SEN 1244 2008

Details

Category: Archive 2008

Hits: 1286

Table of Contents - SEN 1244

1. Moffet Field Hanger 1
2. F1A Rules
3. Brisbane FFS Diget
4. Phrench Phlying Photos
5. E or Q?

Moffet Field Hanger One

From: Fred Terzian

Roger,
 
I believe this information is beneficial to the SEN FAI community, especially for the indoor enthusiasts. More importantly is recognizing the fact that we have been losing flying sites and exposure to a wider audience of future and potential sportsmen.
There has been a lot of local press recently about leaving it as an "open-framed" building or demolishing this historical and engineering marvel in Mountain View.
If any of SENs readers would like to make additional comments, please pass them on to the indviduals or organizations listed below.
Also note that the Oakland Cloud Dusters website http://www.oaklandclouddusters.org/
has additional information and individuals to contact.
In addition, although it has not been reported in SEN, the U.S. Open and Junior Indoor teams perfomed admirably in Belgrade, Serbia last month. Our two juniors came in first and second and the open contestants took first place in Team competition!
 
Fred T.

Mr. Newton,
 
I made a presentation at the August 26 meeting.  At that time I was relatively new to the subject. 
Now I have had more time to do research and think about the project.
 
I support the proposal by Mountain View City Councilman Jac Siegel to form a committee to
develop a proposal to preserve Hangar One.  It is not enough to just physically restore
the building.  It is necessary to have a plan for the future beneficial use of the building.
 
A consortium of interested parties should be formed to identify beneficial uses and
resources to preserve, operate and maintain the Hanger.  This would include any modifications
necessary to make the building useful for purposes other than its original purpose of housing
dirigibles.  It has had many uses for which it is uniquely qualified since dirigibles were
no longer housed there.  Many possible uses have been mentioned.  I would add that Boy
Scout Jamborees have been held in the Hangar, and Boy Scout Aviation Squadron 152 used
to have model aviation and aviation ground school classes in the Hangar.  No one of
the interested parties could make it alone, but all working together can preserve
the Hangar.  I believe the National Park Service is the logical ultimate owner
and administrator of the programs.  The Moffett Field Historical Society has an
obvious role within the NPS programs.  The Hangar is also a unique location for
a Navy recruitment program.  Some of these uses would require modifications that
I can understand the Navy would not feel required to pay for.  Those users would
have to understand that they would have to contribute resources for such
modifications.  But it is the Navy's responsibility to restore the basic structure
of the building to make those uses possible and safe.
 
The Navy drew this projects specification to narrowly.  The Navy should
revise the project goals to include partnering with the community of interested
parties to find a way to restore the building and plan a program for its future
beneficial use.
 
Gary Hinze

Just a reminder that public comments to the Navy are due by September 13, 2008,
two days.  Don't forget if you haven't already sent your comments.
 
I have posted information on the Oakland Cloud Dusters web site.  I have added
a little more on planning the future operation of the Hangar, beginning with
the paragraph on the proposal by Mountain View City Councilman Jac Siegel to
form a committee:
 
http://www.oaklandclouddusters.org/
 
I will keep you posted on future developments.
 
Gary Hinze

Comment on F1A Rules
From:dave Edmonson

Roger,

In NFFS forum there has been a discussion about RDT and the use of it by Per Findhal in the recent Bulgaria Cup. Dave Edmonson says he has now written to SEN describing this use as "cheating" and quoting the text on NFFS, including comments from me, as evidence.

Roger, I want to be dissassociated with any suggestion that what Per did or similar cases are cheating and as ask you don't publish the letter.

I'm happy to be involved in the discussion about RDT generally but not this potentially libelous statement.

CHE

All,

Dave is off base. There is no loop hole.  The FAI rule  people understood the use of RTD when the recent change back to "standard" attempt rule and the adoption of the single non-resversible RDT to DT the model.

George, Paul and Buzz-- I'd  assume this question will be asked at the Finals pre-flight meeting.  TSC may wish to pre-notify the flyers on this issue.

Thermals,  JIM

I am with Jim on this....there is nothing in the rules that makes this practice illegal and as such I do not think a CD for any contest would have a right to declare this practice illegal.  There are very few circumstances where this would be useful, the Per Findahl example being one that could save a flight but it's not illegal and as far as ethics is concerned, if it's within the rules, it's ethical. The contests need to be flown to current FAI rules.  If the rule is changed, then contests should run to the new set of rules. 

Peter Tolhurst sent me the following link to a very stylish montage of pictures from the recent Poitou international and also the French FF Championships. It's blessedly devoid of the sort of pop music that mars some FF web material. No words, - just pictures.

www.bertrandsion.com/PoitouCh2008

Martin

• Prev
• Next