of the contest that
>day benefitted Billy at all. First of all, it was merely a
>qualifying flight. Billy was going to qualify. So, my next
>question is, how did this benefit him? The truth is, nobody
>told him that they stopped the contest and he flew the
>entire pattern through that wind for nothing. He was, in
>fact, putting his plane at risk in a contest that had
>already been stopped (but he wasn't told.) No, he didn't
>benefit from that at all.

Like Billy needs help qualifying at the NATs 5 days after being crowned World Champion.

To complete the thought, the conspiracy theory at the time was the the flight was called at the Worlds because someone didn't think Billy's wingover was very good, so they called it off so he could have a second try. For that theory to be sound, Warren or Frank had to induce lightning to strike at just the right time, to cover their tracks. Never mind that the delay appeared to be (predictably, and predicted at the time) the start of the ballooning - for which Billy got burned pretty good as later pilots flew. Never mind that the flying should have been called even earlier due to extreme lightning danger. I don't recall hearing this tripe from Brad at the time, but I did hear it from someone whose opinion I no longer value.

This sort of thing is, charitably, small-minded and mean-spirited.

> To complete the thought, the conspiracy theory at the
>time was the the flight was called at the Worlds because
>someone didn't think Billy's wingover was very good, so they
>called it off so he could have a second try. For that theory
>to be sound, Warren or Frank had to induce lightning to
>strike at just the right time, to cover their tracks.

Brett, as you know I was standing not far from the circle with my son, Aaron, and Robbie Hunt. I was amazed that the flights had not already been postponed. The electricity in the air was palpable.

Wasn't it great timing that Warren (I didn't know he was so talented AND connected) caused the lighting strike to occur at almost exactly the time that Billy pulled up into his wingover. (for the uninformed, I am being just a TOUCH SARCASTIC here) I don't care what anyone says, I thought Billy was a *little* crazy to continue to fly out the pattern without going completely bonkers! His desire overshadowed his possiblility of serious injury. How can anyone maintain concentration in under those conditions?

> This sort of thing is, charitably, small-minded and
>mean-spirited.
>
> Brett

I, unfortunately, had no insight to any conspirancy theory which is good because I would probably have been ejected from the site if I had heard that. Or worse, i.e. Meekness doesn't imply weakness.
Bill <><

> I don't care what anyone says, I thought
>Billy was a *little* crazy to continue to fly out the
>pattern without going completely bonkers! His desire
>overshadowed his possiblility of serious injury. How can
>anyone maintain concentration in under those conditions?

I talked to him right before that and he was concerned. I've had my brushes with lightning, and I can tell you that had I seen that sort of static buildup I wouldn't have flown myself. I lived most of my early life in or near tornado alley, and seen more than my share of weather - and I've never seen anything like it.

I won't criticize anyone one way or the other - we are all (well, most of us) adults, and we make decisions.

Hi Brett,
After reading my post I see that it sorta sounds like I am critizing Billy for flying, just the opposite! I was amazed that he flew. My wording of I thought he was a little crazy was more of the thought that I wouldn't have even thought of doing it.
My hat's off to him for being able to concentrate and focus at that level.
Bill <><

> To complete the thought, the conspiracy theory at the
>time was the the flight was called at the Worlds because
>someone didn't think Billy's wingover was very good, so they
>called it off so he could have a second try. For that theory
>to be sound, Warren or Frank had to induce lightning to
>strike at just the right time, to cover their tracks. Never
>mind that the delay appeared to be (predictably, and
>predicted at the time) the start of the ballooning - for
>which Billy got burned pretty good as later pilots flew.
>Never mind that the flying should have been called even
>earlier due to extreme lightning danger. I don't recall
>hearing this tripe from Brad at the time, but I did hear it
>from someone whose opinion I no longer value.
>
> This sort of thing is, charitably, small-minded and
>mean-spirited.

I am not really sure what you are saying here.

