Dehydration

Ah, much better. Now we're going in the right direction. Is there some
way we can raise these from site specific to general practice? And in
the process, refine them to address conceptual (versus reported)
problems with the cylinder. And then do the same sort of thing for the
line. Let's make them both as safe as possible, then measure their
relative worth under the variety of finish scenarios we see. Your
contests will use the cylinder exclusively. That's fine. Others will
prefer the line. Each will attract its adherents, but in the long run,
there's no reason they can't co-exist, especially if each in its own
way contributes to improvements in traffic management at the finish (I
won't say safety in this case, because being safe is largely dependent
on individual practice and compliance with accepted procedures).

The good news, JJ, is that you're at least partly right. Maybe all
right. ;-) Time will tell. And it needn't be based on casuality
figures... just pilot preference.

Cheers,

Chris OC

If we were to have 4 cylinders (only one of which would be in use any given
day), such that the cylinder's edge was more or less down the centerline of
the runway (one on each side); or perpendicular to the runway (one at each
end), then, other than altitude, the spectator appeal is about the same as
with a line.

(We ought to change the subject of this thread.)


--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom --fix this before responding