I wrote about our first task (http://ozreport.com/1168892773):

The smoke begins to clear. Lukas Bader (safety committee member)  and I are
of the opinion that we could have run tasks on all three days (as we had 5 km
visibility on each day), but today the smoke was a bit less. Still there seemed
to be quite a bit of hesitancy on the part of some pilots as well as the
leadership to get us going on this day.

Heather "confronted" me this morning about these statements
stating that it not "reflect well" on her leadership. I agree the statements did
not reflect well on her leadership.


A couple of points. First, I have couched these statements as matters of
opinion. I hope that is clear to the reader. Heather's and my opinion about the
ability for us to run tasks in these conditions differs. No harm in that, as I
see it.


Second, it is my opinion that the visibility was greater than 5 km on all three
days. I went back after each day and checked the maps to see that by my
definition of visibility (the ability to make out the hill sides on the other
side of the valley) we had greater than 5 km visibility (greater than 10 km on
the first day, and greater than 13 km on the third day). This apparently
(according to Heather) is the flight visibility rule for Australia.


Third, I stated that there "...seemed to be quite a bit of hesitancy on the part
of ... the leadership to get us going on this day." This is what I saw as I
checked out the situation and followed what Heather was saying and doing on the
third day at Mystic Hill. Heather claimed that on the contrary there was a lot
of "optimism" on her part and that she was just "waiting" for the visibility to
improve. She also stated that to back up her view, she has the concurring view
of Jonny Durand, Jr., and a "professional" pilot.


It appears to me that we have a glass half empty/half full situation here. I was
of the opinion that the visibility was already fine enough to get going from the
moment we got to launch and that waiting was "hesitancy." (There were numerous
examples of this on her part as we waited, as I saw it.) She was of the opinion
that the visibility wasn't good enough yet and that we just had to wait a bit.
My contention was that visibility had already significantly exceeded the minimum
requirements, and she was hoping for better visibility.


So a difference of opinion. Even though there were actual facts, the facts were
subject to subjective interpretation of their meaning. There were a range of
"feelings" about the visibility or lack there of, so that even if the visibility
rule was exceeded that doesn't mean that all the pilots felt good about flying
in the smoky air.


I personally like to support meet directors. I know that they have a tough job.
I have been a meet director and will be a meet director in the future at the
2007 Worlds in Big Spring (where, perhaps not incidentally, Heather will be the
CIVL steward). If Heather stays with her form she will no doubt be quite
critical of my performance there at the Worlds. Such is life.


So I continue to support Heather even if I disagree with her opinion on this
matter. She makes a fine meet director and is one of our best and we hope that
she continues running the Bogong Cup.


Yes, I believe that we could have had valid and fun tasks on the first three
days of the Bogong Cup. Yes, it is really a bad situation that we don't have a
north facing launch that allows us to fly when the fire index is too high for
Mystic Hill. Yes, it is a bad situation that we had "human" problems that
prevented us from flying on three days, when weather concerns should be the
factor in determining whether we fly or not.


Meet directors have to be careful about getting the meet into the spiral of
depression if the weather is bad or we don't fly. This can be a self reinforcing
situation that causes us to lose perspective on the situation (and some pilots
to bail). Heather may have been optimistic but the mood of the crowd is what
needs to be managed carefully.