Proposals for amendments to FAI Section 10.

This year, 2007, 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 its exact wording at the CIMA Plenary meeting 16 -18 November 2007 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 23:59:59 UTC THURSDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 2007. After that, you will have to wait until next year....

 

Comment from the S10 Sub-Committee will be inserted before Monday 1 October when it will be passed to the CIMA Secretary for inclusion in the CIMA Plenary agenda.

Changes

Contents

No.

Title

From

Affects

1

Clarification of minimum leg lengths in closed circuit records.

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.

All

2

Clarification of altitude tolerance in speed records over a straight course

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

All

3

Clarification of laps in closed circuit records

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

All

4

Exceptional units of measurement in timing

Richard Meredith-Hardy GBR Delegate

All

5

Clarification of units of time in S10 and Annex 3

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

All

6

Rules for team scoring in paramotor classes

José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate

Paramotors

7

Limited fuel championship records in Class PF2

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

PF2

8

Delete the two 'without engine power' records

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

All

9

Improvement of the FR track file naming protocol

Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA FRAC chairman

All

10

Improvement of the 'foot launch' definition.

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

Foot launched

11

The naming of Microlights and Paramotors.

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

All

12

New structure for S10 Annex 4 (Task Catalogue)

José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate

All

13

Addition of three tasks into the task catalogue

José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate

All

14

Common description for navigation tasks

José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate

All

15

New scoring for slaloms.

José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate

Paramotors

16

Fast-slow or Slow-fast

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

Paramotors

17

Championship record claim forms

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

All

18

Payment for Championship records

Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor

All

19

Additional place for wheel chaired pilot in PL1 class as a way to encourage participation of disabled pilots.

Wojtek Jerzy DOMAŃSKI, POL alternate delegate.

PL1

20

Standardisation of launch technique for PL1 class.

Wojtek Jerzy DOMAŃSKI, POL alternate delegate.

PL1

21

Slow-fast – landing between courses.

Wojtek Jerzy DOMAŃSKI, POL alternate delegate.

Paramotors

Attachments to proposals

Re. Proposals 13 & 14: Proposed Task Sheets.pdf

 

PROPOSAL 1

Clarification of minimum leg lengths in closed circuit records.

from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

S10  3.8.3 All legs of closed circuits must be of equal length but a deviation of up to ± 5% per leg is permitted in circuits of three or more legs.

New text

S10, 3.8.3 All legs of closed circuits must be of equal length with the following permitted deviation:

 - 3 legs: all legs must be between 28% and 38% of the total length.

 - 4 legs: all legs must be between 20% and 30% of the total length.

 - 5 legs: all legs must be between 15% and 25% of the total length.

 - 6 legs: all legs must be between 11% and 27% of the total length.

Reasons

When the rules for records were re-written in 2006, the purpose was to clarify and simplify without substantially altering the principle objectives of any record. 

 

Pre 2007 rules said a closed circuit can be an out and return or a triangle, and triangles must be quite equal in as much as no leg can be less than 28% of the total distance.  The 2007 rules allowed more turnpoints for closed circuits longer than 100 Km. (up to 6), but leg length must still be more or less equal but with a permitted deviation of up to ± 5% per leg which was intended to be an insignificant 0.33% more severe than the existing 28% rule. 

 

In the current S10 3.8.3 there are several interpretations of how this deviation should be calculated, in other words the phraseology of the provision is unsatisfactory.  For people attempting records in 2007, guidance of how FAI / CIMA has chosen to interpret the rule was inserted in the notes at the beginning of the record claim form on the FAI web site. 

 

This proposal is therefore not a change but intended to formalize the guidance currently being used and which can be removed from the notes in the claim form.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 1                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 2

Clarification of altitude tolerance in speed records over a straight course

from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

None

New text

INSERT:  S10 3.14.5  

The altitude at which the aircraft crosses the start line on the second run must be within 100m of the altitude at which it crossed the start line on the first run.

Reason

The amendments to S10 which came into effect 1 Jan 2007 inadvertently forgot that there are 2 runs associated with this record and to be like the pre 2007 rules, both runs must done at approximately the same altitude.   Guidance of how FAI / CIMA has chosen to maintain this for people attempting records in 2007 was inserted in the notes at the beginning of the record claim form on the FAI web site and says that they will interpret S10 3.14.2 to mean the SAME tolerance of 100 metres on the 1000m run-up applies to BOTH runs, not each run separately.

 

This amendment returns the record to what it was before 1 Jan 2007 in a clearer form.  The current guidance can be removed from the notes in the claim form.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 2                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 3

Clarification of laps in closed circuit records

From Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

None

New text

INSERT:  S10 3.8.6 

A closed circuit may only be flown once.

