UK proposed items to be included in the Agenda of the 1999 CIMA meeting.

1. That the Draft PPG task catalogue entitled: PPG TASK CATALOGUE; RMH PROPOSAL FOR INCLUSION IN S10, 1999 be included in S10, annex 4

   Changes from WMC '99 are summarised at the top of the first page.

2. That the draft document entitled: RMH DRAFT - Annex 3 to Section 10 be included in S10, annex 3

   This is a slight variation on that distributed to CIMA in 1998 and 1997. It divides these pro-forma local regulations into 3 parts (leaving the option for a 4^th, PHG). Part 1 includes everything common to all classes. Part 2 includes all regulations applicable to classes 1, 2 & 3 and Part 4 includes all regulations applicable to Class 4 (PPG). Although there has been a lot of shuffling, I believe that NOTHING from the current S10 annex 3 has been actually removed. Quite a lot has been added ref. PPG's. All the added PPG stuff has been used in practice at least twice (98 & 99) and most of it 3 times (97, 98 & 99) so it is well proven.

3. That the team championship in the PPG class be abolished

   The team championship in World and Continental championships seems to be causing an unnecessary amount of trouble between teams and generally does not "reinforce friendship between Nations". It should be abolished.

4. That the team championship in classes 1, 2 and 3 be abolished

   The team championship World and Continental championships seems to be causing an unnecessary amount of trouble between teams and generally does not "reinforce friendship between Nations". It should be abolished.

5. That S10, 4.19.4 be amended to:

   DELETE: Any replacement parts should conform exactly to the original specifications

   REPLACE WITH: Any parts may be replaced only with those of an identical make and model or by those of similar or lower performance.

   When is a part of an aircraft not a part, but the whole? What are "original specifications" (as compared to "the same as the pilot started the championship with")? In the PPG event of WMC '99 Several pilots had engine problems. One was able (after legal advice) to change his entire fan-pack for another with a different engine. This is generally considered not to be appropriate but does appear to be allowed within the current rules.

6. That S10, Annex 3, 5.1.2 (draft above; item 1.33.3) The five minute rule, be amended:

   DELETE: A competitor will be allowed only one take-off for each task and the task may be flown once only. However in the event of a mechanical failure occurring within 5 minutes of take-off, a further start may be made without penalty. Re-fuelling is not permitted and the original take-off time will be used for scoring.

   REPLACE WITH: A competitor will be allowed only one take-off for each task and the task may be flown once only. In the event of a mechanical failure occurring, a further start may be made if there is no particular advantage in so doing and if it is done expeditiously. If the landing for repair is made within 5 minutes of take-off, the restart may be made without penalty, thereafter an appropriate penalty will be applied. Re-fuelling is not permitted.

   A situation arose in PPG task 7 of WMC '99 where the Director was unequivocally asked by the pilot whether he could land and make repairs. If the Director in that situation had said "no, you cannot land and take off again if you are over the 5 minutes", then the pilot would not have landed (he probably knew he was over time, the Director, at that moment did not).
   
   It is not for the Director to say whether to continue in this situation would have been dangerous or not as safety must be paramount above any doubt. Instead, therefore, it must be just that a pilot is allowed to land and restart a task if he has been in the air so long as a restart is made expeditiously, there is no advantage to be gained (other than pure safety) and (depending on circumstances) some sort of suitable penalty is applied. In that case it was a pure economy task and time already in the air was not counted towards the Pilot score which was an appropriate penalty.

7. That the noise tasks (see PPG draft Task catalogue) be retained for a second year on an experimental basis for all classes:

   The PPG Director really wanted to try one of the new "test" noise tasks but the weather and marshal transportation situation prevented it. (Has to be done in a quiet place). None the less, this must be pursued in future championships.

8. That an organising NAC can bar pilots from competing in a PPG championships purely on the basis of excessive noise output of their machine.
   Some machines flown in the PPG class of WMC '99 were more like flying sirens than PPG's. There exists the potential for a championship to be shut down by the local government authority because of these extraordinarily noisy aircraft. Pilots must be able to fly all daylight hours. Even if there been a site limitation of say 08:00 - 19:00, WMC '99 would have had only one or two tasks.
   
   This requires very urgent attention. A specific limit or definition needs to be agreed.

9. That the nominated jury system be reinstated. (with conditions)

   WMC '99 demonstrated that representative juries do not work. There is a significant language barrier and most members were simply ignorant of the rules. It is essential however that there is not an exact return to the old system where some Jury members (and there are only three) were widely seen as incompetent. CIMA should agree on some sort of training course / qualification.

10. That the records: SPEED OVER A STRAIGHT COURSE and SPEED OVER A CLOSED CIRCUIT be amended to include class R5 (PPG’s)

    All other records are available to class 5 - there is no reason why these should not be also.

11. That S 10, Annex 1,4,A be amended. (Definition of a PPG)

    DELETE: A foot launchable powered paraglider (PPG) consists of a wing without any rigid structure, coupled to a power unit carried on the pilot's back during flight

    REPLACE WITH: A powered paraglider (PPG) is a foot launched one or two seat aeroplane with flying surfaces which have no rigid structure.

    The existing definition is simply not correct. The statement "foot launchable" implies that it may not be foot launched, if it is not foot launched then it is not a PPG, it is something else, maybe a Powered Paraglider Trike (PPT). The power unit is usually carried on the pilots back on the ground, but No PPG has the power unit carried on the pilot’s back in flight, it is supported by the harness and canopy and there is no weight on the pilot’s back. Two seater PPG’s are becoming more common. There should be records for them and maybe in a few years it may be possible to introduce a two seat class in championships. This definition should allow for this.

     

12. That S10, 3.1.3 be amended to allow records in PPT's

    DELETE: Records in sub-classes R1, R2 and R3 shall be further divided into two groups:
    Group 1: flexwing trike with pilot weightshift as primary method of control.
    Group 2: fixed wing aeroplane with moveable aerodynamic controls

    REPLACE WITH: Records in sub-classes R1, R2 and R3 shall be further divided into three groups:
    Group 1: flexwing trike with pilot weightshift as primary method of control.
    Group 2: fixed wing aeroplane with moveable aerodynamic controls
    Group 3: Powered paraglider trikes