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.

 

Each 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.

 

It is expected this document will change many times before the deadline so check it regularly.  The deadline for proposals for amendments is 23:59:59 UTC MONDAY 26 SEPTEMBER 2005.  After that, you will have to wait until next year....

Changes

 

Contents

 

PROPOSAL 1

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 2

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

This proposal is supported.

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 3

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 4

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 5

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

 

 

PROPOSAL 6

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Addition of a variant of the fast-slow task to Annex 4, Part 3, the PF & PL task catalogue.

Existing text

None.  New addition to S10

New text

S 10 Annex 4, 3.C.9   SLOW / FAST SPEED

Objective

To fly a course as slow as possible and then return along the course as fast as possible.

Description

A straight course consisting of four equally spaced ‘kicking sticks’ between 250m and 500m long is laid out facing approximately into wind.

The pilot makes a timed pass along the first course as slow as possible, returns to the start, and makes a second timed pass in the same direction along the course as fast as possible and then returns to the deck.

Special rules

A valid strike on any stick is one where the pilot or any part of the aircraft has been clearly observed to touch it.

For each leg, the clock starts the moment the pilot kicks the first stick and stops the moment he kicks the fourth stick.

The pilot may have 3 attempts at kicking the first stick on each run. 

If the pilot misses the second or third stick then he is considered ‘too high’, penalty 50% leg score for each stick missed.

The maximum time allowed for a pilot to complete each leg of the course is 5 minutes.

 

In the slow leg;

If the pilot or any part of his PPG touches the ground or the fourth stick is missed: VP1 = zero and EP = zero

If the pilot zigzags:  Score zero.

 

In the fast leg; 

If the pilot or any part of his PPG touches the ground: VP2 = zero and EP = zero

The pilot may have three attempts at kicking the fourth stick.

 

Pilot score = 

Where:

            Vmax  = The highest speed achieved in the task, in Km/H

            Vp1  = The speed of the pilot in Km/H in the first leg of the task

            Vmin  = The lowest speed achieved in the task, in Km/H

            Vp2  = The speed of the pilot in Km/H in the second leg of the task

            Ep  = The difference between the pilot's slowest and fastest speeds, in Km/H

            Emax  = The maximum difference between slowest and fastest speeds, in Km/H

 

Reason

This is offered as a variant to the standard slow-fast task (3.C.3) which has several problems; it requires a large number of marshals to operate (at least three per leg) and the pilot’s height, particularly in the slow leg is very important, but enormously subjective.  This variant is designed to make each leg manageable by one marshal and control of the pilot’s height is indisputable.  Arguably, it is also more interesting to spectators.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 7

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Addition of championship records to S10

Existing text

None.  New addition to S10

New text

S10  3.8  Championship records

 

3.8.1     If performance in a task in championship can be directly compared to the performance in a task at a different championship, then World and Continental championship records in class may be established for that performance.

 

3.8.2     Championship records for microlights can only be established during valid competition tasks by bona-fide competitors at a FAI category 1 microlight championships or a FAI World Air Games.

 

3.8.3     A championship record can only be claimed for performances where no penalties or other adjustments were applied to the competitor’s task score.

 

3.8.4     The International Jury must certify that all the conditions attached to a Championship record claim are satisfied and they must include all valid claims in their championship report to FAI.  Information to be provided should include Pilot/co-pilot name, nation, competition class, aircraft type, the performance, type of record claimed, and whether it was a World or Continental claim.

 

3.8.5     If the value of the championship record is an elapsed time, then for the purposes of establishing a record, the elapsed time flown shall be corrected to ISA sea level conditions according to the following formula:

 
Where
To = Time normalised to ISA sea level conditions, in seconds.
T1 = Pilot performance in seconds
P1 = Ambient pressure in mb
t1 = Ambient temperature in degrees Celsius

 

3.8.6     If the value of the championship record is a distance, then for the purposes of establishing a record, the distance flown shall be corrected to ISA sea level conditions according to the following formula:

 

            TBA when Olivetti has created the formula.

 

3.8.7     Available Championship records

 

3.8.7.1  DISTANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL

            - May be established in any task in the task catalogue where the fuel is measured before takeoff.