Reason

The amendments to S10 which came into effect 1 Jan 2007 inadvertently omitted that the pre-2007 rules did not allow multiple laps of closed circuits in closed circuit record claims.

 

Interpretive guidance was placed in the claim form notes early 2007 making it clear that adding together the combined distance of multiple laps of a closed circuit is not acceptable in a closed circuit record claim.

 

This amendment returns the record to what it was before 1 Jan 2007 in a clearer form.  The current guidance can be removed from the notes in the claim form.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 3                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 4

Exceptional units of measurement in timing.

From Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Affects

In principle, all classes, in current practice; only Paramotors.

Existing text

None

New text

INSERT:  S10 5.2.7 

Exceptional units of measurement.

Timed precision tasks in championships shall be rounded down to an accuracy of 1/10th of a second if manual timing is used, or rounded down to an accuracy of 1/100th of a second if an approved electronic timing system is used.

Reason

A problem arose about this at WPC 2007. 

 

Normal units of measurement as stated in S10 5.2.6 are HH:MM:SS.  Increments of less than a second do not exist in S10.   This is adequate for all purposes except some paramotor precision tasks where more accurate timing is desirable. 

 

1/10th of a second is considered about as accurate as can be done by manually timing with a stopwatch whereas electronic timing systems may provide greater accuracy.  In the absence of any approval system, "approved" is intended to mean "Approved by the International Jury", in other words if an electronic timing system appears to work to their satisfaction for the intended purpose then timing may be done to an accuracy of 1/100th of a second.

 

"Rounded down" is intended to mean the time which is taken is the time which is displayed on the time piece rather than it being artificially rounded later to a precision greater than permitted.  Thus if a manual time of 0:0:45.5655 is taken, the time recorded shall be 0:0:45.5 as was displayed on the stopwatch to the required precision and NOT rounded in 1/100ths of a second to 0:0:45.6

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 4                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 5

Clarification of units of time in S10 and Annex 3

From Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Proposal 5a existing text

4.29.6 All distances not obtained from GNSS shall be calculated from the official map and rounded up to the next 0.5 km. All times are taken to hours, minutes and seconds.

Proposal 5a new text

4.29.6 All distances not obtained from GNSS shall be calculated from the official map and rounded up to the next 0.5 km. All times are taken to hours, minutes and seconds.

 

Note:  The same thing should be deleted from S10 An 3 1.14.1

Proposal 5b existing text

An 3, 1.12.1 TIMING All times are given, taken and calculated in local time to the nearest second.

Proposal 5b new text

An 3, 1.12.1 TIMING All times are given, taken and calculated in local time to the nearest second. or simple elapsed time, rounded down to the most accurate permitted precision. (see S10 5.2.6 and 5.2.7)

Reason

5a:  S10 5.2.6 adequately describes units of measure that should always be used.  When mixed in with a reference to distances measured off maps and instances when sub-second timings may be used, (see proposal 4) this reference to hours minutes and seconds is confusing and should be deleted.

 

5b:  A problem arose about this at WPC 2007.  The phrase 'nearest second' in this context implies that some sort of rounding in sub-second increments should be applied even though the notion of sub-one second timing increments does not exist in the main body of S10. (ref S10 5.2.6)

 

5b therefore seeks to delete this inadequate description of S10 requirements as stated in S10 5.2.6 (and additionally Proposal 4 for sub-second intervals in certain cases)

 

By stating 'rounded down' 5b seeks to establish that a time taken or given is the time as displayed on a timing device and no artificial rounding is applied in increments smaller than those permitted. 

 

5b also establishes that elapsed time may be used (as it is in fact more convenient and commonly used in certain tasks, but nothing to say it can be used).

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 5a                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

                        Proposal 5b                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 6

Rules for team scoring in paramotor classes.

From José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate.

Affects

Paramotors

Existing text

4.29.3 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

Proposal 6a new text

4.29.3 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 PF1, PF2, PL1 and PL2

Proposal 6b new text

4.29.3 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

- Class PF1

- Class PF2

- Class PL1

- Class PL2

If there are less than 8 competitors in either PF1 or PF2, they will be combined into PF team prize.

If there are less than 8 competitors in either PL1 or PL2, they will be combined into PL team prize.

If there are less than 8 competitors in either PF or PL, they will be combined in a common team prize.

Reason

During the last World championship in China, PF2 was an official class for the first time. However, there was no agreement on how to incorporate this class in team scoring. Mixing PF2 with PF1 seemed like a contamination to PF1. On the other hand, mixing PF2 with PL did not make much sense. In any case

Option A is consistent with the classic classes approach and it encourages countries to enter competitors in all classes.

