Correspondence with the American Helicopter Society by GODZILLAHOVERS

From: "George MacArthur" <geomac@cogeco.ca> To: <pdfconvert@pdfconvert.me> Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:04:45 -0400

----- Original Message -----

From: Newman, Daniel I To: 'geomac@cogeco.ca' Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 6:42 AM Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

My error, please reconsider flight C as a 15m flight in a straight line, not 10.1m. The point is then accurate (shortest trace but ineligible for prize), as only the total envelope of the trace is important (as in "is within"). Separately, I see that you have disproved your own argument with the statement "That is the very premise of every argument I have presented", as that premise is flawed. The fact that "nowhere in the rules does it say that the square used to limit drift is not the same" does not mean it says it is in the rules. The rules do not need to exclude fabrication. We are done here. Feel free to make your case elsewhere. --Dan

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 09:30 PM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

My arguments are based on what is contained in the AHS rules only, and nowhere in the rules does it say that the square used to limit drift is not the same 10 by 10 meter square clearly marked on the ground, or that the square can be drawn after the flight. That is the very premise of every argument I have presented. The rules, as interpreted by the committee, are fatally flawed, not just because they permit a machine to exercise horizontal control in the two most fundamental parameters and not win the prize, but because they purport to contain information that is not stated in them. The proof does not require the criteria of length of trace or the distance from the point of origin to the farthest point of the trace to be defined in the rules, because the proof is that the boundary rule is flawed. A 10 by 10 meter square can be drawn around a straight line 10.1 meters long, so aircraft C meets the Sikorsky Prize criteria. A square was used in judging for some reason, and if "the distance it covered is irrelevant to the prize" as you indicated, and if the maximum distance from the point of origin is irrelevant, as you implied, what was the reason? George ----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: 'geomac@cogeco.ca' Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Sir,

Still flawed. The logic is still built on a flawed foundation. The length of the trace is irrelevant for the AHS Sikorsky Prize. Nowhere in the rules is it defined as a criteria. It is your fabrication and has no bearing on the Sikorsky Prize. I illustrate by two examples: Imagine if aircraft C flies only a straight line 10.1 meters long in 61 seconds. By your measure, it is the 'most controllable' as it flew the SHORTEST trace, but it still exceeded a 10mx10m box. It did not meet the AHS Prize Criteria. Imagine if aircraft D flies a perfect box pattern 9m on a side, staying on the box perimeter while tracing this box ten times in a 61 second flight. While it flew a distance of 360m, it remained within a 10m box and is eligible for the prize. First, the distance it covered is irrelevant to the prize. Second, it is arguable that it is MORE controllable than the other aircraft, but that discussion is also irrelevant to the Sikorsky Prize. You are welcome to try again, but you should base your arguments on the AHS rules, only. --Dan

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 01:08 PM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Revised proof. Disregard all previous. ----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: 'geomac@cogeco.ca' Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 3:28 PM Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

?? From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:05 PM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Machine B takes off from a point, gains 3 meters in altitude, flies 5.1 meters north and stops, then starts to fly clockwise in a circle 5.1 meters in radius, and the point of origin is the center of that circle, and lands after completing three quarters of the circle. Total flight time is 60 seconds. The flight of machine B satisfies two of three requirements but will not be eligible to claim the prize because the trace of the flight cannot be contained by a 10 by 10 meter square. The total distance flown is 5.1 + .75 (2 x pi x 5.1) = 29.12 meters. The total horizontal trace by machine A is 33.8 meters, and the total horizontal trace by machine B is 29.12 meters. Therefore, machine B has proven control by drifting in a trace pattern that is 4.68 meters less than machine A. Summary: It has been demonstrated that a machine cannot win the prize when it has proven control in the trace parameter, therefore, it has been demonstrated that the Sikorsky Prize boundary rule is inconsistent, therefore, it is not valid. Scholium: One other method exists whereby the amount of drift can be judged, and that is measuring the distance from the point of origin to the most distant point of the trace. In the above example, this value is 14 meters for machine A and 5.1 meters for machine B, therefore, machine B drifted 63.5% or almost two thirds less than machine A from the point of origin to the most distant point of the trace.