Long before Billy won, there was talk among the group of spectators that I was watching with, that a protest in regard to Warren and Frank's decision to stop the contest at the time they did would be eminent. The lightning during Billy's flight was only marginally worse (if any) than during the Chinese or Japanese fliers' flights (I never saw the "magic" lightning strike, and was standing 5 yards from Warren when he ran to get Frank to stop the contest). A case could be made very easily that the American hosts chose to stop the contest only for the American flier, whether it was true or not. Truth has nothing to do with it.

This could have had REAL protest potential. Fortunately, the other teams did not pursue. These types of situations are a competitive reality that we all have to deal with, it has nothing to do with "spirit". I think that is why Peabody started the thread, the World's and Nats showed us that, in the abcense of a possibly better defined process, there can be trouble, and open ended situations like these could lead to discourse.

The entire idea that this is a fiercely fought and highly scrutinized *competition* seems to escape this "we always do the right thing" perspective. This is not a gathering of friends and buddies from all over the world all expecting to reach a jovial conscensus on the winner. That would be VSC.

>"The entire idea that this is a fiercely fought and highly
>scrutinized *competition*"

By whom Brad? Certainly not the general public! To the general public we are *charitably* mildly deranged adults taken to playing with toy airplanes!

Jim Pollock

>
>>"The entire idea that this is a fiercely fought and highly
>>scrutinized *competition*"
>
>By whom Brad? Certainly not the general public! To the
>general public we are *charitably* mildly deranged adults
>taken to playing with toy airplanes!
>
>Jim Pollock

Point taken. In terms of the general public, I guess you would be right.

In terms of the competitors, especially the hardcore ones, to say this is any less than a full out, work your butt off to perform well, and hopefully win, *competition* would do the event disservice. I am confused how one minute we can discuss competition issues and nearly come to blows and the next minute it is downplayed as "toy airplanes". I believe this needs to stop. Obviously, internally at least within the competitors, this is serious business. A business where people spend 100's if not 1000's of hours, and countless dollars to improve and compete.

Competitions of this size should be open to scutiny and discussion, it is in the best interest of fairness. We need to be able to discuss events in our *log* of "fer instances" to be able to improve the event (this is all we have to work with). We also need to consider "what if's", and listen to *everyone's input*, from Coast to Coast equally. Whether one side likes it or not, the THEMS's have an equal say as the US's. This, especially recently, this seems to have gone by the wayside in several discussions, here and in SN.

It is, afterall, the Article #1 of the PAMPA bylaws to improve the event.

>In terms of the competitors, especially the hardcore ones,
>to say this is any less than a full out, work your butt off
>to perform well, and hopefully win, *competition* would do
>the event disservice. I am confused how one minute we can
>discuss competition issues and nearly come to blows and the
>next minute it is downplayed as "toy airplanes". I believe
>this needs to stop. Obviously, internally at least within
>the competitors, this is serious business. A business where
>people spend 100's if not 1000's of hours, and countless
>dollars to improve and compete.
>
>Competitions of this size should be open to scutiny and
>discussion, it is in the best interest of fairness.

Yep! Problem is that people have to take scrutiny as a personal attack. Hard not to, at the same time it comes with the territory.

But that is a very good point about interest and fairness.

We
>need to be able to discuss events in our *log* of "fer
>instances" to be able to improve the event (this is all we
>have to work with).

Yep, and that is why I have been piping up about how the CD and should write up all instances each year that are "out of the ordinary" and there are always a few each year. Having the circumstances and the actions taken and the reasons why in print would make us all the wiser as to what is going and what will likely happen if this should occur agian. And help us to run our local contests in accordence with the way the Nats would be run. This write up cant come from anyone else but him. I think it should be part of the "Job". A known task for someone who takes this one. For local CDs as well if they have a local news letter to write in. What do you think?

We also need to consider "what if's",
>and listen to *everyone's input*, from Coast to Coast
>equally.

As long as it is submitted properly. There needs to be a communication chain for these types things. Rules proposals are few and far between, Internet jargan is overwhelming at times. There would need to be a process, simple but formal to keep things in line.

Whether one side likes it or not, the THEMS's have
>an equal say as the US's. This, especially recently, this
>seems to have gone by the wayside in several discussions,
>here and in SN.
>
>It is, afterall, the Article #1 of the PAMPA bylaws to
>improve the event.
>

Good post Brad.

>Yep, and that is why I have been piping up about how the CD
>and should write up all instances each year that are "out of
>the ordinary" and there are always a few each year. Having
>the circumstances and the actions taken and the reasons why
>in print would make us all the wiser as to what is going and
>what will likely happen if this should occur agian. And
>help us to run our local contests in accordence with the way
>the Nats would be run. This write up cant come from anyone
>else but him. I think it should be part of the "Job". A
>known task for someone who takes this one. For local CDs as
>well if they have a local news letter to write in. What do
>you think?

Anything written down would be good. I would advocate a Nats ED column in SN that should be updated every issue.

I would also advocate same for the Chief Judge.

I also think this should be made, at some level, mandatory. It should be made part of the responsibility of the position.

Thanks.

Brad...
I'm sure that the (valid) argument might be made that ED-ing or Head Judging the Nats takes a whole lot of volunteer time, and that the additional burden of trying to create a column for STUNT NEWS might be more should be required.

I like, however, a column dealing with the difficulties that had been "run by" the designated Nats ED and Head Judge...that might require less of their time and would sure inform the masses how the Nats work.

But that might lead to growth.

See Ya

>Brad...
>I'm sure that the (valid) argument might be made that ED-ing
>or Head Judging the Nats takes a whole lot of volunteer
>time, and that the additional burden of trying to create a
>column for STUNT NEWS might be more should be required.

You wouldnt really ned a special column. Just a write up after the Nats each year discussing the things that were changed and how things were dealt with and how those decisions were made. Pretty simple.
>
>I like, however, a column dealing with the difficulties that
>had been "run by" the designated Nats ED and Head
>Judge...that might require less of their time and would sure
>inform the masses how the Nats work.

I guess I am saying the same thing above.

>
>But that might lead to growth.

Now that's funny.

>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Doug...
I think that there should be information prior to the event, too.
A post event synopsis
would be a big help, too.
See Ya

>The 12m/s (23 kt, for comparison a C172 has a 15 kt
>crosswind limit) limit is do-able, from my experience, but
>far from comfortable. At the lower end of the skill scale
>(includes me) some models will be lost and some flyers will
>call an unflown attempt.Associated turbulence is another
>factor.
>
>If a finite limit is set, like the 12m/s & 60 sec rule, it
>is really important to have a recording wind speed gauge.
>Then the discussion goes like this:" well, I'm sorry but as
>you can see the wind was over 12 m/s for only 58 sec, so
>your score stands" or, "well, the wind was over 12 m/s for
>61 seconds, so you get a refly". Cancellation is not an
>option.
>
>Human nature: no matter where the line is drawn, someone
>will moan!
>
>Slightly different subject: does anyone have the complete
>scores from the cancelled round 1?

Dave,

The score sheets were tossed and the earlier processed scores were eliminated from the computers. There are no copies of them anywhere.

>"Gee, that's a lovely dress, Mrs. Cleaver."

>Brett

Gee, Godzilla generally gets a little sideways when I pull this kind of thing on him. Oh, but he pretty consistently gets sideways with you as well.

All is well in Stunt Land.

Leonard wrote: "The truth is, nobody told him that they stopped the contest and he flew the entire pattern through that wind for nothing. He was, in fact, putting his plane at risk in a contest that had already been stopped (but he wasn't told.)"

This doesn't make sense to me. Didn't the "pit boss" know the contest was stopped? Were there judges judging? Why? Didn't they know the contest had already been stopped? Billy signaled to the judges that he was ready to start? The judges didn't wave him off, get off their chairs and walk over and tell him that the contest was stopped? Or were the judges gone, and Billy just didn't notice? Steve

Edit: Later posts make it sound like they stopped the flying while he was in the air? Oh, my...there are ways to communicate with the flier. A Z-Tron engine shutoff suddenly seems like a decent idea.....