- Fuel load at takeoff must not exceed:

                        Classes PF1 & PL1: 1.5 Kg

                        Classes WL1 & AL1: 4 Kg

                        Classes WL2, AL2 & PL2:  6 Kg

            - Distance measured is from start gate to the point of maximum distance from start gate before first landing.

            - Pilot performance is expressed as a distance in Km corrected to takeoff airfield ambient temperature and pressure.

 

3.8.7.2  ENDURANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL

            - May be established in any task in the task catalogue where the fuel is measured before takeoff.

            - Fuel load at takeoff must not exceed: 

                        Classes PF1 & PL1: 1.5 Kg

                        Classes WL1 & AL1: 4 Kg

                        Classes WL2, AL2 & PL2:  6 Kg

            - Time measured is from start gate to finish gate or, if this is not defined, the time at point of maximum distance from start gate before first landing.

            - Pilot performance is expressed as an elapsed time corrected to takeoff airfield ambient temperature and pressure.

 

3.8.7.3  PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME

            - Task 3.C2 as defined in the current task catalogue.

            - The sum of the straight line distance through all sticks 1 - 10 must be 792m (+-10m)
            - Whilst the pilot is in the course the local wind speed must not have exceeded an average of 10Kt (18 Km/h) nor may the wind direction have varied more than 90° either side of the direction shown in the task description.
            - A pilot only qualifies for a record if his scoring in the task includes NQ = 10.
            - Pilot performance is expressed as an elapsed time corrected to ambient temperature and pressure at the course location.

 

3.8.7.4  PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Clover leaf slalom’)

            - Task 3.C7 as defined in the current task catalogue.

- The square pattern of the task must not be less than 75m
            - Whilst the pilot is in the course the local wind speed must not have exceeded an average of 10Kt (18 Km/h)

            - A pilot only qualifies for a record if his scoring in the task includes NQ = 9.
            - Pilot performance is expressed as an elapsed time corrected to ambient temperature and pressure at the course location.

 

3.8.7.5  PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Japanese slalom’)

            - Task 3.C8 as defined in the current task catalogue.

            - The grid pattern of the task must not be less than 50m
            - Whilst the pilot is in the course the local wind speed must not have exceeded an average of 10Kt (18 Km/h)

            - A pilot only qualifies for a record if his scoring in the task includes NQ = 9.

            - Pilot performance is expressed as an elapsed time corrected to ambient temperature and pressure at the course location.

Reason

The concept of records which can only be established at championships is not novel, it exists within other FAI commissions, notably the IPC, the Parachuting commission.   This proposal was originally presented to CIMA in a very similar form in 2000 (but only with the task PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME) and it was accepted at the 2000 plenary meeting, it should have therefore been inserted into the January 2001 edition of FAI Section 10 but for editorial reasons it never was.

 

This proposal re-introduces the concept of Championship records to Section 10 but in a more expanded form possible now FR’s are in use, so that in some cases these records are available in all competing classes.

 

The reason is simple:  Consider an athletics championship;  it is possible to make a World, European Etc. record at any qualifying championship.  This is interesting both from the competitor’s point of view and a media point of view.  This proposal attempts to introduce the same concept where a performance is comparable between championships.

 

Some notes: 

In the distance and endurance records; It is not intended that these records can be claimed using times based on takeoff or landing because start gate, finish gate and point of maximum distance are much more reliably and easily measured using FR analysis software.  Championships directors should be aware of this and set start and finish gates as a matter of routine in endurance tasks anyway, they can be positioned at the end of the deck so there is not much real difference between the two. 

 

The method of correcting elapsed time flown to standard temperature and pressure is mathematically identical to that used in S10 Annex 1 to establish aircraft minimum speed.  A mathematical rationale may be found at http://www.flymicro.com/cima00/1-4b.htm and an online calculator at http://www.flymicro.com/cima00/1-4c.cfm  These were both included as annexes to the original proposal accepted by the plenary in 2000.

 

The fuel load figures are based on normal practice, ie 1.5 Kg = c.2.03 L,  4 Kg = c.5.42 L and 6 Kg = c.8.13 L

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED