Eject! Eject! Eject!

The 2007 JWM organising committee have posted an event report in response to David Mathews report which is published on the IJMC website. The organisers report can be viewed at

http://www.jwm2007.com

and deals with many of the inaccuracies reported by D.Mathews. This report is also to be published by the IJMC on their website.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

A some what thorough report, but it fails to address a few of the items of contention that have circulated in your rendition.
As you point out in the report "it is the responsibility of the team manager" to check for innaccuracies on the applications. If you can recollect, myself, the team manager whom you allude failed to do this, did not arrive on site to collect the team's information until July 5th. Someone had already given the packet to the members who arrived earlier, and were not told to either check it or verify it. On Saturday, July 7th, I approached Sean and told him that Dewey Davenport had been placed in the wrong class**.

** A point of correction here on my part, as I have reconstructed the event from the calender and travel log which I had kept. I approached Sean on the 7th with the sheet statements attesting to the pilot's build and asked him if more items were needed. I told him I only had four pilots in the INDIVIDUAL class and two pilots, Dewey and Shulman, in the OPEN class. It was not until the score sheet came out following round one of the flying that it was noted that Dewey was in the wrong class and he let me know. At that time I went to Sean again and was told it was taken care of. That evening was when I also approached Robert and we spoke about it. Dewey has told me that he himself also pointed this out to the organizers. It was not long after this that the mayhem broke out between the German, Russian, Itialian, and Hungarian team. At the manager's meeting I also spoke out and said I had similar problems due to mixups in the check in process and all of the confusion, as did Bob from England who had similar travel issues and arrived late. There was no concern about my pilot since he did not threaten anyone's standing at that time however, or I am sure a bigger deal would have been made about it. It was continually ignored even up till the end of the contest.

At that time it was acknowledged to me that it would be corrected. Again in your report, Robert states that I approached him on July 9th, and he is correct, as he and Sean were both notified no less than seven times during the event that a mistake had been made and it had to be corrected. This was also brought up in a manager's meeting were I made it known on the day that German team had their credibility questioned, and it was ignored by all of the organizers, and the other teams, because of the controversy with the German/Italian/Russian/Hungarian event. During the week, I was even approached by Robert, behind the tent, and asked to "not make a fuss" and to get my story straight with his in order to avoid more trouble. If you can recall, it was myself and Bob (England) who made the motion to not dismiss the German modeler whom was about to be kicked out of the meet.
This travesty was an orchestrated hit in my opinion, since there was no recourse given except to either find him guilty and send him home, or leave him in the incorrect class, where he admitted that he could not be, there was no consideration given to the fact that a mistake could have been made. The organizers' only concern was that they did not want it to look like they had made a mistake, and the contesting teams just did not want them in their classification, where they both belonged. Really sickening display of playground politics if you ask me, but you didn't so I will refrain from saying it... BTW did the organizers get any money out of the contestation, or was it returned to the teams when it the motion was upheld? You fail to address that issue in the thorough report.
My question to you is this...If a manager attempts to correct a mistake when it is noticed and the organizers continue to ignore it, what options are available to those involved? The members of the teams paid a lot of money to come to YOUR site and expected to be treated with dignity and respect. You wish to place all of the blame on someone else when there is obviously a lack of communication and unrealistic expectations, or certainly a breakdown of it. As a manager, I certainly understand how a mistake can be made, and even will admit to making them.
For you to make a report like this and place 90% of the blame for this debacle on someone else is pretty hilarious. You want to make the closing ceremony sham the fault of the IJMC, and then comment that it could have been avoided if there had been a printer available?
I am sure the IJMC will be happy to print your report, and hopefully some of the others can chime in as well. As to the movement of Dewey's score to the appropiate list, I did not request this to anyone except the organizers, however it was brought to the attention of members of the IJMC following the closure of the event. Dewey Davenport refused to go on stage at the closing ceremony becasue he had the intestinal fortitude to not take credit for someone else's work, a characteristic which seems to be lacking by some in our hobby today.
It is my hope that the IJMC will overcome the problems that some seem to have experienced during this last event and that the comraderie which some have lost will be regained pior to the Cyrpus event.
For the record, I also volunteered on several occasions to help out if I could on the flightline and the TX impound, as did many others, and it was turned down. The Dutch team and Dean James did an outstanding job filling in and though Tom was missed they managed to fill his shoes appropiately.
As to this issue, I have submitted a proposed rule to the IJMC for future contests that I hope will prevent some of this from happening in the future, and I am sure mine is not the only one.
Tommy Yates
USA

tahfiet

Hi guys!

Well, Davie Matthews report might not mention all the sources and one or the other "wrong" number, but it gives a very good idea of how we all saw the JWM 2007. I am very sorry to say that, because I spent a lot of money and too much time to make it to NI. I went to Sean at least 10 times to recieve my press-pass. I recieved it after almost a week.

You might have gotten the best out of the situation, but most of it was homemade.

I really hope that cypress will be more than 100% better, otherwise the number of participants might drop. That should have been a world masters and it never felt like one. I can say that every small model-airshow in germany is better organized than the last jwm. And that is what davie wrote in his report. And I can agree to at least 90% of it.

David

David Gladwin

Whatever individuals may feel about the event, (but I am still glad I entered despite the weather and catering !!) the fact is that the organizers are STILL publishing incorrect scores, certainly in static. Stephan Volker is ranked No 1 in individual static scoring whereas Urs Maylander gained a higher score and was awarded the trophy. I seem to have been demoted by 17 places to 28th in static whilst only ten models gained a higher score, have I missed something ?

The Weatronics data is mentioned in both reports and was extracted from my SD card. In fact, of my 4 flights my receiver showed perfect reception on 2 flights but recorded downgraded r/f data in exactly the same place and height on two flights, (although the receiver generated failsafe frames on only one flight and that for just over one quarter of a second, on the other "degraded" flight the valid frame rate halved for about one second) over the hill to the east where other fliers DID notice failsafes. That, surely, cannot be an onboard problem. It may well have been spurious and intermittent interference, difficult if not impossible to detect unless one has sophisticated airborne RF data recording such as the Weatronics receiver. Certainly nothing was noted DURING the flight so I doubt if the organizers can be held to blame.

Regards,

David Gladwin.

Geoff White

David,

The ranking on the static scores is actually the ranking after the static+flight1+flight2. If you scroll down a bit you can see this.

Geoff.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

David is correct and we did talk about this "glitch" on the hill nearest the far hangar on several occasion, it seemed to be focus of problems for several people. I would be hestitant to blame it on the "pilot's" installations since you are talking about some of the most accomplished from many different countries. Agreeably, this is not the organizer's fault and no one ever said that it was, those types of things happen, but for many of us, it would appear that requests and needs, for which the organizers were to assist, were fell upon either deaf or uncaring ears. It is evident from your report that these issues were being discussed or contemplated (evident by Mr. McCarthey's statement that the issue was ignored several times when brought up in the jury) and if this is the case why then was I being told it was taken care of and would be corrected? Had I known this I would have made a much bigger issue of it in the manager's meetings and saw to it that it was corrected before it became a two page issue in your damning report. I would beleive that Dave Matthew's report reflects the feelings of about 95% of the attendees and participants. If you cannot realize that fact then you are certainly more distant from the situation than once believed.

This is not a personal attack on you, but your reference to this report and its public debut are certainly worthy of critique.
Tommy

David Gladwin

Sorry Geoff, dont see that. HOWEVER static scores should be just that, taking NO account of flight scores, otherwise it becomes pointless !

Wx forecast for Scampton looks great, lets have some fun !

Regards, David G.

Geoff White

Couldn't agree more David.

Yep Scampton is looking good