Hi all,

I've kinda waited until now to see how this thread was going to pan out. Since I am actually one of the few victims of the winds, I suppose I should chime in. My plane was doing pretty well in the wind on Wed on circle 2. I was ready to fly my second flight as the #3 flyer when Warren came up and said that the entire day's scores were being cancelled. On Thursday, we were on the number 4 circle. I was the #3 flyer in the morning there and due to rushing around to get ready didn't put in a very good flight. I was looking forward to the second round, at least until the wind came up to a pretty constant 15 MPH. At about noon the wind started gusting. For about 3 to 4 minutes it would blow at a nice 10-12 MPH followed by gusts to 18-25 MPH. This was verified by Bob Lampione's wind speed guage. I think that Brett and I were flying nearly simultaneous flights on circles 3 and 4 during the second round so he missed the action that followed. At the top of my hourglass my plane was struck by some sort of wind downdraft that caused it to loose about 10 feet in altitude. By the time that I had run to where I could regain control of the airplane it was about 3 feet off the ground, I pulled out of the hourglass but hit the ground and knocked about half of the prop off, with the engine still running. I then landed the plane since it wouldn't stay in the air. That's when some action started on the ground. It began circling around on the ground and trying to come towards me. It circled and hit the end of the lines so hard that it broke the down line. After another few seconds of this the wind caught the wing tip and oveturned it finally stopping the engine. As I see it, the main problem was that circle 4 is subject to some highly capricious wind antics possibly caused by the pagoda roof top, depending on wind direction of course, and since the wind at the time was from the west-north-west at about 25MPH was in my mind a likely contributing factor. So not only wind speed is a factor wind shear and gusts should also be considered in the equation of wheather or not to continue flying. Of course, there's no difinitive way of determining shear. My two cents worth on the subject.

> I think that Brett and
>I were flying nearly simultaneous flights on circles 3 and 4
>during the second round so he missed the action that
>followed.

No - I saw that in it's entirety. Your airplane seemed to take a dislike to Paul - it first trapped him, then came after him!

You have a point about the turbulence. Despite my worst concerns, the air on circle 1 was not all that terrible when I flew on Wednesday. I expected the worst when I noted it was coming up over the nothwest corner. But aside from getting tricked on the overhead, it was pretty OK. I guess it's a lot worse when it comes over the SW corner.

But Circle 4 looked downright ugly. I lucked out in 2003 and managed to get my flight in OK even with the turbulence, but the giant tent was even more giant than usual this time, and it got some people during the WC, too - Igor Burger, for instance.

That's why I think it should be left with some discretion, as opposed to a absolute unequivocal rule. You could probably fly at 25 mph with no problem when it comes from some directions, and can't fly at 10 mph when it's from others.

Your circle-4 flight on Friday of the 2003 Nats was very good-- about the best I saw that day.

>Your circle-4 flight on Friday of the 2003 Nats was very
>good-- about the best I saw that day.

Howard,

By my count this is the second time you have sucked up to Brett over a flight or two at either 2003 or 2004 Nationals.

Please cease and desist, this is most unbecoming of you.

Ordered a new handle yet? Go on, treat yourself, especially as I am no longer interested in getting your stuff to the circle if I have to deal with that old thing you're now using.

> (snip) But Circle 4 looked downright ugly. I lucked out in 2003
>and managed to get my flight in OK even with the turbulence,
>but the giant tent was even more giant than usual this time,
>and it got some people during the WC, too - Igor Burger, for
>instance.
>
> That's why I think it should be left with some
>discretion, as opposed to a absolute unequivocal rule. You
>could probably fly at 25 mph with no problem when it comes
>from some directions, and can't fly at 10 mph when it's from
>others.
>
> Brett

Dumb question, but do you think we might be able to prevail upon the powers that be not to erect a large tent so close to the flying circles for just such a reason?

At the 2004 WC a large number of the finalists were drawn from the group that flew on Friday. Fair with respect to the fact that it was entirely random as to who flew on which day. Not so fair when you consider the fairly steep cost of participating in an event like this. Also probably not as representative of the actual pecking order as would have been the case with more uniform weather conditions.

At the 2002 WC in Sebnitz Germany, all of the judges chairs blew across the circle during an official flight. Was it also too windy to fly a full recognizable pattern. You bet. But (and this is where I get a bit of a chuckle with respect to those who claim to regulary fly in 25->30 mph wind) the wind had not apparently exceeded the 12 metres per second (26 mph)limit for the REQUIRED AMOUNT OF TIME. A reflight was granted regardless.

Twenty six mph whether a gust or a steady wind is far in excess of the ability of our models to operate safely. Granted in theory everyone faces the same conditions but this is hardly ever the case in reality.

Forget about the wind needing to exceed some value for one minute, it only takes five or six seconds for a plane to move from the top of the circle to a non-conforming, unpremeditated, air to ground interface:-)

Wind is seldom uniform. Shear and thermal activity can change the speed of the wind dramatically in just a few seconds. Throw in turbulating objects and you have a nightmare on your hands. At the very most, we should only be measuring the number of times the wind speed hits a maximum value in say the previous two minutes. Forget insisting that it be constant for a period of a minute.

Here is the new/proposed FAI rule concerning weather:

4.2.5. Contest Weather
No contest flight shall be started when the wind speed is equal to or greater than 9 metres per second for a continuous period of 30 seconds, as measured from the height of a person standing on the ground holding the measuring instrument overhead at arms-length. In the event of such conditions occurring the F2B Contest director and Head Judge shall agree a suitable delay to the contest timetable and shall inform all contestants and contest officials as soon as is practicable
For safety reasons any competitor whose contest flight is in progress during local electrical storm activity (thunder and/or lightning) shall be offered a re-flight. No contest flight shall be started when an electrical storm appears to be imminent, and if such conditions do occur the F2B Contest Director and Head Judge shall agree a suitable delay to the contest timetable and shall inform all contestants and contest officials as soon as is practicable.

This is a substantial improvement over the previous rule. I would still like to see the speed measured at a more realistic height such as 25->30 feet. And yes the event organizers at the 2004 WC were just short of criminal in permitting flight to continue given the atmospheric conditions at the time. Lightning can strike from over thirty miles away.

None of this however addresses the concept of fairness to the competitor who had to fly his/her flight at 99% of the max wind value or a sky green enough to scare the crap out of you when two hours prior another competitor flew at 15% of the max wind speed and sunshine. You do believe in fairness don't you?

I am firmly in the camp that says if you do not have a defined problem you do not know what problem you are trying to solve and should not be wasting your time. I submit that this is a well recognized and defined problem.

Although a subject for another thread, I will offer that if you evaluated/judged competitors in groups of say four, and simply ranked them 1,2,3,4 you would essentially eliminate this and other time and weather based problems.

Kim, I understood that Delabarde was given the reflight in 2002 because of the "interference or hazard" of the chairs blown into the circle, rather than the wind velocity - it was not possible to retrieve the chairs without entering the flight circle - I watched the whole thing from one of the elevated viewing areas. Claus was the CD, he would know for sure.

It does show a good point though, that the wind velocity and site characteristics are linked to produce unflyable turbulence, which was the case at Sebnitz. For example, at my local field the turbulence becomes unflyable with more than 8-10 kt of wind, from a certain direction - as Tim & I found last weekend.

I agree wholeheartedly that the proposal given is a substantial improvement over the current rule, 30 seconds is far more realistic. Still requires a recording meter though - not that thats a bad thing.

Dave,

That was exactly my point. The chairs (not small!) were being blown at a good clip right through the circle.(I was standing just off the circle) The reflight was because of interference. The wind had yet to reach the required 23 metres per second yet fairly heavy objects were moving around all by their self. It was far and away too windy (and very turbulent) to fly.

We need to spend a lot more time trying to make the contests (any contest) fair for all who participate instead of arguing over things we have no control over like what mark a judge assigns a competitor.

I am STAGGERED that a round of the US Nats was cancelled because of winds gusting to 25MPH. If we did that in the UK, we would NEVER fly.