----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: George MacArthur Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 2:30 PM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

I appreciate your submittal. There are elements of your treatise that are key, highlighted in green, and some that are not accurate (highlighted in yellow). Your error in logic is the reliance on the claim that â€œgreater controlâ€? is important in this competition. It is not a factor, as it is not a criteria of the subject competition. I would be glad to discuss with you at a mutually convenient time. --Dan

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:40 PM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Machine A takes off from a point, gains 3 meters in altitude, flies 9.9 meters east and stops, then flies 14 meters southwest and stops, then flies 9.9 meters east and lands. Total flight time is 60 seconds. The flight of machine A is a prize winning flight because it satisfied requirements and the trace of the flight can be contained by a 10 by 10 meter square. The total distance flown is 14 + 9.9 + 9.9 = 33.8 meters. Machine B takes off from a point, gains 3 meters in altitude, flies 5.1 meters north and stops, then starts to fly clockwise in a circle 5.1 meters in radius, and the point of origin is the center of that circle, and lands after completing three quarters of the circle. Total flight time is 60 seconds. The flight of machine B satisfies two of three requirements but will not be eligible to claim the prize because the trace of the flight cannot be contained by a 10 by 10 meter square. The total distance flown is 5.1 + .75 (2 x pi x 5.1) = 29.12 meters. The total horizontal trace by machine A is 33.8 meters, and the total horizontal trace by machine B is 29.12 meters. Therefore, machine B exercised greater control by drifting in a trace pattern that is 4.68 meters less than machine A. Summary: It has been demonstrated that a machine can win the prize when another machine that has exhibited greater control in the trace parameter cannot, therefore, it has been demonstrated that the Sikorsky Prize boundary rule is inconsistent, therefore, it is not valid. Scholium: One other method exists whereby the amount of drift can be judged, and that is by measuring the distance from the point of origin to the most distant point of the trace. In the above example, this value is 14 meters for machine A and 5.1 meters for machine B, therefore, machine B drifted 63.5% or almost two thirds less than machine A from the point of origin to the most distant point of the trace.

----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: George MacArthur Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:44 PM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

The first 60 seconds may be the most controlled, but may not, as an event/upset may occur or pilotage may improve during a flight. It is left to the competitor to decide. The statement about the competitor selecting the 60 second window to use is not to obfuscate, but to demonstrate that the criteria are applied after the flight. To define the box prior to flight is akin to deciding which timeframe to use apriori. Pre-flight definition is arbitrary, and is not in the rules. Regarding the response to your inquiry, all you have is what Mr. Hein wrote. What you infer from his text is up to you. If you infer that he is validating your interpretation, that is your prerogative. Only Mr. Hein can clarify what he meant to imply, or did not meant to imply. Regardless of his letter to you, the rules are not impacted. --Dan

----- Original Message ----From: George MacArthur To: Newman, Daniel I

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

A Sikorsky Prize boundary rule exists to determine if a machine can exercise horizontal flight control by not drifting outside of a moving 10 by 10 meter square for a selectable sixty second period, as decided by a measure of the trace that a reference point on the machine makes over a surface (hereafter called the trace parameter) and whether the trace fits inside a 10 by 10 meter square. A method of determining if a machine has drifted less than a reference amount is valid only if it is consistent, and it is consistent only if it is impossible for one machine to win the prize when another machine which has demonstrated greater control in the trace parameter cannot. Machine A takes off from a point, gains 3 meters in altitude, flies 9.9 meters east and stops, then flies 14 meters southwest and stops, then flies 9.9 meters east and lands. Total flight time is 60 seconds. The flight of machine A is a prize winning flight because it satisfied requirements and the trace of the flight can be contained by a 10 by 10 meter square. The total distance flown is 14 + 9.9 + 9.9 = 33.8 meters. Machine B takes off from a point, gains 3 meters in altitude, flies 5.1 meters north and stops, then starts to fly clockwise in a circle 5.1 meters in radius, and the point of origin is the center of that circle, and lands after completing three quarters of the circle. Total flight time is 60 seconds. The flight of machine B satisfies two of three requirements but will not be eligible to claim the prize because the trace of the flight cannot be contained by a 10 by 10 meter square. The total distance flown is 5.1 + .75 (2 x pi x 5.1) = 29.12 meters. The total horizontal trace by machine A is 33.8 meters, and the total horizontal trace by machine B is 29.12 meters. Therefore, machine B exercised greater control by drifting in a trace pattern that is 4.68 meters less than machine A. Summary: It has been demonstrated that a machine can win the prize when another machine that has exhibited greater control in the trace parameter cannot, therefore, it has been demonstrated that the Sikorsky Prize boundary rule is inconsistent, therefore, it is not valid. Scholium: One other method exists whereby the amount of drift can be judged, and that is by measuring the distance from the point of origin to the most distant point of the trace. In the above example, this value is 14 meters for machine A and 5.1 meters for machine B, therefore, machine B drifted 63.5% or almost two thirds less than machine A from the point of origin to the most distant point of the trace.

----- Original Message ----From: George MacArthur To: Newman, Daniel I Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Hello Dan, My proof is coming shortly. However, a few things are worth clarifying beforehand. I believe that your introduction of the concept that the submitting team is allowed to select the 60 second window

of any given flight merely obfuscates. The portion of flight time with the highest probability of horizontal stability is the time immediately following take off, as empirically observed on every attempt made. It is impossible that any flight would benefit from not selecting the 60 second window that starts the moment the machine leaves the ground. If the HPH committee’s interpretation of rules 4.4.1 and 4.4.3, as you have now adequately conveyed to me, was indeed the interpretation being used at the time of my letter to you in March outlining contradictions, and at all times back to 1980 when the rules were written, the response from Benjamin Hein should have been to the effect of both teams in your first example satisfy the boundary rule because a square can be drawn around the flight trace. By instead saying the rules have been adequate for 32 years, Mr. Hein implicitly states that my interpretation, that machine must stay in a 10 by 10 meter square fixed on the ground before the flight, is correct. George

----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: George MacArthur Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:21 PM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

Regarding the HPH competition, you are welcome to submit information to make a point, such as that the “boundary rule interpretation and method is fatally flawed”. You should submit it to me as the Technical Director. I recommend it be limited to a few pages, with any required supporting data included as appendices. At that time the Society can consider any resulting actions, and any impacts on subsequent competition(s). I know of no articles regarding a follow-on competition. A follow-on challenge was referenced at the end of the press release. A mention was made by the Executive Director at the award ceremony, so it may have been mentioned in subsequent publications. The ad hoc committee is not available outside the Technical Council. Any queries should be submitted to the Technical Director. --Dan

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:10 PM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Hello Dan, Thank you for your reply. While all decisions obviously remain the sole prerogative of the committee, it also remains your prerogative to consider and discuss any new information with the members that form(ed) the committee. I asked if the committee would be prepared to approach Sikorsky about offering another Sikorsky Prize to the first team that can meet same height and time criteria while staying in a 10 by 10 meter square clearly marked on the ground if I can demonstrate that your boundary rule interpretation is fatally flawed. Let me rephrase. Is the committee willing to consider some kind of action if I can demonstrate that your boundary rule interpretation and method is fatally flawed? At the very least, you should be interested in

learning if the rule was fatally flawed, even if only to avoid a potential altercation in the next contest. Also, may I ask who is on the ad-hoc committee? And can you direct me to a particular media source that contains a reference to this follow-on competition? I have not seen any references in the media coverage, but I trust there are some articles I have not read. George

----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: George MacArthur Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:47 PM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

The only original author of whom I am aware is Jan Drees. Only interpretation by the current HPH leadership is relevant. No opinion of the rules is relevant except those formally authorized to decide, the HPH Committee and the Society leadership. Neither your opinion, nor those of the original authors has any official impact, unless you are on the Committee or in Society leadership. (As with the U.S. Constitution, verbal input from a Founding Father â€“ even if they were healthy and available today â€“ would have no official place in the process unless they were on the Supreme Court and therefore authorized to decide how it should be interpreted.) The HPH Committee of the AHS has been disbanded, as the competition is over. An ad-hoc committee of the AHS is considering a follow-on competition, as stated in the media. It will not be a revisit of the original competition. The Society will approach sponsors for this follow-on competition. While we will ask, it is unlikely that Sikorsky will elect to put up so much funding again, so the sponsor will probably be another organization or a consortium of organizations willing to put up smaller amounts. --Dan

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:47 AM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Hello Dan, Thank you for your reply. The term "implement them in a way that might meet your fancy" was only meant to emphasize what I interpret as a certain caprice exercised by the current HPH committee in how a winning flight would be determined. I can think of many simpler ways a determination could be made as to whether a given flight was a winning flight, and one of those ways includes staying in the marked 10 by 10 meter square that was on the field, as observed by the required two official observers. These simpler ways are what I believe the original writers of the rules intended when they wrote them. However, accept my apology for not couching my point in a less antagonistic way. Dan, would the committee be prepared to approach Sikorsky about offering another

Sikorsky Prize to the first team that can meet same height and time criteria while staying in a 10 by 10 meter square clearly marked on the ground if I can demonstrate that your boundary rule interpretation is fatally flawed? George

----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: George MacArthur Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:02 AM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

As in most similar prize competitions, it is incumbent on the competitor to demonstrate compliance, with a sufficient data package to convince the judges. How this is done is up to the competitor. (Note that there are creative ways to obtain documentation without funding. For example, at no time were University of Maryland or Aerovelo required to invest anything to secure press coverage. Aerovelo also secured sponsorships using a web-based approach. These are creative approaches other competitors used, in addition to the creativity on-board their aircraft. There are surely many other approaches as well.) Everything each competitor does is voluntary. As a competitor, you would not “have had to” to do anything. To characterize your voluntary participation as a burden is insincere. I find your statement characterizing the approach taken by the Society, “implement them in a way that might meet your fancy” quite disrespectful to me and to my peers. All participation in the Society leadership, with the exception of the Executive Director and a few professional staff, is entirely voluntary. Our efforts to run this Society, and manage this competition, are generally thankless. Moreover, they require respectful engagement with all who seek information, both members and nonmembers such as you. I ask that you please exercise greater restraint in future correspondence. My correspondence with you has been quite extensive. It does not appear to me that it is contributing to progress. If you feel otherwise, and continuing is of value to you, and you might better consider the manner in which you make your points. Good night. --Dan

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:36 AM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Dan, what if the submitter has little or no data package? I am building a machine by myself, and I own one video camera. Are you really suggesting that if I had been ready to fly two months ago, I would have had to buy three more cameras and figure out how to implement them in a way that might meet your fancy? Where in the rules does it indicate this?

George ----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: George MacArthur Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:43 AM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

The decision on which 60 seconds is to be used is up to the submitter of the candidate flight. The candidate submits data that they believe complies, and the judges then assess the data package, the measurement technique and equipment, and all the uncertainties and risks. (This is similar to proposing for award of a contract in response to a solicitation.) As far as the scenario in your second paragraph, it seems that you are asking if a 14 meter radius (28 meter) diameter circle can be circumscribed by a square 10 meters on a side. To the best of my knowledge and education, subject to my understanding of the question, the answer is no. As such, it would not qualify under the rules as written and interpreted, as the flight did not remain inside a 10m box. --Dan

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 12:35 AM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Mr. Newman, Thank you for your reply. Assuming a flight much longer than 60 seconds, how would you decide which 60 second period was required to stay in the square? And the question of time and which 60 second period is selected complicates my thinking on the second example. To clarify one more time: A machine that takes off, reaches 3.3 meters altitude, flies 14 meters due south, and begins a flight pattern that happens to describe a perfect circle 14 meters in radius, where the point of lift off is the center point of that circle, and the craft lands at the 60.01 second mark at the point at which it started to describe that circle after moving 14 meters due south, will not qualify because a 10 by 10 meter square cannot be drawn around the circle. Is this statement true? George

----- Original Message ----From: Newman, Daniel I To: George MacArthur Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 11:17 PM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

Sir,

It appears that you understood my explanation correctly, with one exception. Regarding (what I referred to as) the ‘trace’ of the flight, you write “the entire flight pattern is mapped out”, but in fact only the pattern during the relevant 60 seconds of flight is required to be within the box. Regarding the flight example you describe, I assume that “a circle 14 meters around the point of origin” refers to the radius, and not the circumference or the diameter or some other geometry measure. I also assume that the flight is at approximately constant speed and so the 65 seconds of flight is spent making the entire, so 60 seconds traces approximately ~85% of the circle. If these assumptions are correct, then it would seem that the flight would not qualify as the circle is far larger than the required ‘10m box’ envelope. If, however, the circle is smaller or the flight around the circle takes only a few seconds and the rest is more localized, it is possible that 60 seconds could be flown within the required envelope. --Dan

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 7:28 PM To: Newman, Daniel I Subject: Sikorsky Prize

Mr. Newman, Thanks again for calling me back. One point of clarification please. If I understood your explanation correctly, the entire flight pattern is mapped out using various means, and if a 10 by 10 meter square can be drawn around the flight envelope, then the boundary rule is considered as being satisfied. Can you also confirm that the flight example I gave, that a machine that reaches 3.3 meters, stays airborne for 65 seconds, and traces out a circle 14 meters around the point of origin would be disqualified because a 10 by 10 meter box cannot be drawn around the flight envelope. Is this interpretation correct? If not, please elaborate on the boundary rule. Regards, George MacArthur ----- Original Message ----From: Mike Hirschberg To: George MacArthur Cc: Newman, Daniel I Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 2:34 AM Subject: RE: Open letter to the President of Sikorsky Mr. MacArthur, I am referring this matter to the AHS International Technical Director, Mr. Dan Newman of The Boeing Company, who oversaw the Human Powered Helicopter Competition Committee and their technical review of all the data.

technical review of all the data. I believe that everything I stated to you was correct, however, I'll defer to Mr. Newman -- to whom I also report -- if I made any misstatements in my correspondence below. Kind regards, Mike.

From: George MacArthur [geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 11:34 PM To: mrome@sikorsky.com Cc: Mike Hirschberg; Jim McKenna; Kay Brackins Subject: Open letter to the President of Sikorsky

Dear Mr. Maurer, A matter requires your personal attention. Team AeroVelo was fallaciously awarded the Sikorsky Prize because they failed to remain in a 10 by 10 meter square for 60 seconds as per AHS rules 4.4.1 and 4.4.3. Find some recent correspondence at the conclusion of this email. Also find attached my first letter to the AHS in March of 2013 about rule contradictions. Mike Hirschberg, Executive Director of the American Helicopter Society, does not deny that Atlas flew far outside the square that was clearly visible in the video released by the AHS. The video shows the machine leaving the square after just 33 seconds. However, he now suggests that remaining in a square marked out on the ground was not, and has never been, a requirement to win the Sikorsky Prize. He goes on to say it was "never relevant for the competition" and was there for "flight reference only" whatever that phrase is supposed to mean. This is preposterous. How did the committee determine that the machine remained in a boundary if a boundary did not exist? How is anyone besides the committee supposed to validate the flight video if there are no clearly marked boundaries? Did the committee believe that no one would have an interest in how they actually made their determination of the amount of drift? Did the committee believe that no one would have an interest in verifying their conclusion? Mr. Hirschberg claims the reference point on the machine must be within "any 10m square that can be drawn" and was permitted to be drawn after the flight. This is also preposterous, because the sum of all squares that can be drawn describes an envelope that is a circle. Every impartial mathematician analyzing the interpretation just put forward by Mr. Hirschberg will agree. In addition, Mr. Hirschberg cannot indicate whether the machine must be in the center of this magical moving square/circle that is permitted to be drawn after the flight, or whether the machine can be in a corner of it so as to maximize the envelope to an area that is precisely 528% greater than a 10 by 10 meter square, nor do the rules indicate same. Mr. Hirschberg also has no explanation for rule 4.4.3, which says: A reference point on the non-rotating part of the machine will be established as a means whereby the observers can judge that the machine stayed within the confines of the ten-meter square. How can observers judge whether the machine stays within the confines of the ten meter square unless there is one? Mr. Hirschberg claims that on the winning flight, the machine was allowed to take off from a point not marked in the center of the square, but he cannot answer why the point of lift off was not marked, nor can he indicate how they determined the distance of drift from a nonexistent point. I do not believe Mr. Hirschberg when he says the fixed reference point on the machine was not at the center of the marked square at the start of the purported winning flight. Mr. Hirschberg claims I would have received notification of something had I registered as a competitor, but he cannot say what it was for which I required notification. His statement that those yet to register are not competitors was meant as an insult, and was taken as such. I have been fully engaged in planning for over two years, and working full time on my machine's construction for six weeks. Anyone actually building a human

powered helicopter is a competitor regardless of whether they have registered. I bothered to start construction because AeroVelo and Team Gamera were struggling with the boundary requirement, to the point that I still had a great chance, that is until the HPH committee changed the rules in an outrageous fashion. Finally, Mr. Hirschberg ends all dialog by taking refuge in the committee's sole discretion and final word, to avoid answering questions or explaining the jaw dropping anomalies and incongruence in their judgement. This appalling situation, with moving squares that are actually circles permitted to be drawn after the flight, is bizarre enough to be an episode on the Twilight Zone, because the entire world believes Team AeroVelo won by staying in a fixed 10 by 10 meter square. I believe everyone but Team AeroVelo and their supporters will be thoroughly disappointed when they learn the truth. The truth is, they started in the center of a clearly marked 10 by 10 meter square, spent half the total flight time up to four meters outside of it, and won the prize anyway, only through the gross mismanagement of the HPH committee and their convoluted manipulation of words, definitions, and principles. Sincerely, George MacArthur ----- Original Message ----From: George MacArthur To: Mike Hirschberg Cc: Jim McKenna ; Kay Brackins Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:32 PM Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Mr. Hirschberg: The answer from the AHS in March did not remotely hint that a square would no longer have to be drawn on the surface or that the reference point on the machine would now be allowed to remain in any square, so if the ruling of March was only that there was no rule change as you now suggest, what would I have needed to be notified of as per the fourth line in your second email? You declined to clarify the ruling you mention in your first email, that the square did not have to be "drawn ahead of time" both in the correspondence in March and on your rules page. The problem is, a ruling that implies the machine must stay within a square that does not have to be drawn ahead of time is seriously flawed, not only because it is not in the rules, but because the square actually functions as the demarcator of a circle of a radius equal to the distance from one corner of the square to its diagonal opposite. In this case, the radius is equal to 14.14 meters. Using the word square when it has no function except to clumsily define a value and draw a circle, merely obscures and confuses. The boundary rule that you are now claiming is the one that was in place for the last thirty-three years should read precisely: The machine must stay within a circle with a radius of 14.14 meters from the point of departure. In your first email, you say I should note that they did not take off from the center of the square. From the videoâ€™s meager viewpoint of the departure, I'd argue they did take off from the center, which is the only clearly marked point in the square. However, if they did not take off from the center, where is the point of departure, and why isn't it clearly marked? And how could taking off from an unmarked point be anything but a serious liability in measuring the machine's movement? The idea that you made no changes to the rules as a result of my letter is preposterous, because no one would read your rules and assume that a square does not even need to be drawn on the surface, or assume that the square is superfluous since the boundary rule actually describes a circle, or assume the machine can take off from any unmarked point. But perhaps most importantly, why has every team that has ever made an attempt on the Sikorsky Prize drawn a ten meter square if one is not required to be drawn, and started flight from its center? The problem is, everyone adjudicating the Sikorsky Prize is in need of a remedial course in geometry, and logic. The rules should be so simple that a child could understand them.

You may have sole discretion, as do all committees overseeing contests regardless of their kind, but such discretion is never intended to facilitate breathtaking disregard for reason. George MacArthur ----- Original Message ----From: Mike Hirschberg To: George MacArthur Cc: Jim McKenna ; Kay Brackins Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 4:43 PM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

Mr. MacArthur, thank you for your email. Let me clarify: There was no rule change. The AHS HPH Competition talked about what the existing rule meant as a result of your letter and came to an agreement: we decided not to change the rules. Let me say two final things: 1. You never registered for our competition. Had you actually been a competitor for the AHS Sikorsky Prize, you would have been notified. 2. Rule 3.2 states: “3.2 For any and all questions regarding acceptance of entries, eligibility of an entrant, pilot, crew or aircraft under the regulations, or any other matter relating to the AHS prize, the decision of the AHS is final.”

Thank you again, Mike. From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 4:22 PM To: Mike Hirschberg Cc: mrome@sikorsky.com; Jim McKenna; Kay Brackins Subject: Re: Sikorsky Prize

Mr. Hirschberg: I have been closely watching the rules on your website for over two years, and no such committee ruling was ever published. Further, there was no need to change the rule, and even if there was, any ruling changing the boundary should have been published. Any team in the process of building a machine according to the rules on your website was at a disadvantage. My machine and others were being built to meet the exact parameters you set out. I sent Kay Brackins correspondence back in March noting certain rule contradictions. The response was that some teams vying for the Sikorsky Prize were very concerned about the "moving of goal posts" otherwise you might be inclined to clarify the rules. In fact, moving the goal posts is exactly what you did. You increased the flight area by 528% without telling anyone other than team Gamera and Aerovelo, and this is outrageous, because my opportunity and the opportunity of other teams to meet the only requirements you ever published has been eliminated. This is not a case of sour grapes. Had Aerovelo stayed within the square I intend to stay in, I would have been most cordial. George MacArthur ----- Original Message ----From: Mike Hirschberg To: George MacArthur Cc: mrome@sikorsky.com ; Jim McKenna ; Kay Brackins Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 2:22 PM Subject: RE: Sikorsky Prize

Mr. MacArthur, thank you for your email. The AeroVelo team met all of the stated

requirements of the AHS Sikorsky Prize. The AHS HPH Committee had made a ruling several months ago that the statement of “while maintaining flight within a 10-meter square” did not require a square to be drawn ahead of time. Thus, the requirement is that the reference point on the vehicle must be within any 10 m square that could be drawn. AeroVelo had a square drawn on the field, but there was not a requirement to do so, nor was it relevant for the competition – they did that for flight reference only. You will also note that they did not take off from the center of the square. We are very sorry that you were not the winner. Due to your interest in helicopters, we hope you consider joining AHS International: www.vtol.org/membership. Kind regards, Mike.

From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 2:08 PM To: Mike Hirschberg Cc: mrome@sikorsky.com; Jim McKenna; Kay Brackins Subject: Sikorsky Prize

Dear Mr. Hirschberg: My name is George MacArthur. I am in full production to build a human powered helicopter. I have reviewed the video of the winning flight published by AHS titled: Atlas Human-Powered Helicopter-AHS Sikorsky Prize Winning Flight. At the forty-five second mark of the video, the machine can be seen outside of the ten meter square, which is a violation of rule 4.4.1 The flight requirements shall consist of hovering for one minute while maintaining flight within a 10-meter square. During this time, the lowest part of the machine shall exceed momentarily 3 meters above the ground. It is obvious from several angles of the video that the machine leaves the square, but indisputably so as seen from the angle starting at the forty-five second mark of the video, which does not need to correspond to the forty-five second mark of the flight itself in order to prove the violation. At the forty-five second mark, the lines of the square are clearly visible, and the machine is past one line and almost to the soccer field's circle, which has a radius of 9.1 meters. The question is, does any portion of the flight where the machine is indisputably outside the square take place within the first sixty seconds of flight time? If the answer is yes, the flight must be disqualified. In theory, the portion of the flight from the video that is outside the boundary could have taken place after the sixty second mark and the flight would have been valid. The flight was reported to be sixty-five seconds long, which means there were five seconds of flight that the machine would have been permitted to make outside the square. However, the flight time outside the square visible from the forty-five second mark to the fifty-two second mark is at least seven seconds long. Even if this seven seconds took place at the very end of the flight, sixty-five seconds minus seven seconds equals fifty-eight seconds. Therefore, this is irrefutable proof that a portion of the first sixty seconds of flight took place outside the square, because the machine would have had to exit the square by the fifty-eight second mark for the seven seconds of flight time outside the square to have been possible. This means at least two seconds of the first sixty seconds of flight must have taken place outside the square, thus violating rule 4.4.1. This is being extremely conservative and indicates only that which is provable from the video while conceding every possible favor to the machine and the judges. One can infer from the video that the machine left the square long before the fifty-eight second mark. My question is, why was Team Aerovelo awarded the Sikorsky Prize when they failed to satisfy one of the three main requirements? Sincerely,

George MacArthur 3 Kari Court Lindsay Ontario Canada K9V 6B7 ă€€ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99p_wh6p4OY ----- Original Message ----From: "George MacArthur" <geomac@cogeco.ca> To: "Kay Brackins" <kbrackins@vtol.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:42 AM Subject: Re: Recent correspondence Hi Kay, Thank you for inquiring with the committee. With all due respect, the issues I raised are not minor. A flight boundary that is inconsistent and introduces an element of chance and no landing rules whatsoever in a helicopter engineering contest violates the spirit of precision that is the hallmark of all good engineering. The rules have been adequate for thirty-two years only because teams are just now coming close enough to win the prize. With so much at stake, there are no good reasons for allowing even one ambiguity to stand unresolved. Specifying a circle instead of a square and some sized landing zone so the portion of flight after 60 seconds including landing can be objectively verified as controlled is not rocket science. It is not enough that the committee claim to be tracking ambiguities. If they are aware of them, they should fix them. After all, they are engineers. Sincerely, George MacArthur ----- Original Message ----From: "Kay Brackins" <kbrackins@vtol.org> To: "George MacArthur" <geomac@cogeco.ca> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:35 AM Subject: RE: Recent correspondence Hi George, Here is the response that I received: You can tell him that the committee is fully aware of some minor ambiguities in the rules, and are tracking them closely. The ultimate determination if a team has satisfied the regulations is specified by the rules and is the exclusive decision of the committee. We appreciate his input, and know that the language is not perfect, but feel that it has been adequate for 32 years, and the intention of the competition is clear. Benjamin Hein I hope that this helps. I am not an engineer so I can't help.

Cheers, Kay Brackins Deputy Director AHS International The Vertical Flight Technical Society Phone: 703-684-6777 x103 Toll Free: 855-AHS-INTL x103 kbrackins@vtol.org www.vtol.org Don't miss Forum 69 â€˘ May 21-23, 2013 â€˘ Phoenix, Arizona The Biggest and Best Vertical Flight Technology Conference in the World! -----Original Message----From: George MacArthur [mailto:geomac@cogeco.ca] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:10 AM To: Kay Brackins Subject: Re: Recent correspondence Hello Kay, I have not heard from anyone on the committee. Do you have any knowledge of what's happening? George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Letter sent to Kay Brackins by courier on March 15 2013 George MacArthur 3 Kari Court Lindsay Ontario Canada K9V 6B7 705-878-9878 geomac@cogeco.ca www.georgemacarthur.com Kay Brackins AHS International 217 North Washington Street Alexandria VA 22314 Dear Ms. Brackins: I will be entering the Sikorsky Prize competition sometime in the near future. In the meantime, I have discovered two contradictions in the Sikorsky Prize rules. They are as follows: 4.4.1 The flight requirements shall consist of hovering for one minute while maintaining flight within a 10meter square. During this time, the lowest part of the machine shall exceed momentarily 3 meters above the ground. Consider the following scenario:

On the same day, two teams competing for the Sikorsky Prize center their machines in the square, climb over 3 meters in altitude, and stay airborne for more than 60 seconds. At the 60 second mark, team A has drifted 5.1 meters from the start point orthogonally with respect to the square, and team B has drifted 7 meters diagonally. The attempt of team A will be nullified for drifting outside the square and team B will win the prize, even though team B exercised much less flight control by drifting 37% farther than team A, and team B will have won by virtue of the chance of drifting in an advantageous direction. The square boundary criterion is in fact variable, and whether a given flight is deemed prize winning may depend upon the direction of drift. There are four regions within the square where a machine can drift as much as 7.071 meters and still win the prize, and these regions are located on the diagonal lines, while there are four regions that a machine can drift no more than 5 meters to win, and these regions are located on the orthogonal lines. Please see diagram. The solution is to change the rule to instead specify a circle 10 meters in diameter, thus eliminating the varying boundary and the element of chance. ă€€ On the same day, two teams center their machines in the zone, climb over 3 meters in altitude, and stay airborne inside the zone for more than 60 seconds. One teams lands outside the zone and the other lands inside the zone. In this situation, the rules do not indicate which team will win because no rule clearly states that a machine must land inside the zone. Rule 4.4.1 can be interpreted to mean that once a machine has momentarily exceeded 3 meters of altitude while maintaining flight inside the zone for 60 seconds, all requirements have been fulfilled, after which time the machine is permitted to leave the zone for landing. However, if this is the interpretation being used, there is a problem, because it means the rules do not specify a landing zone. Therefore, a machine is allowed to make a non-vertical landing, which contradicts rule 4.1.2: 4.1.2 The machine shall be capable of vertical take off and landing in still air, and at least one member of the crew shall be non-rotating. Rule 4.4.1 should clearly state that the machine must also land inside the zone. I would be grateful for a response to my observations.

Sincerely, George MacArthur