Proposals for amendments to FAI Section 10.
This year Richard Meredith-Hardy is the coordinating editor for Section 10 and its annexes.
How to submit amendments
Only CIMA delegates
may submit proposals for inclusion here.
Anyone else should submit their proposal to their delegate first. The full list of delegates is on the FAI website.
The amendment
scheme will operate as it was done last year, all proposals from CIMA delegates
should be sent to Richard
Meredith-Hardy with:
1) The number of
the affected paragraph (or where it should go, if it is something new).
2) The reason for
the proposed change.
He will then assemble this into the document below, along with:
a) Comment from the S10 Sub-Committee
b) Comments any other CIMA delegates wish to make on the proposal.
The proposal will be put to the vote in it's exact wording at the CIMA Plenary meeting 10-12 November 2005 on the basis of a YES or a NO. It is not usual for the wording of proposals to be amended at the meeting itself.
The deadline for proposals for amendments is
Changes
- This is NOT the latest draft:
- This
is Draft 3,
Draft 2, 6 September 2005; addition of proposals 3, 4 & 5Draft 1, 5 September 2005
Contents
- Proposal 1 Addition of a ‘Task Validity’ formula
to the para-classes scoring which will reduce
pilot scores on a pro-rata basis if less than 50% of pilots in class
actually start a task from Richard Meredith-Hardy GBR
delegate.
- Proposal 2 Alteration of S10 4.25.2 and
S10 Annex 3 1.11.1 to include the ‘5 minute rule’ from
Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
- Proposal 3 Alteration of task proportions for PF
and PL Classes from René Verschueren,
Belgian Paramotor Federation.
- Proposal 4 Alteration to team leader requirements from
Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
- Proposal 5 Addition of an optional extra reserved
place in teams for Female competitors. from
Richard Meredith-Hardy GBR delegate.
Proposal title
Addition
of a ‘Task Validity’ formula to the para-classes
scoring which will reduce pilot scores on a pro-rata basis if less than 50% of
pilots in class actually start a task.
Proposal from
Richard
Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate
Existing text
None. New addition
to S10
New text
S10 4.29.8 and add to S10 Annex 3, 3.4.1
In the PF and PL classes, if less than 50% of pilots in class start a task then after all penalties have been applied each pilot score for the task will be reduced on a pro-rata basis according to the following formula:
Pilot final task score = Ps*(MIN(1,(Ts/Tc)*2))
Where
Ps = Pilot task score after all penalties Etc are applied.
Ts = Total started; Total number of pilots in class who started the task
(ie properly, beyond 5 minute rule).
Tc = Total class; Total number of pilots in class.
Reason
There was a difficulty at Levroux with the rule S10 4.25.3 on the first few days in classes PF1, PL1 and PL2 when we had some fairly difficult weather.
4.25.3 After take-offs have started the organisers
may suspend flying if to continue is dangerous. If the period of suspension is
sufficiently long to give an unfair chance to any competitor the Director shall
cancel the task. Once all competitors in a class have taken
off, or had the opportunity to take off, the task may not be cancelled other
than for reasons of force majeure.
This is not a proposal to change S10 4.25.3. This serves everyone well but is lacking provision for potential situations which can and have arisen in the para-classes. When you have an 'open window' takeoff, and one person has taken off, it is difficult for other pilots to argue that a task should be cancelled on the grounds that they didn't have the opportunity to take off. They MUST take off, or score zero, unless the Director makes the further step of suspending operations for so long that it makes it unfair, or there is a 'force majeure' situation.
After one person has taken off there is a lot of pressure on all the remaining pilots to take off on a task in conditions they may well consider to be too dangerous. This year we had the situation in task four where 2 pilots flew, 77 didn't want to because of high winds and rain, but eventually nearly all decided they had to take off or there was a good chance they would score zero in the task which would put their final result in serious jeopardy.
It is possible for the director to delay the start of a
task, but with large numbers of pilots this is always a very difficult thing to
manage. The director doesn't actually
have any other options except to cancel before the task starts but there is
always a lot of pressure on him not to do this as the last thing anyone wants
is to end up with less than the minimum required number of tasks and hence an
invalid championship. The director is therefore inclined not to
cancel in case the weather improves, if it doesn’t
then the ‘brave’ pilots win.
In the end, of course task 4 was cancelled for two out of the three classes by protest, but similar questions were also asked about task one which remained valid. A similar situation arose on the soaring day at WAG 2001 in Sevilla and on that occasion there was a serious accident. Ultimately there is a real risk someone will be killed by 'having' to fly in conditions they would rather not.
In HG & Paragliding championships they have a safety mechanism for just this situation. Their GAP system of scoring championships is supremely complicated and not really related to our sport, but they do have the concept of "Launch Validity", see page 3 of http://www.metamorfosi.com/GAP02_en.PDF
It's a Coefficient
depending on the percentage of pilots actually present in takeoff who
launched. If everybody on takeoff
launches, Launch Validity is 1 while if only 20% of the pilots present in
takeoff launches, Lauch Validity goes down to about
0.1. Launch conditions may be dangerous,
or otherwise unfavourable. If a significant number of pilots at launch think
that the day is not worth the risk of launching, then the gung-ho pilots who
did go will not get so many points. This is there as a safety mechanism.
The following is a
reply from Angelo Crapanzano:
Formula:
Launch Validity (C.launch) 0<= C.launch <=1
Launch Validity is a
function of number of pilots launched compared to pilots present on takeoff (Nfly/Npresent)
C.launch = 0.028*(Nfly/Npresent)
+ 2.917*(Nfly/Npresent)2 - 1.944*(Nfly/Npresent)3
To the right is the
graph: you see it's a kind of proportional-majority formula. If 50% of the
pilots launches then the task will be 50% valid but if 10% of the pilots
launches then it will be 3% valid only.
This formula works perfectly (is unchanged since 1988).
Please note you must
not use the number of registered pilots but the number of pilots present on
takeoff. Absent pilots (those who left,
decided to keep sleeping an so on...) shall not affect
the scoring.
This
is a proposal to apply a similar thing to para-classes
scoring.
If half of pilots in class start the task, it's very likely there's not a problem with the task, we therefore continue with normal scoring.
If less than half of pilots in class start the task, there probably was a problem with the task so a simple linear 'task validity reduction' is applied to everyone's scores directly proportional to the number of pilots who did start the task.
This is also fairly easy to administer:
- The total in class is known.
- The total who start a task should be something an organization usually collects anyway so it is possible to know if anyone is missing at the end of a task.
- The organizer would normally not have to bother applying it at all unless there were difficult conditions.
This proposal puts the final decision to fly much more firmly into the hands of pilots, but it's also incumbent on the director not to declare tasks when such a thing is extremely likely to happen - it's designed to be a safety valve only for marginal weather.
Comments from S10 Sub Committee
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
CIMA decision
ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal from
Richard
Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor
Proposal title
Alteration of S10 4.25.2 and S10
Annex 3 1.11.1 to include the ‘5 minute rule’.
Existing text
S10 4.25.2 A competitor shall be
permitted more than one start for a task if specified in the Local Regulations.
However each task may be flown only once. A failed take-off shall count as one
of the permitted number of starts unless the cause was the fault of the
organisers. In this case the Director shall authorise a further start before
the last takeoff in the class. Pilots in PFs and PLs may have 3 attempts at
take-off in tasks where the take-off order is given.
Annex 3 1.11.1 A competitor will
generally be allowed only one take-off for each task and the task may be flown
once only. However in the event of a mechanical or GNSS flight recorder failure
occurring within 5 minutes of take-off, a further start may be made without
penalty. Exceptions and penalties will
be specified in the Task Description. (S10 Chapter 4,4.25.2)
New text
S10 4.25.2 A competitor shall be
permitted more than one start for a task if specified in the Task Description
however each task may be flown only once. A failed take-off shall count as one
of the permitted number of starts unless the cause was the fault of the
organisers. In this case the Director shall authorise a further start. A competitor may return to the airfield
within 5 minutes of take-off for safety reasons or in the event of a GNSS
flight recorder failure. In this case a
further start may in principle be made without penalty but equally the
competitor must not benefit in any way from restarting. Exceptions and penalties will be specified in
the Task Description. Pilots in PFs and
PLs may have 3 attempts at take-off in tasks where the take-off order is given.
S 10 Annex 3 A competitor
will generally be allowed only one take-off for each task and the task may be
flown once only. A competitor may return to the airfield within 5 minutes of
take-off for safety reasons or in the event of a GNSS flight recorder
failure. In this case a further start
may in principle be made without penalty but equally the competitor must not
benefit in any way from restarting.
Exceptions and penalties will be specified in the Task Description. (S10
Chapter 4, 4.25.2)
Reason
The ‘5 minute rule’
has been defined for many years in annex 3 (pro-forma local regulations) but
never in Section 10 itself. As this is
an important rule, it is proposed to amend S10 4.25.2 to include the substance of
what is already contained in Annex 3.
It is suggested to
include a change from the phrase “mechanical failure” to the more generic
phrase “safety reasons” so that pilots may return within 5 minutes without
penalty for any reason which may be safety related.
Comments from S10 Sub Committee
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
CIMA decision
ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal from
René Verschueren, Belgian Paramotor Federation
Proposal title
Alteration of task
proportions for PF and PL Classes
Existing text
S10 4.24.3 For Microlight aircraft
classes PF and PL
A Navigation: 33% of total competition
tasks.
B Economy: 33% of total competition
tasks.
C Precision: 33% of total competition
tasks.
S10 An 3, 3.3.1 The proportion
of the tasks accumulated during the Championships is approximately A:B:C =
1/3:1/3:1/3
New text
S10
4.24.3
For Microlight aircraft classes PF and PL
A Navigation: 40% of total
competition tasks.
B Economy: 20% of total
competition tasks.
C Precision: 40% of total competition tasks.
S10 An 3, 3.3.1
The proportion of the tasks accumulated during the Championships is
approximately A:B:C = 40%:20%:40%
Reason
Heavy pilots are disadvantaged.
Comments from S10 Sub Committee
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
CIMA decision
ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal from
Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor
Proposal title
Alteration
to team leader requirements.
Existing text
S 10
4.10.1 The organizers
shall state in the Local Regulations the maximum number of microlight aircraft
which may be entered by a NAC and the maximum number a NAC may enter in
any class. Each National Team shall
have a nominated Team Leader. With a Deputy team Leader to look after PF and PL
entries, if any.
New text
S10
4.10.1 The organizers shall state in the Local
Regulations the maximum number of microlight aircraft which may be entered by a
NAC and the maximum number a NAC may enter in any class. Each National Team
shall have a nominated Team Leader.
Reason
Editorial
housekeeping. The last sentence of S10 4.10.1 is deleted;
It is agreed that PF & PL are ‘equal’ and separate to the classics and it
is normal for there to be a separate team leader in these classes. This proposal simply removes mention of a
‘deputy team leader’ in these classes.
No alteration
necessary to S10 An 3.
Comments from S10 Sub Committee
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
CIMA decision
ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal from
Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate
Proposal title
Addition
of an optional extra reserved place in teams for Female competitors.
Existing text
None. New addition to S10
New text OPTION 1 (all classes)
S10
4.10.5 NAC’s may enter
one extra all female team crew per class above the maximum number stated by the
organizer in the local regulations.
S10
Annex 3, 1.4 The Championships are open to all Active
Member and Associate Member countries of FAI who may enter ..... (put number) pilots plus one all-female crew (no more) in
each classic class and ........... (put number) pilots
plus one all-female crew (no more) in the PF & PL classes.
New text OPTION 2 (PF & PL only)
S10
4.10.5 In the PF & PL classes, NAC’s may enter one extra all female team crew per class
above the maximum number stated by the organizer in the local regulations.
S10
Annex 3, 1.4 The Championships are open to all Active
Member and Associate Member countries of FAI who may enter ..... (put number) pilots (no more) in each classic class and
........... (put number) pilots plus one all-female
crew (no more) in the PF & PL classes.
Reason
The intention of this proposal is not to reduce the normal team size of max 6 per class. Instead it is intended that teams can have one EXTRA aircraft in a class so long as it is flown by a female pilot (or female pilot and co-pilot in the case of two seaters). The purpose is to encourage female participation in championships and try to end the discrimination which has been evident in the past where female pilots have been excluded from teams even when places have been available. Teams can only benefit from this proposal, there is no disadvantage.
Comments from S10 Sub Committee
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
CIMA decision
ACCEPTED DENIED