Embalse, Cordoba, Argentina

Model processing before the competition was carried out efficiently but the schedule was changed to suit the weather-affected World Cup event. Some processing was brought forward to an earlier day, later sessions were modified, and the venues were changed. The teams were inadequately informed about these changes, leading to some confusion and time wasting.

A different part of the flying area was used compared to that for the 2005 Championships. In some directions visibility was more limited but the starting line was moved to minimise problems. Each morning the starting line was established quite late before the scheduled start of competition so that there was a slight delay to the start of F1A and F1B. Changes of starting line during the day were carried out efficiently.

In F1A there were 17 competitors in the flyoff, 12 scored maximum in the first flyoff. The second flyoff held 30 minutes before sunset was won by the only flyer to score the 7 minute maximum.

In F1B 21 reached the flyoff and 15 of these continued to the second flyoff, when all models glided down with times less than the maximum to give a clear winner.

12 competitors reached the flyoff in F1C. The Jury were concerned that more than one competitor might make flights longer than 7 minutes in the second flyoff and the maximum was increased to 9 minutes to ensure completion of the competition in the good conditions. In the event 7 flyers maxed in the first flyoff and in the second flyoff all models landed in times below 7 minutes.

There were often more people at the starting poles than the permitted competitor, helper, and team manager. The organisers asked team managers to enforce the rule but this was not effective since it was against team interest and there was no official to impose the rule. This could have had safety implications in F1C when a number of models crashed directly after launch (impacting within a few metres of launch position), but luckily none of these crashes hit anyone. The Free Flight Subcommittee should consider the safety aspects of F1C.

There was not an adequate scoreboard. Scores were displayed only by posting a single sheet of computer output on a noticeboard which was not convenient for viewing by large groups of interested people. Results were uploaded to the internet during the day, and so it is likely that spectators in other parts of the world were better informed than many at Embalse.

The random checking of models during the competition was deficient, in terms of the characteristics checked and demonstrating that the required 20% had been checked. Checking of the winning models after the competition was also lax, in that the models were not directly impounded but competitors asked to bring them to the hotel during the evening.