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

OPTION 1                     ACCEPTED                               DENIED

 

 

OPTION 2                     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.10   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

Tested at the 2005 UK National Championships.  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 normalized to ISA sea level conditions then the elapsed time flown shall be normalized according to the following formula:

 
Where
T1 = Actual pilot performance in seconds
P1 = Ambient pressure in mb
t1 = Ambient temperature in degrees Celsius

 

3.8.6     Elapsed times (after normalization, if required), if less than five minutes shall be rounded down to the nearest 0.01 second, otherwise to the nearest second.  Distances shall be rounded down to the nearest 0.01 Km. A new championship record must simply exceed the previous record.

 

3.8.7     When a change to the championship rules prevents an equal comparison to a performance in a previous championship then a new record shall be created and the old record retired.

 

3.8.8     Available Championship records

 

3.8.8.1  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 & PL2: 4 Kg

                        Classes WL2 & AL2:  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.

 

3.8.8.2  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 & PL2: 4 Kg

                        Classes WL2 & AL2:  6 Kg

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

            - Pilot performance is expressed as an elapsed time.

 

3.8.8.3  PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  ('Classical slalom')

            - 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 normalized to ISA sea level conditions.

 

3.8.8.4  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 normalized to ISA sea level conditions.

 

3.8.8.5  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 normalized to ISA sea level conditions.

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 all tasks where 'takeoff' and 'landing' times are required 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

 

This proposal intends that a Continental or a World record can be established at either a World or Continental Championships but of course in a World Championships, a continental record can only be set by a competitor competing for a nation of that continent.  (The actual location of the World championships is irrelevant).

 

If this proposal is accepted, then a paragraph should be inserted in S10 Annex 5, section 2 reminding the International Jury of their duties and responsibilities in respect of Championship records.

 

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 8

Proposal from

Tomas Backman, SWE Delegate

Proposal title

Scoring when a technical flaw is discovered.

Existing text

None.  New addition to S10

New text

S10 4.29.8   If a failure in GNSS flight analysis or scoring is discovered before the end of the championship and the failure is due to a technical error emanating from the Competition Director or the scoring staff or the equipment being used for the GNSS flight analysis or scoring, this failure must be corrected regardless of time limits for complaints and protests in S10 and the Local Regulations.

Reason

During the competition in Levroux one team was very upset about a correction of the scoring for one competitor from another team. They argued that the correction didn't follow the timetable for complaints and protests. As the correction was due to a technical flaw in one of the scoring computers and had nothing to do with the competitors actions, the competitor was later given his rightful scores for the task in question. The proposed sentence is a clarification of what must be regarded as an obvious case of fairness to the competitors. The idea of a flying competition is to come to a decisive result in the air caused by the skill of the pilots, not to gain points and medals from a failure caused by the scoring administration.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time.

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 9

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Status of video evidence.

Existing text

None.  New addition to S10

New text

S10 5.1.4   In championship precision tasks, any conclusive video evidence may be used to verify a pilot's performance.

Reason

This is an attempt to clarify the position on video evidence.

 

Despite the fact that S10 An 3, 1.12.3 says Landing accuracy will be verified by video cameras it frequently isn't by the organization and in recent championships teams have been denied the opportunity to video their own pilots performance on the grounds that the Director has said that the marshal's decision is final and video evidence will not be allowed.  This is contrary to natural justice and has been based on the football referee principle.  Such a comparison is unreasonable as football is a continuous game and video delays would become a logistical nightmare and influence the strategy of the game. Furthermore, football referees are well trained.

 

In microlighting we take anyone off the street and make them a marshal.  Generally it works but when it does not there must be a mechanism to protect the competitor.  In particular decisions on spot and precision landings are frequently improved by the use of video evidence.  As pilots rarely know the official scores until some time later a delayed decision cannot alter strategy.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 10

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Clarification of 'default' penalties

Proposal 10a: Existing text

S10 4..27.1  Outlandings shall normally be scored zero, unless specifically stated at briefing…..

 

S10 An 3 1.11.6  Outlandings shall normally be scored zero, unless specifically stated at briefing…..

Proposal 10a: New text

S10 4.27.1  Outlandings shall be scored zero, unless specifically stated at briefing. [remainder of provision unchanged]

 

S10 An 3 1.11.6  Outlandings shall be scored zero, unless specifically stated at briefing.  [remainder of provision unchanged]

Proposal 10b: Existing text

None.  New addition to S10

Proposal 10b: New text

Addition at the end of S10 An 3 1.14.2

 

Actions which will result in 100% penalty to task score unless stated differently in the task brief:

a.         Landing out

b.         Returning after end of task

c.         Local airspace infringement.

d.         Competition prohibited area (no fly zone) infringement.

e.         Failure to observe circuit and airfield rules.

Reason

There was a problem in Levroux where some customary 'default' penalties were argued away on the basis that they were not actually stated in the task brief.   It is often difficult for a championship director to include all possible penalties in a task description and some 'default penalties', notably 100% task score for 'landing out' are the accepted norm.  Proposal a attempts to clarify this by simply removing the word 'normally' which lends ambiguity to an otherwise clear paragraph.  It does not stop the Championship director from permitting landing out, all he has to do is state that it is permitted in the task sheet.

 

Proposal b attempts to add some other customary default 100% penalties to the local regulations.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

10a:           ACCEPTED                                     DENIED

 

10b:           ACCEPTED                                     DENIED

PROPOSAL 11

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Addition of a variant of the slalom 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   PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Chinese slalom’)

 

Objective

To strike a number of targets laid out in a given order in the shortest possible time and return to the deck.

Description

Between 6 and 12 sticks 2m in height are laid out on a course not exceeding 3Km in length.

The pilot enters the course into wind and strikes stick 1.  At this point the clock starts. 

The pilot then flies the course to strike all the other sticks in the given order, a strike on the last one stops the clock.

Special rules

- A valid strike on a target is one where the pilot or any part of the paramotor has been clearly observed to touch it

- A strike on stick 1 starts the clock, a strike on the last stick stops the clock.

- Pilots may have only one attempt at striking each stick except for the first and last sticks where three attempts at each are permitted. 

- Failure to strike the first or last stick or at least two of the intermediate sticks or touch the ground at any point between them: score zero.

Scoring

    Pilot Score =    Pilot Score =

Where:

NQ  = The number of sticks struck by the pilot

Sp  = The pilot's elapsed time in seconds between striking the first and last sticks.

 

Note to Director: 

This task is ideally suited for sites where there are physical features which obscure a direct view from one stick to the next.

Reason

Due to the limitations of the site at the 2005 Shanghai Qingpu Paramotor Open we had to use this variant of the 'kicking sticks' as there was simply no open spaces large enough to accommodate any of the other ones in the catalogue.  It was deemed a success by all the participants and suitable for inclusion in the International catalogue.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 12

Proposal from

Antonio Marchesi, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Better definition of the acceptable mistake of the Organizers in physical positioning the location of a scoring zone relative of a turnpoint or hidden gate or time gate.

Existing text

S10 An 6, 6.3.5 Complaints about the physical mis -positioning of a scoring zone relative to a turnpoint will not be accepted unless it can be shown that the turnpoint is not inside the scoring zone.

New text

S10 An 6, 6.3.5 Complaints about the physical mis-positioning of a scoring zone relative to EVERY location which could affect the scoring ( eg. turnpoints, hidden gates, timing gates, IP or FP points..) will not be accepted unless it can be shown that the physical position of the location is out of a circle with radius Ro = Rp - Eg - Ep. Where:

Rp= Radius or size of the scoring zone defined by the Organizers ( eg. half width of a gate or radius of a turnpoint )

Eg= Error of the GPS system fixed to 50 meters.

Ep= Aceptable error for the pilot overflying the physical position. This can be defined by the organizers with a lower limit of the distance equivalent of 0.5 mm measured on the official map. ( eg. 125 meters on a 1:250.000 map ).

Reason

In Levroux in Classic Classes there was some problems about the validation of some turnpoints overflow that were as easy as a water tower. This was due to the incorrect system of getting the turnpoints coordinates and to the fact of most fixed wing aircrafts don´t overfly the turnpoint at the vertical, they round it leaving the object to one side or another. This is due to the lack of visibility to the front and down of these aircrafts when you are very closed to a location or at the vertical. The typical situation of overflying a location is a combination of both ( you are very closed and at the vertical ) so many of these aircrafts need to overfly leaving the location to one side. As the point used by the organizers was inside the scoring zone by a few meters, many pilots that overflow the points only 50 meters from the physical point where not scored we must reduce the margin of error of the organizers to avoid this situation and to force the organizers to correctly collect the coordinates of the physical locations of the turnpoints or gates.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 13

Proposal from

Antonio Marchesi, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Establish a standard unit system.

Existing text

None.  New addition to S10

New text

Adding a new subparagraph to the 5.2 Measurements, of the S10:

 

5.2.6 Standard unit system.

The unit system used in championships, for any purpose ( E.g. Task definition, pilot estimations, etc ) will be as follows:

- Time - Local time provided by the GPS system time – HH:MM:SS

- Time interval: hours, minutes and seconds - HH:MM:SS

- Distance - Kilometres to two decimal places and metres

- Speed - Kilometres per hour to two decimal places.

- Date - (day, month, year) - DD:MM:YY

- Heading – Degrees and decimal degrees geographic (measured on the official map)  – DDD[ddd]

- Direction – Degrees and decimal degrees true  – DDD[ddd]

- Lat - Degrees, minutes and decimal minutes with N,S designators - DDMMmmmN

- Long - Degrees, minutes and decimal minutes with E,W designators - DDDMMmmmE

- Altitude – Metres and centimetres. – AAAAA[aaa]

- Pressure - Millibars to two decimal places – PPPPpp

- Weight - Kilograms to two decimal places and grams.

- Volume - Litres to two decimal places.

Any other unit will follow the International Metric System.

Reason

Every championship the Director changes some units and this is a nonsense extra work for pilots making flight plans and calculations on the ground, or flying, or giving estimations. So with this proposal everybody knows in advance what units are used, and those proposed units are coherent with the units used for the GNSS flight recorders.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time except some editorial alterations to S10 may be required so it fully conforms to these units.

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED

PROPOSAL 14

Proposal from

Antonio Marchesi, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

To have a provisional general classification updated along the championship, for individual and team scoring.

Existing text

S10 4.29.2 The overall results shall be computed from the sum of the task scores for each competitor, the winner having the highest total score in the class.

 

S10 4.5.7  The team score shall be computed from the sum of the scores of the top three pilots of each country in each class in each task grouped together in:

-classes AL1, AL2, WL1, and WL2

-classes PL1 and PL2

-class PF

The task score for which a pilot was disqualified shall not count for team scoring. Other valid tasks flown by this pilot are not affected.

New text

S10 4.29.2 The overall results shall be computed from the sum of the task scores for each competitor, the winner having the highest total score in the class. A provisional individual general classification sheet must be published every time a provisional or official scoring task sheet is published.

 

S10 4.5.7 The team score shall be computed from the sum of the scores of the top three pilots of each country in each class in each task grouped together in:

-classes AL1, AL2, WL1, and WL2

-classes PL1 and PL2

-class PF

The task score for which a pilot was disqualified shall not count for team scoring. Other valid tasks flown by this pilot are not affected. A provisional team general classification sheet must be published every time a provisional or official scoring task sheet is published.

Reason

Every championship we can see pilots and team leaders making their own general scoring sheets to see what's going on. I think that for the scoring marshals this is a very easy and automatic job ( of course if they have a minimum qualification ) and it will make the development of the championship more interesting for the pilots and for the public in general. In the last championships, I heard people asking to a pilot "how are you doing the championship?" and pilot answering " I don´t know ". This cannot happen in the XXI century.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time, other than if the proposal is accepted an editorial alteration to S10 An 3, 1.14.1 will need to be made to include this provision.

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                               DENIED