 

Option B allows one team prize per class, but provides a method to mix related classes in the team prize so that a reasonable number of competitors and countries is achieved.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 6a                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

                        Proposal 6b                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 7

Limited fuel championship records in Class PF2

From Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA S10 Editor

Affects

Only class PF2.

Existing text

3.17.8.1 DISTANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL  ..... Classes WL1, AL1 & PL2: 4 Kg .....

3.17.8.2 ENDURANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL ..... Classes WL1, AL1 & PL2: 4 Kg .....

New text

3.17.8.1 DISTANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL  ..... Classes WL1, AL1, PF2 & PL2: 4 Kg .....

3.17.8.2 ENDURANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL ..... Classes WL1, AL1, PF2 & PL2: 4 Kg ......

Reason

PF2 competed in 2007 for the first time in China, but they could not qualify for either of the above two championship records because nothing is said in S10 about what the maximum permitted fuel quantity is for this class.

 

This proposal seeks to include PF2 in the max 4Kg fuel bracket along with WL1, AL1 and PL2

 

Note: The endurance task was done in China.  If this proposal is accepted and the International Jury has ratified that the winner of the PF2 class in the endurance task satisfied all the conditions, then the Jury may ask the plenary (in another agenda item) to accept the performance done in China as a new Championship record.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 7                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 8

Delete the two 'without engine power' records

From Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

3.2 RECORD CATEGORIES IN EACH CLASS

....

3.2.2 DISTANCE IN A STRAIGHT LINE WITHOUT ENGINE POWER

3.2.5 DISTANCE IN A CLOSED CIRCUIT WITHOUT ENGINE POWER

....

3.6 Special rules for distance in a straight line without engine power.

3.6.1 A barograph or GNSS flight recorder shall be carried which records any use of engine.

3.6.2 The aircraft must have its engine stopped prior to crossing the start line and it must not be re-started until after crossing the finish line.

3.6.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.

3.6.4 The distance shall be measured as the geodesic joining the point the start line was crossed and the point the finish line was crossed.

 

3.10 Special rules for distance in a closed circuit without engine power.

3.10.1 The barograph or GNSS flight recorder used must be capable of recording any use of engine. 3.10.2 The aircraft must have its engine stopped prior to crossing the start line and it must not be re-started until after crossing the finish line.

3.10.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.

New text

Delete all of the above

Renumber S10 chapter 3 to account for the deleted paragraphs.

Reason

In the 25 years since these records were created there has been NOT ONE World record claim for either of these two records in any of the 18 microlight classes.

 

This clearly demonstrates that microlight pilots consider these two records to be irrelevant and it is time they were deleted from the catalogue of possible records.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 8                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 9

Improvement of the FR track file naming protocol

From Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA FRAC chairman

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

S10 Annex 6

4.9.4.1 The default ‘short’ file name presented to the operator should be as follows: 000T00V0.IGC Where:

 - Characters 1 – 3 are the pilot’s competition number, with leading zeros as necessary. (e.g. number 4 must be 004, this way all files will sort correctly in alphanumeric order.)

- Character 4 is fixed as T (for Task)

- Characters 5 & 6 are the task number, with leading zeros as necessary.

- Character 7 is fixed as V (for Version)

- Character 8 is the version number of the file, (ie this will be 1 the first time the file is created in the directory, but it will be 2 if the same data is transferred from the FR a second time. This makes it difficult for the operator to overwrite existing data.)

 - Characters 9 to 12: fixed as .IGC This file suffix is the IGC standard and allows the file to be readily opened in many different flight analysis programs.

 

4.9.4.2 The preferred ‘long’ file name presented to the operator must be as above but include the pilot’s name: 000T00V0_PILOT_NAME.IGC

- The pilot name must be separated from the first 8 characters of the ‘short format’ name with the underscore ‘_’ character and all spaces in the pilot name must be replaced with the underscore ‘_’ character.- Pilot name must be in upper case characters A-Z, a-z and 0-9 only (ascii 65-90, 97-122 and 48-57). Accented characters etc. must be replaced with their nearest match from within this selection.

New text

S10 Annex 6

4.9.4.1 The file name presented to the operator should be as follows:

001T01V1R1_PILOT_name.IGC

Where:

- Characters 1 – 3 are the pilot’s competition number, with leading zeros as necessary. (e.g. number 4 must be 004, this way all files will sort correctly by competition number in alphanumeric order.)

- Character 4 is fixed as T (for Task)

- Characters 5 & 6 are the task number, with leading zeros as necessary.

- Character 7 is fixed as V (for Version)

- Character 8 is the version number of the file, (ie this will be 1 the first time the file is created in the directory, but it will be 2 if the same data is transferred from the FR a second time. This makes it difficult for the operator to overwrite existing data.)

- Character 9 is fixed as R (for Recorder). Note that for full backwards compatibility, analysis programs should appreciate that an underscore ‘_’ (ascii 95) may appear in this position.

- Character 10 is a number 1 to 9 indicating the status of the FR as declared by the pilot; 1 = Primary, 2 = first secondary, 3 = second secondary, Etc.  Note that for full backwards compatibility, analysis programs should appreciate that if any other character appears in this position then the status of the FR is unknown.

- Character 11 is an underscore ‘_’ (ascii 95).

- Characters 12 to n is the pilot's name where n may not be more than 150.  Pilot name must be in characters A-Z, a-z and 0-9 only (ascii 65-90, 97-122 and 48-57), accented characters etc. must be replaced with their nearest match from within this selection.  All spaces in the pilot name must be replaced with the underscore ‘_’ (ascii 95).

- Characters n to n+4 are fixed as .IGC This file suffix is the IGC standard and allows the file to be readily opened in many different flight analysis programs.

 

Existing 4.9.4.2 is deleted.

Reason

Now that pilots are frequently using secondary FR's in championships it is desirable to include the distinction between primaries and secondaries in each saved FR track file name.  In practice this has been done for some years by championship organizers to their own protocol, this proposal simply formalizes an amended file naming protocol in Annex 6 so that it can be exploited by flight analysis programs (eg by being able to open a primary track by default).

 

This proposed protocol is designed to be backwards compatible with existing FR download software.  By definition it extends the mandatory file name beyond the original dos 8.3 'short' file format which for our purposes is now considered obsolete anyway.

 

This proposal therefore deletes the concept of a mandatory 'short' file name and a 'desirable' long file name and makes the 'long' file name mandatory with the added inclusion of a clause indicating FR status.

 

Note that although in practice pilot names are unlikely to be anything like as long as 138 characters, the total maximum length is set at 150 (rather than 255) to ensure compatibility with ISO 9960 which is used by many CD Rom mastering systems.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 9                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 10

Improvement of the 'foot launch' definition.

from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.

Affects

All foot launched Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

S10  1.4

.....

A foot-launched microlight is an aircraft where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and / or crews legs and is demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind.

New text

S10  1.4

.....

A foot-launched microlight is an aircraft where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and / or crews legs and is launched on foot without any external assistance during the takeoff run.  demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind.

Reasons

A problem arose in 2007 with a PF1 record attempt where the pilot was so loaded down with fuel he wanted to take off on skates.

 

Current wording suggests that he -might- have been able to do this, as the proof of definition suggests that once the aircraft has been shown demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind then with consideration for S10 3.4.5 No fuel, ballast or other disposable items may be jettisoned after take-off or prior to the completion of the record attempt. he could then fill it with a vast amount of fuel and take off on skates so long as they went with him.

 

This proposal seeks to clarify the fact that any flight is only "foot launched" if the aircraft is actually launched on the main undercarriage (legs/feet), and that there must be no external assistance to achieve this.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 10                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 11

The naming of Microlights and Paramotors.

from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

Many references; but starting from the very top: S10 Microlights.

 

1.3 DEFINITION OF A MICROLIGHT AIRCRAFT

1.3.1 A one or two seat powered aircraft whose minimum speed at Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) is less than 65 km/h, and having a MTOW of:

 - 300 kg for a landplane flown solo

 - 330 kg for an amphibian or a pure seaplane flown solo;

 - 450 kg for a landplane flown with two persons

 - 495 kg for an amphibian or a pure seaplane flown with two persons

Note. These definitions also apply to foot-launched microlight aircraft and microlight aircraft with wings of a non-rigid structure.

 

1.4 TYPES OF MICROLIGHT AIRCRAFT

A microlight with movable aerodynamic control is a fixed wing aircraft with moveable aerodynamic surfaces for control.

A microlight with weight-shift control is a flexwing aircraft with pilot weightshift as primary method of control

A microlight with paraglider control is an aircraft which has a wing without any rigid structure and is controlled via movable aerodynamic surfaces and pilot weightshift

A microlight Landplane is an aircraft only capable of taking off and land on land, ice or snow

A microlight Seaplane is an aircraft only capable of taking off and land on water.

A microlight Amphibian is an aircraft capable of taking off and land on water and land.

A foot-launched microlight is an aircraft where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and / or crews legs and is demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind.

 

... many other references in S10.

New text

Rename the whole of S10: Microlights and Paramotors 

 

1.3 DEFINITION OF A MICROLIGHT OR PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT

1.3.1 A one or two seat powered aircraft whose minimum speed at Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) is less than 65 km/h, and having a MTOW of:

 - 300 kg for a landplane flown solo

 - 330 kg for an amphibian or a pure seaplane flown solo;

 - 450 kg for a landplane flown with two persons

 - 495 kg for an amphibian or a pure seaplane flown with two persons

Note. These definitions also apply to foot-launched microlight and paramotor aircraft and microlight aircraft with wings of a non-rigid structure.

 

1.4 TYPES OF MICROLIGHT AND PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT

A microlight with movable aerodynamic control is a fixed wing aircraft with moveable aerodynamic surfaces for control.

A microlight with weight-shift control is a flexwing aircraft with pilot weightshift as primary method of control

A microlight with paraglider control Paramotor is an aircraft which has a wing without any rigid structure and is controlled via movable aerodynamic surfaces and pilot weightshift

A microlight Landplane is an aircraft only capable of taking off and landing on land, ice or snow

A microlight Seaplane is an aircraft only capable of taking off and landing on water.

An microlight Amphibian is an aircraft capable of taking off and landing on water and land.

A foot-launched microlight or paramotor is an aircraft where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and / or crews legs and is demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind.

 

All references in S10 and its annexes to classes PF1, PF2, PL1, PL2 should be altered to match the changes shown above within the principle that they should be known collectively as "Paramotors" or, in some contexts, the "Paramotor classes".

 

All references in S10 and its annexes to "classics" should be altered to match the changes shown above so classes AL1, AL2, WL1, WL2, WF1 Etc. are known as "Microlights" or in some contexts "the Microlight classes".

Reasons

There has been an on-going discussion, notably at the CIMA plenary 2006 about what things should be named as far as S10 is concerned.  Should classes PF1, PF2, PL1, PL2 be the "Softwing classes", "Microlight softwing classes", "Microlight Paramotor classes" Etc.  At the same time classes AL1, AL2, WL1 and WL2 Etc. are not so 'classic' any more and more commonly known as 'Microlights'. 

 

WPC 2007 in China was known as the "World Paramotor Championships" and WMC 2007 in Czech Republic was known as the "World Microlight Championships".

 

There were 110 competitors in China so Paramotor championships have for the last 5 years been consistently as large or larger than their equivalent 'classics' microlight championships.  In naming terms, Paramotors should therefore now be treated equally but distinctly in S10 from microlights and not as some kind of sub-class inferred in the phrase 'microlight paramotors'.

 

On this same basis microlights should no longer be referred to as the 'classics'.  They are "Microlights".

 

This proposal suggests that henceforth classes PF1, PF2, PL1, PL2 should be known collectively as Paramotors and the 'classics' should be known as Microlights.

 

Note: Rather than including all the many changes meant by this proposal here, the S10 Editor proposes the plenary will consider this a matter which can be dealt with editorially within the scope of the overall principle of the proposal.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 11                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 12

New structure for S10 Annex 4 (Task Catalogue)

from José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

Annex 4 structure:

            Annex 4, Part 1. Applies to All classes

 

            Annex 4, Part 2. Tasks for classes AL1, AL2, WL1, and WL2 (Classic classes)

                        FLIGHT PLANNING, NAVIGATION TASKS

                        FUEL ECONOMY, SPEED RANGE & DURATION TASKS

                        PRECISION TASKS

 

            Annex 4, Part 3. Tasks for classes PF1, PL1 and PL2

                        [no explicit subsections]

New text

New S10 Annex 4 structure:

 

Annex 4, Part 1. [same content]

 

Annex 4, Part 2. Task catalogue

            Navigation tasks

            Include all navigation tasks from the previous microlight and paramotor catalogue:

            2A1, 2A2, 2A3, 2A4, 2A5, 2A6, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10, 2A11, 2A12, 2A13, 3A1, 3A2, 3A3, 3A4(*)

 

            Economy, speed and noise tasks

            Include all economy, speed and noise tasks from the previous microlight and paramotor catalogue

            2B1, 2B2, 2B3, 2B4, 2B5, 2B6, 2B7, 3B1, 3B2, 3B3, 3B4 (*), 3B5, 3N1, 3N2

 

            Microlight specific tasks

            Include all microlight precision tasks

            2C1, 2C2, 2C3, 2C4, 2C5, 2C6, 2C7, 2C8, 2C9,

 

            Paramotor specific tasks

            Include all paramotor precision and ground tasks

            3C1, 3C2, 3C3, 3C4, 3C5, 3C6, 3C7, 3C8, 3C9, 3C10

 

            Tasks marked with (*) include microlight and paramotor specific characteristics, and will be adapted to the specific competition in the local regulations.

Reasons

It has been a common practice to design tasks inspired in the microlight catalogue for the paramotor competitions and vice versa. This new structure reflects that practice.

 

Some editorial work is needed to delete redundant tasks and to avoid mention to specific classes in some task definitions.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 12                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 13

Addition of three tasks into the task catalogue.

from José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate

Affects

Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

None

Proposal 13a new text

 

Curve Navigation with Time Estimation

Precisely fly the course defined by an arbitrary line drawn on the map, with time estimations and a time limit.

 

See task A described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf

Proposal 13b new text

 

Precision Navigation

Fly a circuit at a constant speed in each straight leg, estimating arrival times to known turn points.

 

See task B described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf

Proposal 13c new text

 

Contract Navigation with Time Controls

Fly a course between a combination of declared turn points, flying over some of them at a specified time.

 

See task C described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf

Reasons

The three tasks have been used in recent international championships. They are easy to prepare and to marshal, and their track analysis can be automated if the task definition is not modified.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 13a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

                        Proposal 13b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

                        Proposal 13c                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 14

Common description for navigation tasks.

From José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate.

Affects

14a: Microlights, 14b: Paramotors.

Existing text

Navigation tasks in S10 Annex 4, Part 2: 2A1, 2A2 2A3, 2A4, 2A5, 2A6, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10, 2A11, 2A12

Proposal 14a new text

Replace these navigation tasks in annex 4 part 2 with tasks D & E described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf

 

Task D:  Fusion of tasks 2A3, 2A6 and 2A12 in a single task description:  Navigation over a known circuit.

 

Task E: Fusion of tasks 2A1, 2A2, 2A4, 2A5, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10 and 2A11 in a single task description:  Navigation with unknown legs.

Proposal 14b new text

If proposal 12 is NOT accepted, then with reference to the tasks described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf

 

- Task D replaces 2A3, 2A6 and 2A12

- Task E replaces 2A1, 2A2, 2A4, 2A5, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10 and 2A11

 

Paramotors:

- Include task D

- Include task E

Reasons

There are 12 task descriptions in the task catalogue which are very similar to each other. The only distinctive element is the existence or unknown legs in the circuit. The rest of the differences are simply the geometry of the circuit.

 

This may lead to two interpretations:

 

 

 

There are some other problems in current descriptions:

 

This proposal

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 14a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

                        Proposal 14b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 15

New scoring for slaloms.

From José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate.

Affects

Paramotors.

Existing text

S10, Scoring formulas in S10 Annex 4:

3.C2.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME

3.C7.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Clover leaf slalom’)

3.C8.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Japanese slalom’)

3.C9    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Chinese slalom’)

 

Each pilot's rank R is calculated using Q (best pilot: R = 1)

 

Pilot score = 500 * Q / Qmax  +  500 * 0.8^(R-1)

 

Where

NQ  = The number of targets struck by the pilot

Sp  = The pilot's elapsed time between striking first and last targets

R   = Pilot's rank using Q

Proposal 15a new text

S10, Scoring formulas in S10 Annex 4:

 

3.C2.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME

3.C7.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Clover leaf slalom’)

3.C8.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Japanese slalom’)

3.C9    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Chinese slalom’)

 

Replace existing scoring in all 4 tasks with:

 

N     =   number of targets

T     =   time from first to last target

Q     =   N^3 / T

Pq   =   500 * Q / Qmax

Ps   =   500 – 30 * (T – Tpmin)    Minimum Ps is zero

P     =   Pq + Ps

Proposal 15b new text

S10, Scoring formulas in S10 Annex 4:

 

3.C2.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME

3.C7.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Clover leaf slalom’)

3.C8.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Japanese slalom’)

3.C9    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Chinese slalom’)

 

Replace existing scoring in all 4 tasks with:

 

If the pilot strikes all the targets properly:

            P   =  1000 – 30 * (T – Tpmin)

Otherwise:

            P   =  0

Reasons

During last CIMA meeting a ranking-based scoring system was introduced. But during last WPC2007 in China, some team leaders complained that in case the best 10 pilots were within the same second, they would receive scores ranging from 500 to 67 points from the second term in the formula.

 

Most teams agreed on an alternative scoring system which changes the second term in the formula and uses a calculation based on the absolute time difference between each pilot and the first one.

 

Proposal A:  For each second difference, the pilot gets 30 points less.

 

Proposal B follows the skiing practice: If the pilot flies the circuit properly, striking all the targets, he gets time points, otherwise, he scores zero.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 15a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

                        Proposal 15b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 16

Fast-slow or Slow-fast.

from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.

Affects

Paramotors.

Existing text

S10 Annex 4: 3.C3. FAST / SLOW SPEED

Objective

To fly a course as fast as possible and then a course as slow as possible.

....

 

S10 Annex 4: 3.C10 FAST / SLOW SPEED (variant)

Objective

To fly a course as fast as possible and then a course as slow as possible.

....

New text

S10 Annex 4: 3.C3. FAST / SLOW SPEED

Objective

To fly a course as fast as possible and then a course as slow as possible. (or vice versa)

....

 

S10 Annex 4: 3.C10 FAST / SLOW SPEED (variant)

Objective

To fly a course as fast as possible and then a course as slow as possible. (or vice versa)

....

 

Note that this proposal also requires some editorial changes to the text in both tasks to clearly reflect the principle that the two legs can be flown in an order specified by the championship director.

Reasons

Slow then fast, or fast then slow?  This is a long-running argument.

 

From a championship director's perspective, slow then fast is better because there is less risk of congestion between the two courses caused by marshals letting people through the first course too quickly.  The net result is that the whole task can probably be completed faster and more reliably.

 

From a competitors perspective, fast then slow is better because it is easier and quicker to put the aircraft into a 'slow' configuration between the two courses than to put it in 'fast' configuration.

 

The 2006 CIMA plenary addressed the competitors' problem by approving an amendment to these two tasks requiring a minimum distance between the two courses.  For operational reasons at WPC 2007 it was much better to run the task slow then fast, and it was.

 

This proposal allows the championship director to choose for operational reasons whether the order should be Slow then Fast, or Fast then Slow, it makes no difference to the competitor.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 16                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 17

Championship record claim forms

from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.

Affects

Microlight and Paramotor classes which compete in Cat. 1 Championships.

Existing text

S10 3.17.4 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 and type of record claimed.

 

S10 An 5, 2.8 OTHER WORK OF THE JURY

.....

The International Jury must certify that all the conditions attached to each 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, class, aircraft type, the performance, type of record claimed, and whether it was a World or Continental claim.

New text

S10 3.17.4 and S10 An 5, 2.8 OTHER WORK OF THE JURY

.....

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

 

Championship Record Claim forms to be prepared by the S10 Editor before 1 Jan 2008

Reasons

The introduction of Microlight Record claim forms in 2007 has hopefully helped pilots to collect all the information required to make a valid record claim making the job easier for the observer, the pilot, the NAC controlling the claim and FAI office.

 

It is proposed a set of similar claim forms are created for Championship records which MUST be used in any record claim.  By asking all the right questions pertinent to each record they make the job of making a valid claim easier for everyone involved.  Advice can also be included in these forms and their use also makes the requirement for a checklist in S10 obsolete; this is therefore deleted in the proposal above.

 

Rather than building these forms into S10, it is proposed they are separate documents available from the FAI website and maintained as necessary by the S10 editor so they are compatible with the requirements of S10.  It is therefore proposed that work does not start on this until after the 2007 plenary meeting when the forms can be edited to suit, and published on 1 Jan 2008 at the same time as the 2008 version of S10.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 17                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 18

Payment for Championship records.

from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.

Affects

Microlight and Paramotor classes which compete in Cat. 1 Championships.

Existing text

S10  3.17.3 A championship record can only be claimed for performances where no penalties or other adjustments were applied to the competitor’s task score.

Proposal 18a new text

S10  3.17.3 A championship record can only be claimed for performances where no penalties or other adjustments were applied to the competitor’s task score and the claimant agrees to pay the fee as may be levied by FAI for making the record claim.

Proposal 18b new text

S10  3.17.3 A championship record can only be claimed for performances where no penalties or other adjustments were applied to the competitor’s task score and the claimant pays such record claim fee as may be levied by FAI before the end of the championships.

Reasons

FAI secretariat charges CHF 100 per Microlight or Paramotor World record claim regardless of whether the claim is eventually ratified or not.  (see minutes of CASI meeting 2000).

 

This proposal puts the onus of who pays the fee on the person who stands to gain most - the claimant.  The claimant can of course refuse to pay, and in that case no claim will be made.

 

The difference between Proposals a and b is that a says the claimant promises to pay the fee whereas b says the claimant should actually pay the fee to FAI whilst still on the Championships site (either to the Jury, in the same way as they collect Protest fees, or FAI directly) so there is no doubt that it is a genuine and full claim and there aren't the logistical difficulties of making later payments and checking they've been paid.

 

Note:  If Championship record claim forms are introduced then a place will be set aside for the claimant to sign that he/she agrees to pay the fee (a) or has paid the fee (b).

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 18a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

                        Proposal 18b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 19

Additional place for wheel chaired pilot in PL1 class as a way to encourage participation of disabled pilots.

From Wojtek Jerzy DOMAŃSKI, POL alternate delegate.

Affects

Class PL1.

Existing text

S10 An 3  3.3.2 ASSISTANTS

Help from assistants is positively encouraged until a competitor enters the deck to start a task. From that moment onwards, all external assistance is forbidden except from marshals or those people expressly appointed by the Director, until the moment the competitor leaves the deck having finished a task, or otherwise lands according to the outlanding rules.

New text

S10 4.10.6        NAC’s may enter one extra disabled (wheel chair bound) team pilot in the PL1 class above the maximum number stated by the organizer in the local regulations.

 

S10 An 3  3.3.2 ASSISTANTS

 

3.3.2.1 GENERAL

Help from assistants is positively encouraged until a competitor enters the deck to start a task. From that moment onwards, all external assistance is forbidden except from marshals or those people expressly appointed by the Director, until the moment the competitor leaves the deck having finished a task, or otherwise lands according to the outlanding rules.

 

3.3.2.2 PL1 WHEEL-CHAIRED DISABLED PILOT

Disabled pilot flying in PL1 class may be assisted in pre-launch preparation by one authorized person. Once the pilot is ready to launch the assistant shall report that fact to the marshal, and will not help any more in the launch procedure. Either holding any part of paramotor or wing canopy, or giving information about a canopy inflation is considered as a help. 

Reasons

PL1 class is naturally suited for disabled paramotor pilots. Allowing team scoring of PL1 class to be calculated upon results of teams enlarged by one additional wheel chaired pilot can encourage disabled pilots to take up flying again.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 19                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 20

Standardisation of launch technique for PL1 class.

From Wojtek Jerzy DOMAŃSKI, POL alternate delegate.

Affects

In principle PL classes, in current practice only PL1 class.

Existing text

S10 An 3  3.3.3 TAKE-OFF

A PF must be foot launched for all tasks.

No pilot may take-off without permission from the Director or a Marshal.

....

New text

S10 An 3  3.3.3 TAKE-OFF

A PF must be foot launched for all tasks.

PL1 or PL2 launch is considered valid only if the pilot (crew) remains seated in his (their) aircraft when last part of the canopy leaves the ground, and pilot’s legs do not carry any load.

No pilot may take-off without permission from the Director or a Marshal.

....

Reasons

Recently PL1 class is entered by pilots of very light trikes, who are able to launch their aircrafts using PF1 techniques. In stronger wind condition, this ability gives pilots of these trikes a significant advantage over pilots of heavier trikes who are not able to use that launch technique.

 

PL1 class was initially thought as class for landplane paramotors.  While there is nothing wrong in recent trend of PF1 pilots entering PL1 class with their foot launch paramotors equipped with very light wheels construction, it is unfair that they use their take-off advantage over original heavy trikes pilots.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 20                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

PROPOSAL 21

Slow-fast – landing between courses.

From Wojtek Jerzy DOMAŃSKI, POL alternate delegate.

Affects

Paramotors.

Existing text

S10 An 3  3.C3. FAST / SLOW SPEED

.....

Special rules

......

 

An3  3.C10       FAST / SLOW SPEED (variant)

.....

Special rules

.....

New text

S10  An 3  3.C3.  FAST / SLOW SPEED

.....

Special rules

·      For each leg, the clock starts the moment the pilot passes the first gate and stops the moment he passes the second.

·      If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the first leg: VP1 = zero and EP = zero

·      If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the second leg: VP2 = zero and EP = zero

·      If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during his transition from the first to the second leg, or within 10 seconds after finishing the second leg, penalty 50% is applied to pilot's EP result.

·      If the pilot zigzags or if the body of the pilot overflies a side of the course or exceeds 2m above ground:  Score zero.

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

......

 

S10 An3  3.C10  FAST / SLOW SPEED (variant)

.....

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.

·      If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during his transition from the first to the second leg, or within 10 seconds after finishing the second leg, penalty 50% is applied to pilot's EP result.

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

......

Reasons

During the flight on slow course of SLOW/FAST task (variant) of the last World championship in China, one of the pilots flew too high, and stalled the wing to be able to strike the fourth stick. Pilot did strike the stick but didn't manage to sustain the flight, and fell in the stall just behind the stick. Immediately after that he took off again and flew away to the fast course of the task.

 

Championship director and international jury considered that flight valid, stating that there is no explicit rule in Section 10, that clearly forbids such a technique. The above amendment clarifies that matter.

 

There are at least two strong reasons for not allowing landing or touching the ground between the courses of slow-fast task:

 

1)           Landing between courses might give an additional time for the pilot to reconfigure paramotor from slow to fast trimming. This is not a desirable advantage in this task. A penalty 50% for EP result seems to be a fair way to encourage pilots to fly the whole task non-stop.

2)           Stalling a wing just before the last stick of slow course, might be perceived by pilots as an effective method to get better result, obviously increasing possibility of dangerous accidents.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

                        Proposal 21                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED