<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Friend Guy Russo sent these thoughts of Joe Wurts to me yesterday. Could be seed for a New Years resolution! Happy 2021 all!!<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13.333333015441895px; padding: 0px 0.4em; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); margin: 0px;" class=""><div id="replybody1" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="font-size: 10pt;" class=""><table id="v1post45493127" class="v1user-postbit-left-plus v1tborder" border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" align="center"><tbody class=""><tr valign="top" class=""><td id="v1td_post_45493127" class="v1alt2"><div id="v1post_message_45493127" class="v1nolinks v1postbit-content">In short, one frequently sees disparate thermal signs. This is in line with reality, as at a competition one sees aircraft working multiple thermals around the field. It is very helpful to cast a wide scan so as to pick up the signs that point towards these multiple thermals... The most annoying pre-launch read for me is when I have equal validity reads for two thermals in opposite directions on the field. I call this a split field read... For upwind vs downwind, the choice appears obvious, but isn't. The higher percentage flight has one starting with the downwind read, as one can fall back to the upwind read rather easily if needed whereas starting with the upwind read works great if the thermal is there, but the fallback is very stressful as the downwind thermal will be very far away by the time one knows that the upwind read isn't viable.</div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="">CT</div></body></html>