Steve Elkins <<avian>>
writes:

Finally, the Birdman, a long running saga (see below), went to
court in December last year. (It's a competition I won, but the organizers would
not pay me the prize money.) I just got the verdict. It's strange and rather
illustrates the shortcomings of UK justice. Lying and cheating wins the day.

Anyway, the press, to its apparent delight, seems to think we are facing costs
US$ 100k order of magnitude, so I'm forced to put my hang gliding business up
for sale. In fact, costs will not be decided until next month and we have a few
days left to appeal should we choose to go that route.

In 2009 there was world wide interest when the meet organizers scored the flight
as 99.87 meters ± 5 meters. (Hard to believe if you did any math at high
school.) The prize was supposed to be awarded if the flight was over 100 meters.

Also interesting is that the aircraft used has been all around the world with an
exhibition called, "Designed to win." I think it is currently in South Korea. 

Birdman is an event with the take off a 10 meter horizontal platform. Your
flying machine has to have less than 30ft of span. The object is to fly as far
as possible and land in the sea. There was an approximately $50,000 prize for
the first plane to fly 100 meters.

It was an extremely well setup competition and virtually impossible given short
horizontal take off platform and only 10 meter vertical to play with and short
span to fly 100 meters. If windy, the take off is easy, but flying into the wind
it is difficult to cover the distance. With no wind, the opposite is true. A
normal hang glider could not be used, so I had to have shortened the wings.

People have been trying for over 30 years to win this particular competition and
the $50,000 prize money.

I made a special aircraft, which was the best. However, launch and flying
technique was a vital part of winning and I went to the Birdman competition for
many years. In 2009 I was extremely lucky with conditions and had been
practicing maximizing the landing. I flew the required 100 meters.

They said it was 99.87m ± 5m. Never before or since has it been measured so
accurately in the competition. Anybody with math knows that is mad with that
error combined with the purported precision.

That is where it started. They had an on the line video from the competition.
Initially the recording was supposedly lost, then they said the video failed
just as the wining flight happened or just on take off. The story seemed to
change.

Lots of people were watching on the beach and there were marker buoys with one
at 100 meters so they could see how far people flew.

With their video unavailable they said to those watching that the flight might
have looked 100 meter but the current was pulling the buoys back towards the
pier. This was a lie as the current was ripping the other way pulling buoys
long. The lie was repeated during the briefing and again in the press.

And so it went on. They changed scoring system, briefed the TV incorrectly,
etc., which I thought was unfair.

When I asked them to follow their rules, they threatened me with court case that
would be very expensive and I could not afford it. The bullying annoyed me. I
sued. They strung it out for four years trying to price me out of the case. My
supporters have been brilliant. Some really nice lawyers helped me at no cost.

But we lost the case and are not quite sure why. It appears the court accepted
that the flight was over 100 meters but feel that that is not enough. It seems
the loss of video and time taken have counted in defendant's favor or certainly
not against them. One of their lawyers points during the case was that, "Life is
not fair."

You can see the flight in slow motion here:
http://youtu.be/31FFYSC2bzE.

See if you can see the current
once the glider hits the water. Pretty clear even in slow motion. Remember that
the buoy is probably at well over 107 meters and in the original rules the
flight was deemed to finish when the glider stopped moving forwards.

The organizers however can be seen telling the TV reporters the wrong place in
this video: http://youtu.be/IY2uwTClj54.

Not a very useful interview with
me, but I did not get to edit it.