Proposals for amendments to FAI Section 10.

Editor's Note - management in the Plenary.

Proposals are numbered in the order they were received from delegates.  As there are so many proposals this year the editor proposes to manage this in the plenary by asking all delegates to accept en-bloc all proposals which are marked as "Unanimously supported" by the S10 Sub-committee which has studied all proposals in detail and considers them uncontroversial.  Any delegate may request any one of these to be 'withdrawn' from this bloc and then they will be discussed in the normal way, but it does offer the plenary the opportunity to deal with a large number of proposals in an efficient way.  In order for this to work, ALL delegates are requested to study these proposals in advance:  1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20a, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33a.

 

For the remainder, the editor will present a suggested "order of discussion" to the plenary meeting so that proposals are grouped together under common headings which might help to speed up the proceedings a little.

Sub committees

Of course sub-committees may discuss all proposals but some proposals affect all classes of microlight or are of an administrative nature, however in order to make faster decisions in the Plenary it is suggested each sub-committee consider proposals which directly affect them in advance of the plenary meeting. Suggested are at least:

 

Classic classes:  Proposals: 4, 7, 11, 14, 15, 27, 33, 34, 37

 

Soft wing classes: Proposals:  4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38

How amendments were submitted

This year, 2006, Richard Meredith-Hardy is the coordinating editor for Section 10 and its annexes.

 

Only CIMA delegates may submit proposals for inclusion here.  Anyone else must have submitted their proposal to their delegate first.  The full list of delegates is on the FAI website.

 

The amendment scheme operated as it was done last year, all proposals from CIMA delegates should have been 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.

 

Each proposal will be put to the vote in it's exact wording at the CIMA Plenary meeting 9-11 November 2006 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 was 23:59:59 UTC WEDNESDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2006.

 

Comment from the S10 Sub-Committee was inserted before the final agenda deadline when it was passed to the CIMA Secretary for inclusion in the agenda.

Changes

• This is the FINAL draft: Draft 16, 26 September 2006, Addition of proposals 41 - 47 (which were received just before the deadline), the insertion of 20c by the S10 Subcommittee and insertion of comment by the committee to all proposals.
• Draft 15, MIDNIGHT UTC 20 September 2006. Amendment to proposal 12, Addition of proposals 36, 37, 38, 39 & 40
• Draft 14, 20 September 2006. Addition of proposals 34c & 34d, comment moved to reason.
• Draft 13, 20 September 2006. Addition of comment to proposal 34.
• Draft 12, 20 September 2006. Addition of proposal 35
• Draft 11, 19 September 2006. Addition of proposal 34b
• Draft 10, 19 September 2006  Amendments to proposals 19 & 32, Addition of proposals 33 & 34
• Draft 9, 18 September 2006.  Addition of proposals 20b, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32.
• Draft 8, 16 September 2006.  Amendments to proposals 1, 25, 26.  Addition of proposal 27.
• Draft 7, 15 September 2006.  Amendment to proposal 3.  Addition of proposals 3b, 25 and 26.
• Draft 6, 13 September 2006.  Amendments to proposals 3, 4 and 8, addition of proposal 8b.
• Draft 5, 12 September 2006.  Amendments to proposals 4, 5 and 8.
• Draft 4, 10 September 2006.  Addition of Proposals 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 24.
• Draft 3, 9 September 2006.  Addition of Proposal 6.
• Draft 2, 7 September 2006.  Addition of proposals 2a, 4 & 5.
• Draft 1, 2 September 2006

Contents

• Proposal 1  The Ann Welch Diploma, renaming & renumbering of S10 Chapter 2.  from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
• Proposal 2   Amendment to S10, Annex 6 regarding calibration certificates for flight recorders.  from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
• Proposal 3   Introduction of ‘absolute’ microlight records. from Richard Meredith-Hardy GBR delegate.
• Proposal 4   Simplification and clarification of the rules for microlight World records. from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
• Proposal 5    Amendment to S10 5.7.2 clarification of gates. from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
• Proposal 6    Amendment to the rules for Championship records. from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
• Proposal 7    Improve the description of ground markers in the local regulations from Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate
• Proposal 8     Tighten the rules for prohibited electronic equipment.  from Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate & Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 9   Clarification of what happens when an error occurs in FR analysis or scoring.  from Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate
• Proposal 10  Clarification of score sheets.  from Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate
• Proposal 11  To change precision landings to include bounces in the scoring. From Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate.
• Proposal 12  New precision landing task for PL1 & PL2.  From Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate.
• Proposal 13  To delete tasks 3.C3  and 3.C10 from the task catalogue. From Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate.
• Proposal 14  To make emergency parachutes mandatory.  From Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate.
• Proposal 15  Amendment to S10 4.24.3, task proportions. From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 16  Homogeneous maximum value for slalom tasks. From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 17  Amendment to S10 4.24.3, task proportions (if proposals 15 & 16 are accepted). From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 18  Time of crossing points or gates using GNSS. From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 19  Definitions and criteria for flight analysis. From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 20  Number of stewards. From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate and Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.
• Proposal 21  DNF and DSQ in score sheets. From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 22  Deadline for issuing official scores. From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 23  Publishing overall and team scores.  From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 24  Editorial change. Move S10 4.5.6 and 4.5.7 to S10 4.29 (scoring).  From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 25  Amendment to advice about maps.  From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate and Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.
• Proposal 26  Alternative scoring for slalom tasks.  From Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 27  Mandatory inspections.  From Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate.
• Proposal 28  Increase the number of windsocks near PF & PL decks. From Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.
• Proposal 29  Increase the height of kicking sticks.  From Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.
• Proposal 30  Amendment to the Slow - Fast tasks.  From Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.
• Proposal 31  Creation of a Safety Officer.  From Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.
• Proposal 32  Tidy up Annex 5,  3   Stewards.  From Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.
• Proposal 33  Define the minimum widths for gates.  From Richard Meredith-Hardy, FRAC Chairman.
• Proposal 34  Reduce the size of the scoring zone. From Joel Amiable  FRA Delegate, Wolfgang Lintl, DEU Delegate, Jose Luis Esteban ESP Delegate.
• Proposal 35  Championship director qualifications.  From Jacek Kibinski, POL Delegate.
• Proposal 36  Amendment to the slow-fast tasks.  From Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate
• Proposal 37  Amendment to S10 1.3, Inclusion of all powered weight shift control and paraglider control in S10. From Roy Beisswenger, USA Delegate
• Proposal 38  Amendment to S10 4.23.3, Provisions for Precision Championship for classes PF and PL. From Roy Beisswenger, USA Delegate.
• Proposal 39  Economy tasks based on weight of fuel used in flight. From Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate.
• Proposal 40  Scoring economy tasks taking into account pilots’ bodyweight. From Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate.
• Proposal 41  Amendment to S10 4.24.3, task proportions.  From Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate
• Proposal 42  Number of stewards.  From Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate
• Proposal 43  Editorial change. Move S10 4.5.6 and 4.5.7 to S10 4.29 (scoring).  From Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate
• Proposal 44  Deleting  S10, Annex 6.  For all competition.  From Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate
• Proposal 45  Improve the description of ground markers in the local regulations.  From Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate
• Proposal 46  Annex 4 S 10 2 B 11 Economy to respect the weight of pilots.  From Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate
• Proposal 47  Director fly whith you ! ! !.  From Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Attachments

All attachments are included with this document.  Otherwise they are available from the hyperlinks below.

 

Re. proposal 4  Version 3, 13 Sept 2006: proposed_S10_ch3_v3.pdf

Re. Proposal 34  gps_errors.xls

Re. Proposals 39 & 40 proposals_39_and_40_tasks.pdf

Re. Proposals 41 - 47  proposals_41-47.pdf

 

Proposal title

The Ann Welch Diploma, renaming & renumbering of S10 Chapter 2.

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA S10 Editor.

Existing text

Proposal 1a   Chapter title:   Colibri Diplomas and Badges.

Proposal 1b   Concerns the renumbering of sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 & 2.5

Proposal 1c   None; Insert new addition to S10

New text

Proposal 1a 

 

Proposal 1b  

 

Proposal 1c   None; Insert new addition to S10

 

Reasons

Proposal 1a.   Re-naming the chapter.

With the introduction of the Ann Welch Diploma, S 10 Chapter 2 does not just include Colibris.  It would therefore be more sensibly re-named just “Diplomas and Badges”.

 

Proposal 1b.   Re-numbering.

In the new order of importance, it can be considered the order should be Colibri Diploma, then the Ann Welch Diploma and then Colibri badges, therefore the numbering of Chapter 2 should reflect this.

 

Both the existing 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 are directly relevant to Colibri badges which are the subject of existing section 2.2, they should therefore be numbered as part of it, not as separate items. 

 

In this proposal the Ann Welch Diploma is inserted at 2.2, the existing 2.2 becomes 2.3 and the existing 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 are all dropped down a level so they appear logically under the new heading: 2.3  Colibri badges.

 

Proposal 1c.   Introduction of the Ann Welch Diploma.

Subject to a FAI bye-law approved by the FAI Executive Board, the plenary agreed in 2005 the text to be included in S10.  This vote is therefore NOT a discussion of the context of the award or its text, but simply to agree (in conjunction to the above two proposals) where it should be put in FAI Section 10.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

1a  Supported unanimously.

1b  Supported unanimously.

1c  Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

 

Proposal 1a                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 1b                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 1c                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Proposal title

Amendment to S10, Annex 6 regarding calibration certificates for flight recorders.

Existing text

Proposal 2a

S10 Annex 6  2.2.1.1  The FR must have an Integral Pressure Altitude Sensor and be capable of recording atmospheric altitude and must have a valid calibration certificate.

 

Proposal 2b

S10  5.6.5    Where no height performance is involved no barograph calibration is required. For GNSS Flight Recorders, see Annex 6.

New text

Proposal 2a

 

Proposal 2b

Reason

It is accepted that a pressure altitude calibration certificate is not required in distance or speed record claims as the proof is simply “did not land” during the flight .

 

Proposal 2a corrects an anomaly in respect of “type 2 FR’s” (ie IGC approved ones) where S10 Annex 6 says they MUST have a valid calibration certificate whatever type of record claim it is. 

 

Proposal 2b states the requirements for all barograph and FR atmospheric altitude calibration certificates which although “understood” to be the practice has never actually been in S10 and it isn't in the general section.  The reference to S10 annex 6 is no longer necessary.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 2a                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 2b                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal title

Introduction of ‘absolute’ microlight records.

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Existing text

None. 

New text

Proposal 3a

 

Proposal 3b

Reason

People often ask “what’s the highest a microlight can fly?”  The answer to this can be found on the FAI website at http://records.fai.org/microlight/ but the user than has to trawl through many classes to find that it’s 9,720 m achieved  by Serge ZIN (France) in 1994. 

 

Absolute records are described in the FAI General section:

 

GS 6.2 ABSOLUTE RECORDS. The types of records recognised by FAI as Absolute records shall be determined by the Air Sport Commissions and shown in the specialised sections of the Sporting Code.

 

Within this there are various possibilities for absolute microlight records.  One option would be to have one absolute microlight record for each record category representing the best performance in that category across all microlight classes, but as the purpose of these records is to be really simple, it could be confusing to have an absolute record for distance in a closed circuit and another for distance in a straight line.  The alternative, presented in this proposal is to simply show the best performances across all distance, or altitude, or speed related performances, so in total there are only three absolute records for microlights.

 

An interesting by-product of introducing these records is that any microlight pilot who achieves one may (to be confirmed by FAI) automatically become eligible to join that rather elite group of people who have been awarded the FAI De La Vaulx Medal (see http://www.fai.org/awards/award.asp?id=2 and FAI By-Laws 11.4).

 

Proposal 3b simply states what should happen once these records are created.  The alternative would be for them to be blank until a new absolute record claim is ratified which could ruin the point of having them for some time. 

 

As at 15 Sept 2006 the absolute microlights records would be:

 

Distance: 

AL1, 1,369.00 km, 6 Sept 1988, Bernard d'OTREPPE (BEL), Fréjus La Palud (France), Aviasud Engineering - Albatros

 

Altitude: 

WL1, 9,720 m, 18 Sept 1994, Serge ZIN (FRA), Saint-Auban (France), Air Création Norgil

 

Speed:

AL2, 274.78 km/h, 19 Oct 2005, Jiri UNZEITIG (CZE) and Vera VAVRINOVA (CZE), Horovice (Czech Republic), Vanessa Air Klenor VL-3

 

Note that the FAI De La Vaulx medal is only awarded to holders of absolute world records established during the previous year so even if FAI confirms that absolute microlight records are eligible for this medal then it cannot be awarded for these three ‘initial’ records.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 3a                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 3b                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal title

Simplification and clarification of the rules for microlight World records.

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Existing text

See S10 Chapter 3.

New text

Reason

General: 

Basically the objectives of a record are rather simple; take Speed over a closed circuit of 50 Km for example, all a pilot has to do is blast round a 50km out and return or triangle as fast as he can.  Of course complete proof has to be supplied to FAI in order to make a successful claim, but at its simplest all the official observer has to oversee is:

1)     A weighing of the whole aircraft immediately before takeoff to prove it was a microlight at takeoff.

2)     That a CIMA Type 2 FR was on board for the flight.

All other required evidence is derived from the secure FR track log or can be collected after the attempt.

 

Why then do we have to make it so complicated, for example by requiring the route to be declared in advance?  Is this really necessary for a record?  This proposal says pre-declaration is not necessary, and tries to make the whole business of making World records simpler but without devaluing the underlying ‘worth’ of each one.

 

The purpose of these proposals are: 

 

a)     Given that the rules for records have not been amended for many years, to examine them in the light of the way they are most likely to be done these days using FR’s of one kind or another.

b)     Given that there are rather few record claims every year, mainly because the paperwork associated with a claim is so complicated; to examine all the requirements and ask whether each is really necessary, but without devaluing the ‘worth’ of each particular record.

c)     To try to clarify the current ‘maze’ of requirements for each type of record.

 

In doing this revue, initially I tried to do the normal thing and try to achieve a) and b) above by amending the existing text as little as possible.  The end result however simply did not satisfy c) at all.  I have therefore taken the risk of totally rewriting a substantial section of S10 chapter 3 with the hope it will be accepted by the CIMA plenary as a single amendment.

 

It is intended that this re-write does NOT substantially change the rules for each record, however in the old rules, if you study them enough, there are a surprising number of exceptions, for example the general ‘altitude – distance relationship’ is 2% (S10 5.3).  This applies to a record with limited fuel, but for a record without engine power it’s 1% (S10 3.4.12.1).  Why so complicated?  Surely the logical thing to say, (for records where it matters) is “The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than its altitude at the start line” and leave it at that?  This is slightly more severe than the old requirement, but much simpler to manage both from the pilot's point of view when he's actually flying the record attempt and from the NAC's and FAI's point of view when they check the claim against the rules.  In fact with this simple provision we don’t need the altitude – distance relationship thing in chapter 5 at all, the provision is already excluded from championships, isn’t used in badge flights and isn’t now required for records.

 

The attached document is colour coded.  Black items are unchanged text, green items are basically unchanged text but moved to a better place, blue items are these slightly more controversial items.

 

According to the revised numbering, below is a brief discussion of every blue item.

 

3.6.2  Existing rules for records without engine power say the engine may not be restarted at all after the start line is passed.  This practice of un-forced landing out is illegal in some countries.  Why not then say the engine may be re-started after the finish line?  It makes no difference to the final result.

 

3.6.3, 3.7.2, 3.10.3 & 3.11.3  The business of “altitude – distance relationship” is discussed above and a much simpler formula suggested here which is the same as the one used in speed over closed circuit records.

 

3.8  Existing rules say 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.  In reality, while there is no problem with a 50 or 100Km triangle, pilots, especially those in smaller countries, may have difficulty in actually planning a triangle of 500 or 1000 Km without it being an international flight or going through controlled airspace or extending over the sea.  This proposal therefore allows more turnpoints for closed circuits longer than 100 Km.  Up to 6 turnpoints are proposed, but leg length must still be more or less equal. To prevent repeated legs along the same track, the course change must not exceed 145 deg which just permits a 5 point star.  The length deviation of up to ± 5% per leg is an insignificant 0.33% more severe than the existing 28% rule. 

 

3.14.2  Existing rules say the 2 runs must be completed in 45 min.  Given that the shortest course is 15km, it is impossible to complete the task in any aircraft which goes slower than a little more than 40 Km/h.  Whilst most microlights are faster than this these days, it would seem more reasonable to change this to a ‘round number’ of one hour which is the standard for FIA land speed records and which then would permit any aircraft which can go a little over 30 Km/h the opportunity to attempt a record.

 

3.16.1  BMAA has for many years provided a standard form to assist pilots and observers complete all the requirements of a record.  See http://www.flymicro.com/records/index.cfm?record=claimfm  It is proposed CIMA has a set of claim forms (revised appropriately for these amended rules) which MUST be used in any record claim.  Other FAI commissions do this, and by asking all the right questions pertinent to each record they make the job of making a valid claim easier for the observer, the pilot, the NAC controlling the claim and FAI office.  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 2006 plenary meeting when [hopefully] these proposals are accepted and the forms can be edited to suit, and published on 1 Jan 2007 at the same time as the 2007 version of S10.

 

S10, Chapter 5, 5.3.  Delete as discussed above.

 

PLEASE NOTE THAT AS THIS IS RATHER A COMPLEX PROPOSAL:

There is no doubt this needs to be done, but it would be a shame for it to fail as a result of technical argument or omission on my part.  If you have any comment PLEASE address it to me (S10 editor) as soon as possible so any problems can be resolved before this proposal is inserted in the Agenda.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Proposal title

Amendment to S10 5.7.2 clarification of gates.

Existing text

5.7.1     Start and Finish consist of gates of maximum 1 km in length and maximum 1000 m in height. The gates are marked with lines on the ground. For Championships any dimensions shall be detailed in the Local Regulations or given at briefing.

New text

Reason

Start and finish lines are clearly defined in the General section A8 & A12 as “A gateway of a designated width and height”, and goes on to describe how they should be oriented, what “Crossing a Start Line” or a finish line is Etc.

 

Given that GNSS flight recorders are most likely to be used in record attempts, it is not necessary to have the arbitrary limit of 1000m on gate height, this proposal therefore allows them to be of unlimited height the same as ‘scoring zones’ as used in championships.  (Start and Finish lines are an important feature of records).

 

This provision gives the default size of gates which is important for records but The gates are marked with lines on the ground is clearly complete nonsense and should be deleted.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

                                    ACCEPTED                              DENIED

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Proposal title

Amendment to the rules for Championship records.

Existing text

Proposal 6a

3.11.1   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.

 

Proposal 6b

No existing text

New text

Proposal 6a

 

Proposal 6b

Reason

The concept of ‘Championship Records’ was introduced into S10 on 1 Jan 2006 so the 2006 season is the first time they have been tried.  In practice, there was considerable debate at EMC 2006 in Chozas, Spain as to how a Continental ‘Championship Record’ is precisely defined, this being missing from S10.  For example:

 

1.    Can a World ‘Championship Record’ be established at a Continental Championship as well as at a World Championship? If so, why, where is the logic?

 

2.    Can a Continental ‘Championship Record’ be established at a World Championship held outside that Continent?  In other words, are Continental Records geographically dependent or dependent only on the country that issued the claimant's Sporting Licence?

 

Continental records of any kind are not a normal practice in other FAI commissions so there is no precedent to turn to and since they were tried for the first time this season it has become clear the whole subject is a bit of a minefield.  Proposal 6a is therefore to simply delete the notion of Continental ‘Championship Records’ from S10.  In future then, there are World ‘Championship Records’, and they may be claimed at any FAI Category 1 Microlight championship, whether Continental or World, or at a World Air Games. (S10 3.11.2)

 

Should proposal 6a be accepted by the plenary, then proposal 6b is something of a formality as there were no existing World ‘Championship Records’ to beat and the records claimed in Spain were consequently considered to be World ‘Championship Records’ at the time, but it tidies things up and makes it clear the records which were established were indeed World ‘Championship Records’ and that effectively Continental ‘Championship Records’ never existed.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

6a  Supported.

6b  Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 6a                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 6b                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Improve the description of ground markers in the local regulations

Existing text

S10 An 3, 1.12.4           GATES, TURNPOINTS AND MARKERS

Gates are normally a straight line 250m wide perpendicular to the briefed track.

Gates may be:

-           Known gates.  Their position and height to be crossed will be briefed.

-           Hidden gates.  The height to be kept along the sections of the course where they are situated will be briefed.

Proof of passing a gate and it's timing will be by Marshals report or GNSS flight recorder evidence, as briefed.

Control points may be: A geographical point, a ground marker, a landing marker or a kicking stick.

Control points may be:

-           Known control (turn) points.  Their position and description will be briefed.

-           Hidden control points.  The track along which they will be found and their description will be briefed.

Proof of reaching a control point may be:

-           by photography

-           by the competitor recording the symbol and position on the declaration sheet

-           by a Marshall's report.

-           by flight recorder evidence   

The precise requirements will be described in the Task Description.

New text

Reason

In response to two areas of confusion at EMC2006 – Nordlingen.

 

1. – competitors incorrectly identified a letter I made up of farming equipment (pipes).

 

2. On a sequential task a letter “L” (again rogue symbol) was identified wrongly by a large number of competitors – it was adjudged to be a V and therefore was not in the original list of symbols given out by the competition director.

By having pre declared size / colour and orientation this would have been avoided.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 7                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate & Jose Luis Esteban ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Tighten the rules for prohibited electronic equipment.

Existing text

Proposal 8a

S10 4.22.3        ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

Radios, GPS and similar electronic navigation aids are prohibited and may not be carried. CIMA approved GNSS flight recorders and ELTs without voice transmission capability are permitted. Sealed mobile phones may be carried for use after landing or in an emergency. Misuse of this rule may result in disqualification.

 

S10 Annex 3  1.10.11    ELECTRONIC APPARATUS:

Radios, VOR, GPS and similar electronic navigation aids are prohibited. The normal penalty is disqualification from the competition. CIMA approved GNSS flight recorders and ELT's without voice transmission capability are permitted.  Mobile phones may be carried in a pre-declared sealed container for use solely in the event of an emergency. The director must be immediately informed if the seal is broken. (S10 Chapter 4, 4.22.3)

Before each task the Director will ask marshals to check for infringements. The penalty is disqualification from the competition.

 

Proposal 8b

None, new text added to the two provisions S10 4.22.3 & S10 Annex 3  1.10.11

New text

Proposal 8a

 

Proposal 8b

Reason

There are so many variations of electronic navigational or communication devices now available it is impossible to be prescriptive in any set of rules.  Proposal 8a tightens the rules to now say ALL electronic equipment with real or potential navigational or communication capability must be approved by the competition director before it may be carried during a championship.

 

Proposal 8b deals with the practicalities of managing electronic equipment.  It is very common in championships that electronic devices are sealed, but seals are never checked after the task. As a team leader I have found myself going to the main office asking for permission to break the seals, and permission was granted without making any kind of check.

 

This makes paragraph 4.22.3 totally useless. Therefore, the competition director must enforce this rule by establishing a systematic and documented procedure for sealing and unsealing electronic devices.

 

The method used during last EMC in Chozas is proposed for Annex 3 (master Local regulations).

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

8a  Supported.

8b  Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 8a                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 8b                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Clarification of what happens when an error occurs in FR analysis or scoring.

Existing 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.

New text

Reason

This was a new provision inserted in 2006.  It was however the subject of a protest in Nördlingen suggesting it could be interpreted as ‘a failure due to a technical error emanating from the Competition Director, or a failure due to the scoring staff, or a failure due to the equipment being used for the GNSS flight analysis or scoring’.  In Nördlingen, the Jury ruled that this interpretation was incorrect, but this proposal is a subtle change to the text to try to prevent such a protest in future.

 Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 9                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Clarification of score sheets.

Existing text

S10 4.29.1        The scoring system to be used shall be approved by the FAI Microlight Commission and attached to the Local Regulations. Score sheets shall state the Date when the task took place, and the Date and Time when the score sheet was issued, the Task description. Task number, classes involved in the Task, Competitor names, Country of the Competitors, the Competitors number and score. Score sheets shall be marked Provisional, and Official, or if a protest is involved, Final. The time of issue is the moment when a score sheet is posted on the official score board and carries the time when this is done, together with the signature of the Championship Director. The Provisional Score sheet must be posted within 6 hours after finishing the task. The Official score sheet must be posted before briefing the next day, except for the last task when the time limit is 2 hours after the posting of the Provisional score sheet.

New text

Reason

After experience at the 2006 championships, yet another attempt to clarify the way in which score sheets are issued.  This proposal adds the points that a task score sheet can only become official after all complaints have been dealt with, and the official scores must be exactly the same as the last published provisional score sheet.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 10                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate

Proposal title

To change precision landings to include bounces in the scoring.

Existing text

As this proposal is just deletions from the existing text, see the struck through items in New text below.

New text

Reason

Precision landing: To remove the rebound and to integrate the stopping distance in the formula. Thus one will count the first touch the ground and the stopping distance. We will not thus have any more problems if the wheel bounced or not.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

No decision.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 11                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate

Proposal title

New precision landing task for PL1 & PL2.

Existing text

None.

New text

Reason

PL1: Precision landing, it is necessary to do a box of 6m * 6m with lines every 50 cm (as for the classic)

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 12                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate

Proposal title

To delete tasks 3.C3  and 3.C10 from the task catalogue.

Existing text

3.C3.    SLOW / FAST SPEED

 

Objective

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

Description

A straight course between 250m and 500m long and 25m wide is laid out with gates at each end. The pilot makes a timed pass along the course as fast as possible, returns to the start, and makes a second timed pass in the same direction as slow as possible.

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 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.

Scoring

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

 

3.C10   SLOW / FAST SPEED (variant)

 

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

New text

Reason

The test mini/maxi does not have any interest, I propose to remove it.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 13                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate

Proposal title

To make emergency parachutes mandatory.

Existing text

See the struck through items in New text below.

New text

Reason

It is necessary to make the parachute of help obligatory (Classic and PPG)

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Unanimously not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 14                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Amendment to S10 4.24.3, task proportions

Existing text

S10  4.24.3 Tasks should, as far as practicable, conform to the following guidelines:

 

For Microlight aircraft classes AL, WL and WF

A Tasks for flight planning, navigation, etc with no fuel limit: 50% of the total tasks flown.

B Tasks for fuel economy, speed, duration, etc with limited fuel: 25% of the total tasks flown.

C Tasks for precision landing: 25% of the total tasks flown.

 

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.

New text

Reason

When counting number of tasks to calculate task proportions, we get into some inconsistencies. For example, a paramotor championship with nine tasks having three precision tasks is perfectly valid. However, if they are "precision landing" tasks (3.C5), the total precision value is 750, but if they are "classic slalom" tasks (3.C2), the total precision value is 3000.

 

Each task in the catalogue has a maximum value, and this reflects the relevance of each task in the overall scoring. If there is any reason for giving specific maximum values to different kinds of tasks, this should be reflected in how the competition director selects them. In the present situation, a competition director could get a valid championship in just four flights: two navigations ending in precision landing (computed as independent tasks) and two economy tasks.

 

The proposed proportions are calculated with the objective of being consistent with the average distribution of tasks in past championships:

 

Classic classes:

Average points in a championship with 8 tasks:

    Navigation 4*1000, Economy 2*1000, Precision 2*250

    Total: 4000 + 2000 + 500 = 6500

Point proportions:

    Navigation: 4000 / 6500 ~ 60%

    Economy: 2000 / 6500 ~ 30%

    Precision: 500 / 6500 ~ 10%

 

New classes:

Average points in a championship with 9 tasks:

    Navigation 3*1000, Economy 3*1000, Precision 3*500

    Total: 3000 + 3000 + 1500 = 7500

Point proportions:

    Navigation: 3000 / 7500 ~ 40%

    Economy: 3000 / 7500 ~ 40%

    Precision: 1500 / 7500 ~ 20%

 

Basically, nothing changes with this proposal, but it forces directors to run a balanced set of precision tasks.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 15                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Homogeneous maximum value for slalom tasks

Existing text

S10 Annex 4,  3.C2.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME

Pilot Score = 1000 * Q / Qmax

 

S10 Annex 4,  3.C7.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Clover leaf slalom’)

Pilot Score = 500 * Q / Qmax

 

S10 Annex 4,  3.C8.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Japanese slalom’)

Pilot Score = 500 * Q / Qmax

 

S10 Annex 4,  3.C9    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME  (‘Chinese slalom’)

Pilot Score = 500 * Q / Qmax

New text

Reason

Classic slalom (3.C2) is seldom used because it has a very large pattern that makes it difficult to set up, not to talk about setting up two or three simultaneous slalom areas.

 

Newer slaloms were designed with a much simpler layout, but having the same complexity for a pilot (approximately the same number of strokes or turns). Therefore all slaloms should have the same value as the classic one.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 16                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Amendment to S10 4.24.3, task proportions (if proposals 15 & 16 are accepted)

Existing text

See proposal 15.

New text

Proposal 17a:

 

Proposal 17b:

Reason

Average points in championships with 9 tasks:

    Navigation 3*1000, Economy 3*1000, Precision 1000+1000+250

    Total: 3000 + 3000 + 2250 = 8250

Point proportions:

    Navigation: 3000 / 8250 ~ 35%

    Economy: 3000 / 8250 ~ 35%

    Precision: 1500 / 8250 ~ 30%

 

Otherwise, there will be less precision tasks than before.

 

Option B slightly increases the proportion of precision tasks. This is something many competitors want, and we get back to the original 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 easy to remember proportions (although meaning different things).

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 17a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 17b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Time of crossing points or gates using GNSS

Existing text

S10 Annex 6, 6.3.3     A Start line, IP or gate time is taken from the fix immediately before the line is crossed. A Finish line or FP time is taken from the fix immediately after the line is crossed.

New text

 

Editor note: If this proposal is accepted then S10 Annex 3, 1.13.8 should be amended accordingly.

Reason

1. The proposed procedure is statistically unbiased. The old procedure increases flight time an average of 2.5 s (in a 5 s period logger).

 

2. Analysis programs can easily mark any well defined condition like a fix before or after a gate, but scorers need to pay special attention if end gates or points are treated in a different way.

 

3. A pilot may try to block the satellite view of his GNSS device so that the last valid fix is much before the gate. However, in this case the pilot will most probably miss the gate due to noisy fixes before and after the gate.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 18                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Definitions and criteria for flight analysis.

Existing text

None.

New text

Reason

When coming to the fine detail in task analysis, strict, or at least reasonable criteria must be applied.

- Unbiased measurements.

- Measuring time must not be done with higher resolution than the logging period.

- Measurements in noisy situations must be avoided.

 

Designers of track analysis programs and their users should be encouraged to follow these guidelines.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 19                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate, Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate, Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Proposal title

Number of stewards

Existing text

S10, 4.9.1 The organisers shall appoint not less than 3 stewards of 3 different nationalities excluding that of the organiser, except that in the event of a last minute failure to attend a replacement steward of any nationality and acceptable to the other stewards may be invited. Stewards must be able to speak a common language, preferably English and have extensive experience of international microlight or other FAI competitions. One steward should if possible be able to speak the language of the organisers.

 

S10 Annex 5, 3.1 APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS

Requirements for stewards at events sanctioned by CIMA are defined in paragraph 4.9 of Section 10 as follows:

 

The organisers shall appoint not less than 3 stewards of different nationalities excluding that of the organiser, except that, in the event of last-minute failure to attend, a replacement of any nationality, and acceptable to the other stewards, may be invited. Stewards must be able to speak a common language, preferably English, and have extensive experience of international microlight or other FAI competitions. One steward should, if possible, be able to speak the language of the organisers.

 

At least one steward shall be present at the championships site or contest area throughout all operational activities." (G.S. 4.3.4.2)

New text

Proposal 20a  Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

 

Proposal 20b  Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate

 

Proposal 20c  Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Reason

During some recent championships not all classes competed at the same venue or at the same time, and CIMA accepted that only two stewards should be appointed. So this should be written in S10.

 

Proposal 20b adds to the text of 20a because: With the separation of championships for Classic classes and New classes, 2 stewards are enough in each competition, but also it's becoming evident that at least one of the stewards must be specialised in the respective type of classes, therefore we should force that he must be a pilot of the competing type of aircraft and seek to nominate someone who has specific experience in previous competitions of that group of classes.

 

Proposal 20c.  The S10 sub committee agreed that 'must' is a difficult requirement in this context as it is often difficult to find stewards at all, so "should if possible" is the better phrase compared to the "must" of 20b.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

See also Proposal 32 ref. an amendment to the text on this same subject in S10 Annex 5.

20a  Supported unanimously.

20b  Not supported.

20c  Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 20a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 20b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 20c                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

DNF and DSQ in score sheets

Existing text

S10, 4.29.5 A pilot who did not fly scores zero and is indicated DNF on the score sheet. A pilot who is disqualified will be indicated DSQ on the score sheet.

 

S10 Annex 2, 4.2 SCORE SHEETS

Task score sheets to have column for penalties, and to use DNF for a pilot who Did Not Fly (not zero), and DSQ for Disqualified.

 

S10 Annex 3, 1.14.1     GENERAL

A pilot who did not fly scores zero and will be marked DNF on the score sheet. A pilot who is disqualified will be marked DSQ (S10 Chapter 4, 4.29.5)

New text

Reason

It is important to label a "Did Not Fly" or a "Disqualified" condition in a score sheet, and when score sheets were written by hand it was easy to write DNF instead of zero. However, when using spreadsheets this adds unnecessary complexity to the formulas.

It is easier to display a zero along with the specific text somewhere else like the “observations" column. Also, the value that has to be transferred to the calculation of overall scores is zero.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 21                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Deadline for issuing official scores.

Existing text

4.29.1 [...] The Official score sheet must be posted before briefing the next day, except for the last task when the time limit is 2 hours after the posting of the Provisional score sheet.

New text

Reason

The rule is completely unrealistic and no director has ever complied with it.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

 

Proposal 22                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Publishing overall and team scores

Existing text

None

New text

Reason

Pilots and team leaders are always expecting overall and team scores. Both individual and team strategies depend on them, so it is very important for competitors to have them available and continuously updated.

 

At some moment, the scoring marshals will need to issue overall and team scores. If they do the job of preparing their scoring system *before* the championship starts, there is no reason against issuing overall and team scores along with individual tasks' scores.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 23                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Editorial change. Move S10 4.5.6 and 4.5.7 to S10 4.29 (scoring).

Existing text

S10 4.5.6 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

 

S 10  4.5.7 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

Reason

Whenever I try to find the rule for team scoring I get lost. I always need to search the file!

It seems reasonable to have "team scoring" under "scoring" chapter, instead of having it under "general organisation" chapter.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.  There are a lot of proposals concerning S10 section 4.29.  It would be logical to re-order the section after we have seen which proposals are accepted.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 24                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate & Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Amendment to advice about maps.

Existing text

S10, Annex 2, 5.3 MAPS

All pilots must be supplied with air maps of approximately 1:250,000 scale to cover the whole task area.  Jury Members and Stewards need copies of the same maps.  A wall map of the same scale should be on permanent display.

 

The organisers should have larger scale maps for use in locating outlanding pilots.

New text

Reason

The map scale item simply brings this provision up to date with normal practice in championships.

 

Glossary: When writing tasks for last EMC I found myself translating a number of terms from the map into English, so I decided to compile them all in a glossary. The feedback from competitors was very good.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 25                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Alternative scoring for slaloms.

Existing text

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’)

 

Scoring

  

Where:

NQ  = The number of targets struck by the pilot

Sp  = The pilot's elapsed time in seconds between striking target 1 and target 10

New text

Reason

During any high level competition, like EMC Chozas, time differences between the top pilots in slalom tasks are very small and inevitably the better the competitors become, the smaller the difference.  It is very difficult for the winning pilot to achieve a one second difference these days and one second difference, which is a big difference, produced a score difference of only 9 points.

 

The winning pilot is known to be able to fly the task 3 seconds faster than he did, but there’s a lot more risk and he would have been rewarded with just 34 more points.  The consequence is that pilots prefer to fly conservatively to get a reasonable score because there is not the reward equivalent to the risk if they try harder.

 

The proposed solution is to establish a bonus based on a pilot’s position (or rank) in the normal scoring for the task.  This bonus calculation is based on a concept already presented to CIMA in the COMPS ranking system, the idea is that the winning pilot according to the regular scoring system gets a fixed bonus and every position below gets x% less bonus than the one in the position above. 

 

A 500 point bonus with a 20% reduction for every place below is proposed, the bonuses for the first 10 places would thus be: 500, 400, 320, 256, 205, 164, 131, 105, 84, 67….

 

This bonus can be calculated with the formula  500*0.8^(R-1) rounded to an integer value.

 

This formula and the rank based on Q can easily be calculated using any spreadsheet program in the normal way.

 

Note this proposed formula is also written as:

 

This proposal does not affect Championship records for these tasks as they are based on pure time taken to complete the task (corrected to ISA standard atmosphere).

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 26                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate.

Proposal title

Mandatory inspections.

Existing text

None

New text

Reason

We never do that, but now we have to do it systematically to accustom the pilots and to avoid suspicions.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 27                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.

Proposal title

Increase the number of windsocks near PF & PL decks.

Existing text

S10, Annex 3, 3.1.4       THE LANDING DECK

…

-           A landing deck will have a windsock within 100m of its boundary.

…

New text

Reason

Due to local conditions, it has happened several times, like in the EMC2006, the winds being different across the big landing decks which are being established for the paramotor classes nowadays, therefore the adoption of this rule, with a little cost, will considerably improve safety, both on take-off and landings.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 28                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.

Proposal title

Increase the height of kicking sticks.

Existing text

S10, Annex 3, 3.2.4       FLIGHT ACCURACY MEASUREMENT;  Kick sticks

…

-           The stick should be approx. 2m in height, visible from a range of at least 250 meters, and of a construction such that it is unlikely to enter a PF's propeller once struck. (Standard ski slalom posts are recommended).

…

New text

Reason

Making the sticks at least 1 meter higher will permit the pilots to fly a bit more away from the ground in this kind of tasks, which will surely improve flight safety.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 29                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.

Proposal title

Amendment to the Slow - Fast tasks.

Existing text

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

Objective

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

Description

A straight course between 250m and 500m long and 25m wide is laid out with gates at each end. The pilot makes a timed pass along the course as fast as possible, returns to the start, and makes a second timed pass in the same direction as slow as possible.

…

 

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

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.

…

New text

Reason

In the last championships, this task has been established, in order to speed up the procedures with many competitors, not complying with the present description, which states that the same course shall be used for the slow and fast speed. When setting the 2 courses in line and sequential, we shall prevent the courses from being dangerously near to one another, and also from making the slow speed first, which would lead, in the transition to the sequent fast speed, to a dangerous loss of altitude.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 30                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT Delegate.

Proposal title

Creation of a Safety Officer.

Existing text

See below, red text is deleted, blue is added.

New text

Reason

Very obvious, in the present global world conditions (security) and important as ever (safety).

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 31                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Tidy up Annex 5,  3   Stewards.

Existing text

S10, Annex 5,  3  THE STEWARDS OBJECTIVES

The role of the steward(s) is defined in the General Section paragraph 4.3.6 as follows:

"Stewards are advisers to the Event Director. They watch over the conduct of the event and report any unfairness or infringement of the Rules and Regulations or behaviour prejudicial to the safety of other competitors or the public or in any way harmful to the sport. They assemble information and facts concerning matters to be considered by the International Jury. They advise the Event Director on interpretation of the rules and regulations and on penalties."

3.1       APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS

Requirements for stewards at events sanctioned by CIMA are defined in paragraph 4.9 of Section 10 as follows:

"The organisers shall appoint not less than 3 stewards of different nationalities excluding that of the organiser, except that, in the event of last-minute failure to attend, a replacement of any nationality, and acceptable to the other stewards, may be invited. Stewards must be able to speak a common language, preferably English, and have extensive experience of international microlight or other FAI competitions. One steward should, if possible, be able to speak the language of the organisers.

At least one steward shall be present at the championships site or contest area throughout all operational activities." (G.S. 4.3.4.2)

…

New text

Reason

This re-numbering makes this section on Stewards consistent with the layout of other sections in Annex 5. 

 

Re. Appointment and qualifications, it is always a bad thing to repeat great blocks of text from elsewhere in S10.  Better to have a cross reference instead.

 

The objectives section updates what is currently said in GS 4.3.4.2 and some new text expanding on this is added.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 32                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, Chairman FRAC

Proposal title

Define the minimum widths for gates.

Existing text

None.

New text

Proposal 33a

 

Proposal 33b

Reason

Item 6.3.6 is a reinforcement of existing 6.3.1: The pilot only uses a map, the scoring only uses a FR trace.  There must always be some kind of physical 'reconciliation' between the two.

 

Recommended gate widths for use with FR's have never been defined in S10.  Items 6.3.7 and 6.3.8 are now inserted as a result of several years experience.  See the technical reasoning in proposal 19.

 

Proposal 33b is a simple housekeeping exercise to put the provisions about gates together and the provisions about turnpoints together in a logical order.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

33a  Supported unanimously.

33b Supported unanimously.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 33a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 33b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Joel Amiable  FRA Delegate, Wolfgang Lintl, DEU Delegate, Jose Luis Esteban ESP Delegate.

Proposal title

Reduce the size of the scoring zone.

Existing text

S10 Annex 6, 6.3.2        A scoring zone will normally be a cylinder of 250m radius and of infinite height.  To score, a fix point must either be within this circle or the line connecting two sequential track fixes must pass through the circle.  Additionally the task may require one of these fixes to be associated with a PEV “mark”.

New text

Proposal 34a  (Joel Amiable)

 

Proposal 34b  (Wolfgang Lintl)

 

Proposal 34c  (Jose Luis Esteban)

 

Proposal 34d  (Jose Luis Esteban)

 

Editor note: If any of these proposals are accepted then S10 Annex 3, 1.13.7 should be amended accordingly.

Reason

Proposal 34a   The Best pilot fly with the best precision, and I think that gates with 250 m are to big. Now we can fly with 50m radius. The objective is to fly above the ground feature, so competitors must fly with the highest degree of accuracy. 250m is too much. If we oblige the pilots to fly to the vertical of the centre (ground feature) with +/- 50m, we will have less problems to evaluate the time.

 

Proposal 34b:  With help of FR planned task, competition director is able to set tasks with many gates (scoring zones. To reduce the pilots with the same result in one task it might be helpful to reduce the total width of a waypoint/gate/scoring zone from 500 to 200 m. The proposed reduction to 50 m radius as proposal 34a will force pilots to fly below minimum altitude for better precision.

 

Proposals 34c & 34d:  To have all the options available to discuss in the meeting.

 

Some thoughts

• If a turn point corresponds to a precise ground feature (an antenna, for example).
• If the organiser has been able to get a fix exactly on the same place.
• If all pilots fly exactly above the ground feature.
• If dilution of precision is near the median of 2.5
  DOP (Dilution Of Precision) is a measurement of degradation of accuracy due to unfortunate satellite positions (which change continuously). This number is displayed un common GPS units.

 

If we are using a 50 m radius for the turn point, then 2.7% of the pilots will be seen to fly outside the scoring zone. This can be calculated using my spreadsheet. gps_errors.xls

 

The consequences of a 2.7% probabilities are very important: Think of a turn-point hunt where a pilot flies to 10 TPs and crosses each one of them exactly over the ground feature. The probability of not missing any TP is (1-0.027)^10 = 0.76, so the probability of missing at least one is 0.24.

 

So one out of 4 pilots will have a wrong score and will be complaining because they know they flew exactly over each TP, and they are right.

 

The above situation happens when both organisers and pilots do everything perfectly well.

 

But:

• Organisers almost never use such precise ground features,
• organisers almost never get a fix on the exact centre of the ground feature,
• pilots normally fly a few metres away,
• and sometimes DOP rises, increasing error for all competitors.

 

My opinion:

 

75 m is a good radius to absorb GPS errors PROVIDED pDOP IS SMALLER THAN 2.5

because this is not a random situation. If DOP rises, error will be increased for all pilots giving problems to organisers.

 

DOP can be monitored on a fairly local scale, but it would be quite a job to apply this continuously changing error to each track as a precursor to analysing it against the task.  If we don't want to monitor DOP, 100 m may be enough.

 

We should add A = 25 m for the "feature radius", which allows a pilot to guess the centre of the feature.

 

We should add another B = 25 m for not getting the fix exactly over the centre. If fixes are taken in flight, this margin should be increased.

 

We get an accumulated distance of 150 m.

 

In any case, if the ground feature is larger than 50 m (it doesn't fit in a 25 m radius circle) the margin must be increased.

 

For hidden gates placed on lines drawn on maps while in flight, an additional distance must be added to the radius:

• At least 1 mm on the map. In a 1:250,000 scale map, this is 250m.
• So the margin of error on such kind of gates must be 250 + 150 = 400 m (a total of 800 m wide).

 

This discussion is also affected by point 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 outside a circle of radius R= Rp/2 where Rp= Radius or size of the scoring zone defined by the Organizers ( ie the physical location must lie inside an inner circle half the width of a gate or radius of a scoring zone)"

 

Warning for organisers: If R is very small, they will get themselves into big trouble.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

34a  Unanimously not supported.

34b  Not supported.

34c  Supported.

34d  Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 34a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 34b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 34c                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 34d               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

Proposal from

Jacek Kibinski,  POL Delegate

Proposal title

Championship director qualifications.

Existing text

S10, 4.4.2   Where the candidate competition director for a Cat. 1 championship has not previously organized a successful FAI Category 1 microlight championship he/she must as a minimum:

1) Have flown as a competitor in an FAI Category 1 microlight championship, and;

2) Have organized national competitions.

Evidence of this experience should be provided to CIMA in the form of a comprehensive CV supported by the National Aero Club presenting the bid and verified by the CIMA Bureau or a nominated CIMA representative.

New text

Proposal 35a

 

Proposal 35b

Reason

1. It is no logic relation between pilots and good manager's qualifications. Experience of several last Championships clearly show, that we have had excellent directors being no competitors and opposite - top competitor who failed as director.

 

2. Duty of the Director and relevant requirements are widely described in Annex 2, par. 3 and Annex 5 par. 1 - (more than one page). If all of this requirements and recommendations would be fulfilled, we would always have perfect championships. No new regulations are needed.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

35a  Unanimously not supported.

35b  Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 35a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 35b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Proposal title

Amendment to the slow-fast tasks

Existing text

See S10, Annex 4, 3.C3  and S10, Annex 4, 3.C10 but the entire texts are repeated below, red is deletions and blue is insertions.

New text

Reason

If you have a minimum of 500m you will see more the difference between the pilots.  On our Belgian championship I've do it with a distance of 900m and you see directly the difference.

 

The 'thermals' provision used to be in the rules, where did it go?

 

For scoring, you don’t must to calculate the speed, you have the time in seconds and it will more easy to calculate.  It’s only a rules of 3.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 36                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Roy Beisswenger, USA Delegate

Proposal title

Amendment to S10 1.3, Inclusion of all powered weight shift control and paraglider control in S10.

Existing text

S10, 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.

New text

Reason

Currently, any weight-shift control or paraglider control powered aircraft that doesn’t meet the definition of a microlight aircraft has nowhere else in the FAI system in order to establish records or compete. In the US, the regulations have changed to allow the building and piloting of aircraft in these categories with no limitations in weight, speed, or seating. Already, three seat machines have been produced and delivered for special purposes such as air tours in China.

 

With the change in rules, the US government has logically kept the management of pilot certification programs for all weight shift control and paraglider control within the same office that manages the US equivalent of microlight activity. This proposal follows that same logic since there is not another FAI commission that is better prepared to manage programs for this type of aircraft and the numbers of aircraft concerned don’t justify their own commission.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Unanimously not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 37                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Roy Beisswenger, USA Delegate

Proposal title

Amendment to S10 4.23.3, Provisions for Precision Championship for classes PF and PL.

Existing text

S10, 4.24.3       Tasks should, as far as practicable, conform to the following guidelines:

For Microlight aircraft  classes AL, WL and WF

A          Tasks for flight planning, navigation, etc with no fuel limit: 50% of the total tasks flown.

B          Tasks for fuel economy, speed, duration, etc with limited fuel: 25% of the total tasks flown.

C          Tasks for precision landing: 25% of the total tasks flown.

            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.

New text

Reason

Currently, if someone wants conduct an FAI sanctioned Continental or World competition for paramotors, the competition has to have an equal proportion of navigation, economy, and accuracy tasks. In the United States, Australia, and other places, those types of competitions are seen as inappropriate contests for the canopy sports. Paramotors are almost never used as modes of transportation due to natural limits of speed and duration. Pilots instead prefer to “carve the sky”, that is, to fly low altitude, precision tasks.

 

Navigation and Economy tasks are very unpopular since they are seen to be completely counter to the reason that people fly in the powered canopy sports. That unpopularity can be seen in the last two USA Nationals where paramotors were invited, but only one or two participated. On the other hand, challenging competitions that focus on precision events are well attended by both pilots and spectators. CIMA should take advantage of this popularity and create a provisional venue for those wanting to compete in ways that their chosen form of equipment is naturally suited to do.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 38                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy  GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Economy tasks based on weight of fuel used in flight.

Existing text

S10 Annex 3   3.2.3  FUEL MEASUREMENT

Fuel will be measured by weight or volume but will be consistent for any given refuelling session. Refuelling will be in the order and in accordance with the instructions given at briefing. Failure of the aircraft to be present on time may result in penalty for the pilot.

Competitors must be able to demonstrate that their entire fuel system is empty.

New text

Reason

Current problems:

- Emptying machines of all fuel is a tedious exercise that often wastes precious flying time.

- An economy task cannot be set at short notice.

- There is inconsistency in the way pilots are supervising each other's fuelling and to get away with keeping some fuel in pipes (or priming bulb) is not really seen as cheating.

- Pilots have to modify their machines with complicated fuel systems and header tanks.

- Pilots with thirsty engines not only score badly but are also denied full task participation.

-  Running out of fuel and landing out is a problem with retrieve.

 

The new proposal addresses all of these problems plus it allows an optional "Fuel in proportion to bodyweight" system (see separate proposal) to level the playing field.. It was tested very successfully in the 2006 UK National Championships and was popular with Pilots and Organisers alike. It is now expected to be adopted permanently in the UK.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 39                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy  GBR Delegate

 

Proposal title

Scoring economy tasks taking into account pilots’ bodyweight

Existing text

S10 Annex 3   3.2.3  FUEL MEASUREMENT

Fuel will be measured by weight or volume but will be consistent for any given refuelling session. Refuelling will be in the order and in accordance with the instructions given at briefing. Failure of the aircraft to be present on time may result in penalty for the pilot.

Competitors must be able to demonstrate that their entire fuel system is empty.

New text

Reason

Pilots can choose which equipment they use but they cannot help greatly with their bodyweight. The heavier the pilot, the greater the fuel used.

 

This proposal takes a step towards levelling the playing field and giving all pilots a more equitable chance to perform well in economy tasks.

 

With traditional measuring of fuel by volume, you would need to use a measuring glass and give each pilot a different amount. In practice this method would be problematic.

 

It is easier with the other method of measuring fuel by weight, as used in EMC 2006.

 

With the proposed new fuelling procedure it is only a simple modification in the formulae to compute the amount of fuel used in proportion to the pilot's bodyweight.

 

n.b. There is a common belief that heavier pilots gain in speed. This is not true as clearly evidenced in both flight theory and actual competition results. Pilots can choose a wing to give them an acceptable launch speed and speed range to meet the needs of the various tasks.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

Proposal 40                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal from

Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Proposal title

Amendment to S10 4.24.3, task proportions

Existing text

See item 15x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

New text

Reason

See item 15x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

See item 15x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

 

Proposal from

Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Proposal title

Number of stewards

Existing text

See item 20x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

New text

Reason

See item 20x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

See item 20x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

 

Proposal from

Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Proposal title

Editorial change. Move S10 4.5.6 and 4.5.7 to S10 4.29 (scoring).

Existing text

See item 24x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

New text

Reason

See item 20x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

See item 20x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

 

Proposal from

Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Proposal title

Deleting  S10, Annex 6.  For all competition

Existing text

See item 2x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

New text

Reason

See item 2x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

See item 2x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

 

Proposal from

Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Proposal title

Improve the description of ground markers in the local regulations

Existing text

See item 7x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

New text

Reason

See item 7x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

See item 7x in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

 

Proposal from

Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Proposal title

Annex 4 S 10 2 B 11 Economy to respect the weight of pilots

Existing text

See item Ex in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

New text

Reason

See attachment Ex

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

See item Ex in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

 

Proposal from

Rene Verschuren  BEL Delegate

Proposal title

Director fly whith you ! ! !

Existing text

See item xxx in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

New text

Reason

See item xxx in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

Not supported.

Comments from CIMA delegates

None

CIMA decision

See item xxx in attachment proposals_41-47.pdf