A questionnaire was handed out to the competitors of the 2001 WAG (World Air Games) HAB (Hot Air Balloon) competition.  32 answers were received constituting a third of all competitors. The feedback of the questionnaire is intended to improve future HAB competitions organised by the CIA (Commission Internationale d'Aerostation) and other Event organisers.

The questionnaire was not based on knowledge of scientific polling or statistical evaluations. A copy of the questionnaire can be seen as Appendix A to this report. The answers were joined together in a Excel sheet (Appendix B) and published on the CIA CSC (Competitors Sub Committee) immediately after the WAG. Competitors were asked to rate some answers in %, were 0% means 'very bad', 50% means ' so so' and 100% means excellent. Furthermore comments could be added to give the competitors the ability to express themselves in plain language and highlight points of specific interest to them.

 

The questions focused on five areas:

·         Competition

·         WAG Organisation

·         WAG as FAI Event

·         WAG as CIA Event

·         Competitor's sponsoring

 

The following is the opinion of the CSC after evaluating the answers. The opinion does not claim to be a majority opinion nor has the CSC scientific analyser's expertise. When in doubt of the interpretation consult the competitors answers directly (Appendix B).

It should be noted that several top class competitors (e.g. reigning World Champion) did not participate in this competitive event and that 'lower ranked' competitors took their place. Some countries did not use all the slots available to them. Main reasons were high entry fee and the feeling of participating in a 'lesser qualified' Event.  When interpreting the answers to the questionnaire, one should not forget that the opinions of these competitors are not included.

Competition:

Q: Are you generally satisfied with the competition pleasure of this Event. Rated: 67%

The answers indicate that the competitors were in general happy with the competition.

 

Q: Are you satisfied with the Task-setting. Rated: 55%

This Q. received the lowest rating of all questions. A great deal (approx. 10) of the comments claimed that the task were lacking "... variety in tasksetting ...". So obviously competitors want more variation in the choice and combination of tasks.

 

Q: Are you satisfied with the competition area. Rated: 73%

The flying area achieved a generally positive rating.

Negative comments: too far to drive from briefing to launch field, bad and dusty roads.

Positive comments: no farmer problems, ample take-off and landing possibilities, no cattle.

 

Q: Are you satisfied with the competition map. Rated: 80%

Almost the best rating of all questions. The accuracy of the map was remarkably good. Also having a prepared, specially printed map is very convenient. Some minor negative comments: too thin grid lines, false printing of comp. area and confusing additional printing of WGS84 10km grid.

WAG Organisation

In General the organisation was given a fair note (62-64%). The liaison officer for the HAB competition, Anulfo Gonzalez was praised by several competitors for his prompt reaction to Emails and requests.

 

Q: Are you satisfied with the communication process before the Event. (entry forms, information etc.) Rated: 62%

Although Email and  Internet is around, several competitors still want information by ordinary Mail. Payment conditions in invitation were misleading.

 

Q: Once in Spain, are you satisfied with the reception of the WAG organisers.(room assignment, welcome desk etc). Rated: 64%

The hotel reception was criticised by some competitors. Competition-check-in was highly criticised with long waiting lines and the requirement to pay outstanding dues in cash. Also poor, was the lack of any road-signs to the opening party, take-off field, refuelling site etc. The first two days there was a misunderstanding about the breakfast payment, however the WAG organisation agreed to pay the cost for this misleading information. Several competitors complained about missing social events. The opening ceremony was criticised for being long and late and competitors had the feeling of 'puppets on a string' during exercise parades. Hotel parking facilities were marginal and a car break-in occurred in 'guarded' parking area.

 

Q: Are you satisfied with the handling of your individual wishes (Rent a car reservations, balloon renting, helium supply etc). Rated: 63%

      The rent a car reservation and helium reservation were criticised by some competitors.

 

Q: Are you satisfied with the refuelling facilities. Rated: 81%

The refuelling facilities received the highest notes. Particularly good were the short walking distances on a paved road. The high fuelling pressure resulted in quick refuelling times and although there was only one manifold there were many filling hoses available. Criticised was the inability of in-trailer refuelling (unfortunately this has become a European standard) and inoperative reverse-flow-stoppers.

WAG as FAI Event.

            Italic answers were not an option but nevertheless chosen and used.

 

Q: Have you got the feeling that this Event is different from e.g. a Continental or World Championship. 27 Not different., 7 Different, 3 Undetermined

A large majority considered this event to be of the same level, indirectly saying that the feeling of participating at very special event is not present.

 

Q: Did you see any other airsports participating in the WAG. 23 No, 8 Yes.

Several competitors complained the lack of feeling part of a larger Event, especially because they did not see anything of the other sports.

 

Q: Were your people back home able to follow the Event via Internet or Television  16 Yes, 10 No, 5 I don't know.

At least half of the competitors reported that the Event was followed or able of being followed via television or Internet. The Internet facilities for competitors in the hotel were too limited. It would have been good if an elaborate structure of TV screens in the Hotel lobby, would have shown the action of other airsports together with a display of results. E.g., I learned two months after the WAG how my country performed from our NAC-magazine.

 

Q: Do you rate the WAG higher than a World Championship. 16 lower, 14 same 1 higher.

The answers here illustrate clearly that the WAG are (not yet?) seen as something special.

 

Q: Do you rate the future of the WAG rather positive than negative. 21 Positive, 8 Negative

2 neutral.

The answers here clearly indicate that a majority is willing ( hoping?) to see the WAG as a special Event. One answer clearly points the finger at FAI stating it's failure to promote to WAG to a higher level after eight years of working.

 

Q: The location and time of the HAB competition in the WAG is obviously a compromise. Do you feel that this compromise is. 17 OK, 12 NOT OK, 2 undetermined.

It is interesting to notice that half of the competitors are obviously willing to accept lesser flying conditions for the sake of taking part in the WAG.

 

Q: Do you have the feeling that you take part in an Olympic Games style Event. 23 Yes, 5 No 3 Maybe

Again there is a clear willingness to see the WAG as a kind of Olympic Games of Airsports. However several comments criticise the lack of promotion of this idea. Several comments state that nobody in the city of Seville seem to have noticed that the WAG Hot Air and  Gas  balloon competitions took place there.

WAG as CIA Event.

Q: Do you think the CIA should support FAI in achieving the WAG goals of making it an Airsport Olympiade, or should we rather take a reserved position and wait what direction the WAG are taking.  22 Support, 7 Wait and see, 1 Do not support, 1 undetermined.

      Again a majority support for the Olympic idea.

 

Q: This time the CIA changed the qualifying criteria to one per country and then a formula depending on a National championship and past achievements. Which qualifying procedure do you prefer? 17 WAG, 7 former procedure, 7 undetermined.

A majority favoured this new qualification method (however those that did not qualify and would have liked to participate are not given a change to answer). Interestingly several countries did not use all the slots available to them or had difficulties filling them up. That speaks volumes of how many of the premier competitive pilots feel about the stature of the WAG.

 

Q: The CIA decided that we all should stay in one place with a fixed entry fee including lodging and food like an Olympic village, as opposed to e.g. World Championships with a much lower entry fee but where you have to arrange and pay your  lodging and food. I prefer: 17 WAG all inclusive package, 15 My own arrangements.

The hotel got very good ratings and most competitors were very happy with staying in a four star luxury hotel and also staying together in one place was felt as a good thing. However analysing the answers in detail (and Emails of those who did not come), there are several answers that feel the price therefore is too high and that alternative lodging should be made available. Also there is a clear correlation between the answer to this question and the amount of sponsorship competitors get (see last question). So the CSC thinks that in future different price class lodging (individual booking ?) should made available.

 

Q: Do you feel that you get value for your money (hotel/food etc.). Price / value ratio is 17 NOT OK, 11 OK, 3 undetermined.

The majority thinks that the price is too high! Interesting comments are the that the price of lodging officials (including observers) is too high. Annulfo Gonzalez indicated that the balloon competition was by far the most expensive competition of the WAG looking at costs of officials. I think the CIA and CSC have to take a closer look in the cost involved in organising HAB competitions. If one looks at the amount of money organisers of the SAGA and Motegi Events are spending on observers and officials, then we (CSC homework!) have to rethink if all this is necessary for a good competition.

Personal details (optional)

Competitors were asked to state their name and NAC but could refrain from doing so (used by one). Furthermore a question about the sponsorship to this Event was included so that the CIA has a better idea about this issue when discussing future Events.

 

Q: To go to this Event I am financially supported. (0%=no support, 100%= full support)

11 0%, 2 <10%, 5 20-30%, 8 50-75%, 5 90-100%.

A third had to pay all by themselves, the rest was partly to fully supported. It is important to know this when organising events and allocating travel and other support.

 

Q: If supported, who is providing the money. Sponsor / NAC / other sources.

The majority of those sponsored got their money from or via the NAC.

Some general comments and statements:

Skipping the afternoon flight.

A totally new idea was introduced in this competition namely: 'to not fly in the afternoon'. This issue was discussed within the CSC prior to the Event and in co-operation with the director it was agreed to try this out in the WAG. The idea behind it is to have challenging multiple morning task (3-4) and skip the afternoon flight. Generally the 'skill / luck' ratio is 66% to 33% in morning flights and  33% to 66% in afternoon flights. This was especially the case in the hot and windy conditions in Seville, Spain. The director then cancelled all afternoon flights. This being a totally new idea one may conclude a general acceptance because there were no negative comments (but one).

 

Therefore the CSC recommends directors of future events to further consider and study the idea of skipping afternoon flights after a successful multiple morning flight while considering:

·         Weather forecast of morning and afternoon flight.

·         Balance to aim of having as many tasks as possible with the aim of having  the best tasks as possible.

·         When cancelling an afternoon flight, this should be done early (best a the Notice Board before the first pilot returns from the morning flight). This ensures that the 'free' time in the afternoon can be used efficiently for resting, sightseeing etc.

 

The CSC sees the following advantages of this idea.

·         Competitors ( and officials alike) have more time to relax, sightsee or socialise during events.

·         Although the debriefing and scoring process of a triple or quadruple task is long, it is nevertheless less time-consuming than that of two double tasks.

·         The possible negative side-effects of having no competitions flights for public in the afternoon should be catered for by having fiesta 'competition' flights for the public. This also enables the display of sponsors logos of fiesta balloons for the general public that is generally more important for them than for competitive balloons.

 

Amount (number) of competitors.

One comment addresses the necessity of having 100+1 competitors. For several reasons there were more than the usual amount of 'inexperienced' competitors in this competition. The question to be looked at is: "Is the WAG or World Championship alike, the stage were everybody should be allowed to fly" or should we require more than the usual 50 hours and 12 month license. Should we e.g. require experience in competitions with over 30 ( or ?) competitors or other qualification standards? Should we, require from organisers to stage the Event with less than the envisaged 100+1 if not enough qualified pilots apply? In this competition one competitor (said to be a millionaire) went home halfway because he had other thing to do, leaving the organisation behind with one observer too much.

 

Travel support.

When organising an Event the CIA should take a closer look in how sponsoring and financial support is allocated. In the case of the WAG no travel support was given. Driving 4000 -5000 km from Sweden or Ukraine or flying in from North- or South-America is expensive. The CIA should require from organisers to work out an elaborate structure of travel support when possible. A good step in that direction is the support as worked out in the 2004 bid by Australia.

 

Test Events ( or keep your promise).

It was criticised that some recommendations from the WAG test event were not followed up upon. Also CIA should look that promises given during bidding or test events are kept. E.g. During the test event of the first WAG in Turkey I paid 15U$ for my room in a simple hotel. When competing the following year in the real event I had to pay a travel agency that was exclusively dealing all rooms on behalf of the organisers 40U$ for the same room (later it turned out that that travel agency was owned by the Turkish NAC!). This year a competitor complained that he had to pay twice the amount of money for the same car as last year during the test event.

 

Position of the CSC in Event evaluation and follow up.

This questionnaire was the first in depth questionnaire by the CSC the body representing competitors interest in the CIA. The CSC hopes to make this a standard exercise. Everybody is invited to submit comments as to the value and possible improvements of this tool to the CSC. Competitors put great hope in the CSC as can been seen from some comment.

 

Hofheim, 6 August 2001

Mathijs R. de Bruijn

Chairman FAI/CIA Competitors Sub Committee
Appendix A: CSC WAG 2001 Questionnaire

FAI/CIA Competitors Subcommittee (CSC).

 

A debriefing meeting for competitors (guests allowed) will be scheduled towards the end of the WAG. Competitors are also requested to fill out a questionnaire. The debriefing and questionnaire serve the purpose of improving future events by evaluating your response and comments. Please return the questionnaire to Mathijs R. de Bruijn, the present CSC Chairman. We will publish the results of the debriefing and questionnaire on the CSC website (http://home.t-online.de/home/ciacc). Stating your name and NAC helps us in evaluating the responses and we will make sure that these details are treated confidential.

When answering a question please strike out the wrong option and/or circle the option of your choice. Some questions request a rating in %, where 0% means very bad, 50% so so, 100% means excellent.

 

Competition:

1.       Are you generally satisfied with the competition pleasure of this Event.  Rate %:

2.       Are you satisfied with the Task-setting. Rate %:

3.       Are you satisfied with the competition area. Rate %:

4.       Are you satisfied with the competition map. Rate %:

 

 

WAG HAB Organisation.

1.       Are you satisfied with the communication process before the Event. (entry forms, information etc.) Rate %:

2.       Once in Spain, are you satisfied with the reception of the WAG organisers.(room assignment, welcome desk etc). Rate %:

3.       Are you satisfied with the handling of your individual wishes (Rent a car reservations, balloon renting, helium supply etc). Rate %:

4.       Are you satisfied with the refuelling facilities. Rate %:

 

WAG as FAI Event.

1.       Have you got the feeling that this Event is different from e.g. a Continental or World Championship. Different / Not different.

2.       Did you see any other airsports participating in the WAG. Yes / No

3.       Were your people back home able to follow the Event via Internet or Television Yes / No

4.       Do you rate the WAG higher than a World Championship. Higher / the same / lower.

5.       Do you rate the future of the WAG rather positive than negative. Positive / Negative

6.       The location and time of the HAB competition in the WAG is obviously a compromise. Do you feel that this compromise is OK or NOT OK.

7.       Do you have the feeling that you take part in an Olympic Games style Event. Yes / No

 

WAG as CIA Event.

1.       Do you think the CIA should support FAI in achieving the WAG goals of making it an Airsport Olympiade, or should we rather take a reserved position and wait what direction the WAG are taking.  Support / Wait and see / Do not support.

2.       This time the CIA changed the qualifying criteria to one per country and then a formula depending on a National championship and past achievements. Which qualifying procedure do you prefer? WAG / former procedure.

3.       The CIA decided that we all should stay in one place with a fixed entry fee including lodging and food like an Olympic village, as opposed to e.g. World Championships with a much lower entry fee but where you have to arrange and pay your  lodging and food. I prefer: WAG all inclusive package / My own arrangements.

4.       Do you feel that you get value for your money (hotel/food etc.). Price / value ratio is OK / NOT OK.

 

 

Personal details (optional)

1.       My name: 

2.       My NAC:

3.       To go to this Event I am financially supported. (0%=no support, 100%= full support)  Support %:

4.       If supported, who is providing the money. Sponsor / NAC / other sources.

 

 

Apendix B: Answers to questionnaire

Competition

 

Nr.	General satisfct.	Task-setting	Area	Map	Comments
1	80	80	80	100	---
2	80	80	0	50	Area:Too hot, dry, dusty (battle of material)
3	40	30	30	40	---
4	70	60	95	95	PM flight cancelation earlier. Tasks simplistic
5	75	50	80	80	No variety in tasksetting. Dusty area but good take-off oppertunities. Good map, UTM lines a bit too thin.
6	75	70	60	90	Too many FINs. More common launch fields. Most flights good tasks. Publication scores late.
7	100	100	100	50	---
8	80	70	60	90	---
9	0	0	50	100	Simple tasksetting (fiesta level).
10	80	50	60	30	---
11	65	50	50	50	Task setting limited by local conditions and Director's imagination.
12	80	60	75	75	---
13	60	60	100	100	---
14	60	0	95	95	No appeal to the intelligence of pilots and observers.
15	50	50	100	100	More elaborated tasks.
16	80	75	90	100	Every day a long drive before the flight.
17	70	85	90	85	---
18	70	70	70	100	---
19	30	50	50	40	I cannot be satisfied with a sporting event with less than 1 flight a day.
20	80	66	80	85	Some competitors lack previous competition experience, how far far should you push for 100 competitors? Not so exiting task combinations.
21	30	40	50	90	Very hot, causing unpredictable winds.
22	85	50	85	95	Task setting was difficult in this area and with this limitation I think the director did very well.
23	70	65	75	60	To reduce the advantage of pyball readings by a few, they should by made available by the organisers during flights. More variation of tasks. Target colour not good.
24	50	50	50	40	Weather forecast not very good. Too hot for ballooning. Flying area too far from hotel.
25	95	60	80	95	---
26	80	40	100	100	Every day the same tasks.
27	85	25	95	100	Always the same tasks.
28	75	60	60	80	Area too hot, therefore winddirection too variable. Task setting not inovative. Results late and inaccurate. Good take-off and landing oppertunities. No farmer problems.
29	30	50	90	90	Some observers are not skilled and have no international experience
30	75	50	80	95	Pleasure positive influenced by all competitors in one hotel and by friendship. Negative influenced by directors negating to fulfil competitors requests. Task setting too simple and monotonous. Competition area OK in respect of airspace restrictions and c
31	75	50	75	75	The event was generally a very interesting one. Task setting could have been more demanding. Competition area OK. Map printing very inaccurate (blue lines ?), otherwise OK
Avg	67	55	73	80

 

WAG Organisation

Nr.	WAG/Worlds	See other airsports	Internet/TV	Rate WAG to Worlds	WAG future	Compromise location/time	I took part in Olympic style Event	Comments
1	Not different	No	?	lower	positive	OK	maybe	Too expensive.
2	Not different	Yes	Yes	lower	positive	Not OK	maybe	WAG good idea, but participants should be close together like in the Olympic summer and winter games.
3	Different	No	No	lower	negative	Not OK	No	---
4	Different	No	Yes	lower	neutral	?	maybe	Good event. People of Seville not informed. Poor publicity. Olympic concept exciting but didn't come off.
5	Not different	No	?	same	positive	OK	No	No information about other sports.
6	Not different	No	Yes	same	positive	OK	No	Same as the Worlds, but many nations not represented (eg Australia).
7	?	No	Yes	lower	neutral	Not OK	No	---
8	Different	Yes	Yes	lower	positive	OK	No	It is a shame that the timing did not allow us to take part in opening and closing ceremonies. No news about how other airsports are doing.
9	Not different	No	Yes	lower	positive	Not OK	No	---
10	Different	No	Yes	lower	positive	Not OK	No	---
11	Not different	No	No	lower	positive	Not OK	No	Ballooning is the most attractive air-sport, therefore compromises should be made by other airsports and not by ballooning. WAG has huge potential, but lacks publicity.  Opening ceremony was a shambles.
12	?	No	No	lower	positive	?	No	---
13	Not different	Yes	Yes	same	positive	OK	Yes	---
14	Not different	No	Yes	same	negative	Not OK	No	---
15	Not different	No	No	same	positive	OK	No	The WAG should be handeld with more proud. Every NAC should to promote this Event. In my country nobody knows abouit the WAG.
16	Different	Yes	?	same	positive	OK	Yes	---
17	Not different	Yes	Yes	same	positive	OK	Yes	---
18	Not different	No	Yes	same	negative	OK	No	---
19	Different	No	No	lower	negative	Not OK	No	---
20	Not different	Yes	?	lower	positive	OK	No	WAG is a great idea, but now ... spread apart.
21	Not different	No	?	lower	negative	OK	No	---
22	Different	No	No	lower	positive	OK	No	Too many glossy WAG publications that were of no use, but only a printed list of balloon entrants.
23	Not different	No	No	lower	negative	Not OK	No	We did not even see the gas balloons. The olympic idea only make sense if we all live in one place. WAG internet page broke down regulairly.
24	Not different	No	Yes	same	positive	Not OK	No	---
25	Not different	No	No	same	negative	OK	No	---
26	Not different	Yes	Yes	same	positive	OK	No	---
27	Not different	No	Yes	higher	positive	OK	Yes	---
28	Not different	No	No	lower	negative	Not OK	No	After approximately 8 years of working, FAI failed to give the WAG the appeal it should have. The lack of engagement may lead to the death of the WAG as Olympic pendent for airsports.
29	?	No	Yes	same	positive	OK	No	---
30	Not different	No	Yes	same	positive	Not OK	No	I would have loved to see other airsports but all I could see was paragliders from the pool. I planned to visit the helicopter competition but it was cancelled. All other airsports were too far away. Following the event via internet was difficult as the s
31	Not different	Yes	No	same	positive	OK	Yes	The Internet display mostly didn't work and therefore the information flow back home was by means of email and telephone.
	21 Not different	23 No	16 Yes	16 lower	21 positive	17 OK	23 No
	7 Different	8 Yes	10 No	14 same	8 negative	12 Not OK	5 Yes
	3?		5 ?	1 higher	2 neutral	2 ?	3 maybe

 

WAG as FAI Event

Nr.	communication	reception	help	refuelling
1	?	100	100	80	Excellent, except breakfast information.
2	20	50	10	80	No one in Spain/Seville knows that they host the WAG.
3	40	70	?	60	---
4	80	80	70	90	Pre-event availibility helium/car/balloons/local crew poor. Anulfo was very responsive regarding other matters.
5	60	75	?	90	Almost no information via Internet. Quick and pertinent answers by Anulfo via Email. Would prefer is national teams would be lodged togther.
6	40	60	?	100	Slow comminucation process. Internet information ok, but a paper letter should also be provided. Hotel organisation too inflexible.
7	40	75	0	100	---
8	80	60	70	80	Anulfo was excellent in dealing with our concerns. When I arrived at airport, officials and observers were met and driven to hotel but no arrangements for competitors.
9	50	0	?	50	Canteen breakfast and opening banquet food. I waited 11hours for registration.
10	10	20	?	80	---
11	40	35	50	70	Information flow slow. No welcome reception in Hotel. Information on car/ balloon renting missing.
12	25	90	80	90	I miss a program with pilots names and photo. All details were probably on Internet, I could not open or print these. Many details late or not at all..
13	100	100	100	100	---
14	75	100	100	100	---
15	100	50	0	50	Refuelling could be more controlled.
16	75	75	N/A	90	Hotel facilities are very good, parking was poor.
17	30	75	60	60	---
18	40	50	N/A	100	---
19	80	20	0	40	I came one day earlier and only after getting really angry I was provided with a room. I had propane and helium problems in an event of this magnitude these problems should by anticipated and taken better care off.
20	90	70	70	90	Too expensive, too luxiriuos.
21	60	30	50	90	No social events. Official balloon repair facilities were lacking. The "sailmaker" was helpfull but his repairs need to be redone.
22	60	100	N/A	90	Why did we have to pay 100% of the accomodation charge in January?
23	70	40	90	?	Could not pay with credit cards at official registration. Only two internet computors for 500 poeple. No social events.
24	50	50	50	50	---
25	40	90	N/A	97	---
26	100	100	100	100	Check-in little slow.
27	80	100	100	100	---
28	75	60	90	90	Anulfo responded to all emails promptly. No WAG welcome desk. No special programme (Flamengo dance etc.). No road-signs to propane, opening ceremony, launch field etc.  Best (fastest) refuelling I have ever seen.
29	100	50	80	40	Check-in procedure was a disaster.
30	85	90	60	95	Information via homepage was OK but I missed a mail to all participants whenever a new version of the information bulletin was put on the page. Room assignment and desk facilities in the hotel were OK. Rental car reservations via the organisation were too
31	50	25	50	75	Email information was OK, entry form was very misleading concerning the accomodation conditions. Room assignment OK, Check-In procedure too long due to an unclear/not communicated need to pay the extra nights/persons/rooms directly and at once in cash Not
Avg	62	64	63	81

 

WAG as CIA Event

Nr.	Airsport Olympiade CIA position	Competitor selection procedure	Food/lodging arrangement	Food/lodging price value ratio	Comments
1	Wait and see	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	Too expensive.
2	Support	?	Own arr.	OK	WAG should be World Championship
3	Wait and see	?	Own arr.	Not OK	---
4	Support	?	All inclusive pck.	OK	Overall value good. Hotel very good.
5	Support	?	Own arr.	OK	---
6	?	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	Good to stay together, but under other terms eg. Campus style with simple and cheaper lodging.
7	Support	WAG	All inclusive pck.	Not OK	---
8	Support	WAG	All inclusive pck.	OK	I think we get much less than officials and observers. If observers are in this as a sport, they should share the cost more. The pilots need more support
9	Support	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	---
10	Support	Former proc.	All inclusive pck.	OK	---
11	Wait and see	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	The CIA should encourage the FAI based on this questionnaire and feedback of officials. Very expensive event.
12	Support	Former proc.	All inclusive pck.	Not OK	Hotel room good. Breakfast and diner could be better arranged.
13	Support	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	---
14	Do not support	Former proc.	All inclusive pck.	OK	Too expensive, but OK for me.
15	Support	?	All inclusive pck.	Not OK	Qualifying criteria should be 3 per country. USA brought several pilots that never flew a competative event (at cost of other countries' participation).
16	Support	see comment	All inclusive pck.	?	I liked neither selection procedure. I have no problem with an all inclusive package, but it has proved to be very, very expensive.
17	Support	WAG	All inclusive pck.	OK	---
18	Support	Former proc.	All inclusive pck.	Not OK	---
19	Wait and see	Former proc.	Own arr.	Not OK	---
20	Support	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	---
21	Support	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	Too expensive. Compensation for poor or noisy rooms is difficult if prepaid.
22	Wait and see	WAG	All inclusive pck.	OK	A superb hotel, but too expensive of course.
23	Support	see comment	All inclusive pck.	Not OK	WAG selection procedure with a maximum of six. Hotel to luxirious for a sport event. Too little publication.
24	Support	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	---
25	Wait and see	WAG	Own arr.	Not OK	---
26	Support	WAG	Own arr.	?	---
27	Support	WAG	All inclusive pck.	OK	---
28	Wait and see	Former proc.	Own arr.	OK	I have been told that the Ballooning Event was the most costly event in the WAG when considering cost of officials (including observers!) compared to number of competitors. This issue should be addressed by the CIA. We, the competitors should not pay for
29	Support	Former proc.	All inclusive pck.	OK	---
30	Support	WAG	All inclusive pck.	?	Value for money was OK for a 4 stars hotel. Knowing that there were sponsors I would have appreciated very much if the entry fee would have been diminished.
31	Support	WAG	All inclusive pck.	Not OK	---
	22 Support	17 WAG	15 Own arr.	17 Not Ok
	7 Wait and see	7 former proc.	17 all inclusive pck.	11 OK
	1 Do not support	2 see comment		3 ?
	1 ?	5 ?

 

Sponsor

Nr.	Sponsership %	Sponsor source	Comments (amounts converted to €, to conceal identity and for ease of comparison).
1	0	---	Event costs me 8400 €. Many top USA pilots did not come because of costs.
2	20	NAC	WAG is good idea but must be better advertised to increase sponsor support.
3	50	NAC	---
4	0	---	Publicity may make money availiable
5	50	NAC	Some French pilots declined invitation because of high price (support was gained in last minute).
6	5	NAC	My NAC gave 5% I paid 6200 €
7	0	---	---
8	0	---	We need a pilot representative when organising these events. Thanks for the questionnaire, I hope it helps.
9	30	NAC	---
10	20	Sponsor/NAC/other	---
11	0		---
12	75	NAC( sport concil)	---
13	50	NAC	---
14	75	NAC( sport concil)	---
15	0	---	This year I have to pay all by myself.
16	0	---	---
17	0	---	---
18	100	NAC	---
19	7	NAC	---
20	0	---	Thank you all for all the hard work.
21	0	---	---
22	60	Sponsor/NAC	---
23	0	---
24	75	NAC	For the next time we like to propose to include a representative of the CSC to check how everthing is prepared.
25	20	other sources	---
26	100	Sponsor/NAC	---
27	98	NAC	---
28	75	NAC( sport concil)	FAI/CIA should look closer to the different financial support of competitors when deciding on issue like entry fees, lodging etc.
29	90	NAC	---
30	95	Sponsor	---
31	25	NAC	---
Avg	36
	11	0%
	2	<10%
	5	20-30%
	8	50-75%
	5	90-100%