UK proposed items to be included in the Agenda of the 2000 CIMA meeting.

NOTE: The items below are divided into two parts.
Part 1 Includes all items to be directly included in the Agenda
Part 2 includes all those items which must initially be directed at the CIMA S10 Working group to form recommendations which will then be put by the Working group to the CIMA meeting.

Part 1: Items for direct inclusion in the Agenda.
 
1.1 GPS Logging

Proposal: That CIMA establish a mandatory timetable for the introduction of GPS based flight recording for the purposes of scoring championships.

It is clear that there is quite a lot of popular support for the introduction of such a system. It is also clear that CIMA must force the pace because individual organising NAC's simply do not have the resources to go it alone with a demonstration of this technology.
 
Proposal 1.1.1:
That CIMA establishes a 5 year program such that by the time we get to the 3rd WAG in Slovenia GPS flight recording is the primary method of collecting the data required to score championships.
 
Timetable:
2000 The local regulations at EMC 2000 contained a clause whereby IGC approved flight recorders could be used as secondary evidence, subject to approval by the director. (Because he might not be properly equipped).
2001 (WAG) IGC approved flight recorders may be used as secondary evidence, IGC recommended software to be provided to the organisers by users before the start of the event so the organisers are properly equipped.
2002 (Continental) As 2001
2000 - 2002 CIMA establish it's exact specification and communicate it to manufacturers so the appropriate hardware is freely available for the 2003 Championships. (see note 2 below)
2003 (World Championships) IGC/CIMA approved flight recorders are used as the primary source of evidence, but tasks must be arranged such that other evidence (eg photographic evidence) may be used by competitors as a valid alternative.
2004 (Continental) As 2003
2005 (3rd WAG) IGC/CIMA approved flight recorders are used as the primary source of evidence and tasks may be arranged such that photographic evidence may not be possible.
 
Notes:
1) This timetable may be reviewed by CIMA annually in the light of experience but the principle that this system will become the norm in as reasonably short a time as possible must be firmly established.
2) In principle the IGC have established a technically excellent standard (See www.fai.org/gliding/gnss) and there is no point in CIMA re-inventing the wheel, save for one small technical modification which will be required of manufacturers of equipment: The IGC specification already requires that a "Pilot event" (PEV) can be "marked" on the log trace, (ie a "mark" on the electronic trace in place of a Photograph) but as Glider pilots are allowed to use all other functions of the GPS unit, the actual action of making this PEV is usually embedded somewhere in the menu system of the unit. As pilots in our championships must not be able to see any data (easy - seal the displays) then CIMA must establish a simple specification where IGC approved flight recorders must be fitted with a 2 pin plug such that a contact across the 2 pins logs a PEV but cannot intefere with any other operation of the unit.
 

1.2 Emergency parachutes

Proposal: That in championships, emergency parachute systems be excluded from the aircraft gross mass requirements.

• There have been a number of fatal accidents in category 1 or 2 championships in recent years.
• There have been cases in the recent past of competitors in championships REMOVING their parachute systems to achieve a particular gross mass.
• The present rules positively DISCOURAGE the fitting of emergency parachutes....
• There is always a risk of mid-air collision, particularly in soaring and "ground marker spotting" tasks.
• The UK delegate believes that this was provided for in the definition of a Microlight prior to S10 1 July 1991.

This is NOT a proposal to change the definition of a Microlight. Instead - entirely on safety grounds alone - there is the opportunity that a phrase such as: "The gross mass does not include the mass of emergency parachute systems" COULD be inserted within the rules for Championships, and thus the Local regulations, which are after all, simply an interpretation of S10 with due regard for practical and SAFE operation in a particular context.
 
1.3 Constructor's Championship

Proposal: That CIMA establish a constructors classification in championships.

Other motorized sports, notably Formula 1, have a hotly contested constructor's championship which runs in parallel with the individual championship. It could greatly encourage aircraft manufacturers to get more involved in our competitions and foster the development of better aircraft. It also would aid "friendship between nations" because it is not a classification bound so directly by national rivalries.
 
How it would work
The scoring would be done in exactly the same way as the team scoring is done in S10.
 
Notes
1) It may be that such a classification is not compatible with FAI principles, but there is no doubt it would enhance our sport. In this case CIMA should still positively encourage championship organisers to offer a trophy at each championship to an agreed set of rules.
2) Original idea by Eduardo Marchesi.

1.4 Championship records

Proposal: That the notion of championship records be introduced into S10 Chapter 3 and a "Kicking sticks" Championship record be introduced.

The parachutists (and maybe others) have records which can be set at championships. This is interesting particularly to the media. The idea is that if a performance in a task in a Europeans or Worlds betters the performance in any previous Europeans or Worlds then that performance can be declared as a European or World record. Obviously the task has to identical every time, and it is possible to normalize the performance of a pilot in the PPG "kicking sticks" task such that repeated instances of the task are indeed comparable over time.
 
Proposal 1.4.1: That the appropriate text eg that in Annex 1.4a is inserted in S10 Annex 3
 
Rationale: See Annex 1.4b and Annex 1.4c, online calculator demonstrating the application.

1.5 Splitting of tasks

Proposal: That on an experimental basis CIMA allows a single task in a single class in a championship to be split over more than one period.

There is potentially a problem at WAG 2001 where the weather each evening is perfect for PPG precision tasks, but only for a limited time (1 - 1 1/2 hours max between too much wind and darkness). This is when the crowds will be present to watch these tasks, but with the 50 - 60 projected competitors in the PPG class it is extremely doubtful whether it would be possible to complete a whole task in this short time.
 
As the weather conditions in Spain are reliable, but not likely to be EXACTLY the same on different days, a simple division of competitors on a random or reverse current championship basis is highly likely to give rise to complaints based on the various provisions of 1.5.1 (ref EMC 2000 local regs) where all pilots should normally be given the opportunity to compete at more or less the same time.
 
What is needed is an equitable method of dividing the class into two or three blocks so that all pilots are given the opportunity to compete the same task in similar conditions, but at different times, possibly on different days at different locations. There is a solution, but it requires an amendment to the local regulations to make it absolutely clear that this is possible:
 
Proposal 1.5.1 Insert into local regulations (ref EMC 2000 local regs.)
1.5.1.8. A precision task in a single class may be scheduled to run in separate periods with similar weather conditions, possibly on different days at different locations. In this case, team managers will be required before the start of the task to divide their teams into equal sized groups and nominate a different task period for each group. Once the task has started nominations may not be altered.
 
Notes
1) This way, the teams are responsible for determining which period is likely to be slightly more or less favourable for each of their pilots. The division is fixed before the start of the task but as normal, the whole task is not valid until all pilots have had an opportunity to compete.
2) Obviously, teams with an uneven number of pilots can nominate the odd remaining pilot for whichever period they like.
3) Although this is a solution to an acute problem in the PPG class in Spain, there is no reason why it may not also be used in the classic classes.
 

1.6 Interpretation of S10

Proposal: CIMA must clarify certain issues

Annex 5 to S10 says:
2.7 OTHER WORK OF THE JURY
The jury has a commitment to ensure that the Director obeys the rules of the FAI and of the competition. if the jury finds that this is not the case, they are empowered, after warnings, to actually suspend or stop the event.
 
At EMC 2000 there were again instances where the Jury did NOT appear to insist the Director obey the rules of the FAI despite representations from certain teams. This may be because the Jury did not understand the rules. We propose therefore that the CIMA bureau issues some guidance notes to Juries concerning some important areas of difficulty.
 
Proposal 1.6.1: That CIMA bureau issues a guidance note to juries explaining exactly how the definition of a microlight should be interpreted, insisting that championship organizers and jurys interpret S10 Annex 1 (Definition of a Microlight) rigidly and exactly as it is written, and in particular that S10 Annex 1.3 is rigidly applied.
 
Notes
1) Yet again, aircraft which were NOT microlights according to a rigid interpretation of S10 were permitted to compete at EMC 2000. When representations were made, both the Organizer and the Jury yet again chose to mis-interpret the definition as clearly and precisely written in S10.
2) It is simple: The rules say that if he wants to compete, it is each pilot's job to ensure that his machine complies with the FAI rules AND his national definition rules AND his national airworthiness requirements. If any are impossible or mutually exclusive then he should choose a different aircraft. The FAI definition has remained unchanged for nearly 10 years so it is hardly a novelty. The problem actually lies with the correct interpretation and implementation of the FAI rules, which is ultimately the Jury's job at Championships. The UK view is that in recent years appointed Juries have been treating the definition rules as negotiable. We do not believe they are or should be, and therefore believe these Juries has been consistently failing in their duty to uphold FAI rules.
 
Proposal 1.6.2: That CIMA bureau issues a guidance note to juries explaining exactly how the scoring proportions should work.
 
Notes
1) At EMC 2000 the scoring proportions were calculated not by TASK (see S10 4.24.1) but by POINTS. This was not correct.

Part 2: Items for consideration by the S10 Working group.
 
2.1 Parachutes on PPG's

Proposal: That Parachutes on PPG's may be freely added or removed between championship tasks.

S10 is unclear whether parachutes on PPG's constitute part of the "structural entity" or not. The situation can arise where pilots may consider NOT carrying a parachute for ALL tasks because it might hinder their performance in some tasks (eg Kicking sticks) where a parachute is useless anyway. It was agreed by all PPG pilots before EMC 2000 that a parachute may be freely fitted or not fitted to a machine as the pilot desires through the course of a championship. This was a sensible and unanimous decision which needs formalising in the rules. Note that in PPG's there are no possible FAI gross mass considerations.
 
Proposal 2.1.1; that:
With reference to the EMC 2000 local regulations 3.3.1.
 
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
A protective helmet must be worn whenever the pilot is strapped into the harness of a PPG. An emergency parachute system is highly recommended.
 
be altered to:
 
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
A protective helmet must be worn whenever the pilot is strapped into the harness of a PPG. An emergency parachute system is highly recommended and is not considered to be part of the structural entity of the machine.
 
2.2 Damage to competing aircraft

Proposal: That the wording be altered in S10 4.19.4 (See also EMC 2000 local regs 1.4.5).

The wording in either of the above 2 references, although it applies to all classes, still does not properly address the important problem of replacement parts in PPG championships. This matter was discussed by all PPG pilots before EMC 2000 and it was agreed that as it is very subjective as to what a different engine of a "similar or lesser performance" actually is, no engine may be replaced with anything but an identical one.
 
Proposal 2.2.1: That S10 4.19.4 be altered from:
Damage to a competing aircraft. Any damage shall be reported to the organisers without delay and the aircraft may then be repaired. Any replacement parts must be replaced by an identical make and model, except that major parts such as a wing or engine must be replaced by a similar model or one of lesser performance.
 
to:
 
Damage to a competing aircraft. Any damage shall be reported to the organisers without delay and the aircraft may then be repaired. Any replacement parts must be replaced by an identical part, except that a wing may be replaced by a similar model or one of lesser performance.
 
and Proposal 2.2.2; in local regulations the following should be added to the above (1.4.5 in EMC 2000 local regs):
 
Change of major parts may incur a penalty.
 
2.3 Foot launched definition

Proposal: That a general definition of what constitutes a foot launched aircraft is introduced into S10

S 10 does not actually contain such a definition. The only reference is 4.13.7 which is only for championships and does not allow for the configuration of modern foot launched powered hang gliders which often have some sort of skids or wheels to protect the propellor from striking the ground.
 
Proposal 2.3.1: That a new paragraph be inserted in S10 Chapter 1 consisting of the following:
 
A foot launched microlight is one where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and/or crews legs and which is demonstrably capable of being foot launched from level ground in nil or light wind.
 
and:
 
Proposal 2.3.2: That S10 4.13.7 be deleted as it serves no purpose.
 
Notes:
1) ICAO consider "nil or light wind" to be equal or less than 5 Kts
2) "Main undercarriage" is a well understood aeronautical term.
3) This is a general definition and as such does not (and should not) address the operational requirement that the aircraft should actually be foot launched for the flight in question. For championships this operational requirement is partly addressed already (see EMC 2000 local regs 3.1) but it is not at all for records. Therefore there should be 2 further proposals:
 
Proposal 2.3.3: That the local regs should be amended (reference EMC 2000 local regs 3.1)
 
Add: A PPG must be foot launched for all tasks.
 
Proposal 2.3.4: That S10 Chapter 3.4 should be amended to include the paragraph:
 
Add: A foot launched microlight must be foot launched from a surface which has no slope greater than 1% over a radius of 100 m from the take-off point.
 
2.4 Championship records

This proposal moved to 1.4 upon advice from S10 Editor.
 
2.5 Definition of a microlight

Proposal: That the wording of the definition of a Microlight be altered slightly to clarify it.

There was some confusion at EMC 2000 as to the interpretation of the definition of a microlight. This confusion centered around the contextual meaning of the word "shall".
 
Proposal 2.5.1 That S10 Annex 1.3 be altered from:
 
3. The weight carried shall at least equal to:
- 90 kg per seat ;
- a full charge of fuel or 15 kg, whichever is less, for a single-seater ;
- a full charge of fuel or 22 kg, whichever is less, for a two-seater.
 
to:
 
3. The weight carried must at least equal:
- 90 kg per seat ;
- a full charge of fuel or 15 kg, whichever is less, for a single-seater ;
- a full charge of fuel or 22 kg, whichever is less, for a two-seater.
 
Notes
1) This proposal is NOT intended to alter the meaning of the rule in any way, it is merely a clarification. See annex 2.5a, Meaning of SHALL as stated in Concise Oxford English Dictionary which explains that "shall" in this context is a command which is the same as saying "must".

 
2.6 IGC approved Flight recorders

Proposal: That S10 Chapter 5.6 be amended to include GPS based flight recorders.

With the move towards IGC approved flight recorders in championships, they should immediately be explicitly allowed for record attempts.
 
Proposal 2.6.1 Amend:
 
5.6.1 A serviceable barograph, including approved electronic barographs, must be used for record flights, except that in a World or Continental championship a barograph is not needed for a record claim on a closed circuit or goal speed task used for scoring.
 
to:
 
5.6.1 A serviceable barograph, including approved electronic barographs and IGC approved flight recorders, must be used for record flights.
 
Notes
1) IGC approved flight recorders are arranged in such a way that records can often be set without immediate pre-organization with observers because the trace is incorruptible. In other words, with these flight recorders in certain circumstances (single seat only) it is possible to set a record without an observer watching the takeoff or landing.
2) Chapter 5 refers to both records and Championships. The championship rules are already clear about what electronic devices may be carried for use by the pilot in flight. (ie he can carry a flight recorder but not use it for navigation).