Proposals
for amendments to FAI Section 10.
This year, 2006, 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.
The 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 is
Changes
- This is NOT the latest draft: 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 a listing of
“Global” 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.
Attachments
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
Chapter title: Diplomas and Badges.
Proposal 1b
Renumber paragraph 2.2 to 2.3 COLIBRI PROFICIENCY BADGES and existing 2.3,
2.4 and 2.5 so they appear logically under the existing heading 2.3 COLIBRI
PROFICIENCY BADGES.
Proposal 1c
None; Insert new
addition to S10
2.2 Ann Welch Diploma
2.3.1 Ann Welch, having previously
played leading international roles in the development of gliding and
hang-gliding, was instrumental in creating the FAI microlight commission (CIMA)
and formulating the microlight sporting code and worked tirelessly for many
years in the cause of the sport.
2.3.2 One diploma may be awarded
each year by the FAI Microlight commission (CIMA)
to the pilot or crew of a microlight who, in the opinion of CIMA, made
the most meritorious flight which resulted in a microlight World record claim
ratified in the previous 12 months.
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
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
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
AMEND: S10
Annex 6 2.2.1.1 The FR must have an Integral Pressure
Altitude Sensor and be capable of recording atmospheric altitude.
Proposal 2b
AMEND: S10
5.6.5
Where no height or altitude performance is involved no barograph
calibration is required.
Where height or altitude performance is involved, an atmospheric
altitude calibration certificate dated within the period 24 months prior to the
flight to 2 months after the flight is required. It should show corrections to the ISA
standard atmosphere across the full range of altitude relevant to the
performance.
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; the reference to S10 annex 6 is no longer necessary.
Comments from S10 Sub Committee
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
CIMA decision
Proposal 2a ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 2b ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal title
Introduction of a
“global” listing of microlight records on the FAI website.
Proposal from
Richard
Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate
Existing text
None.
New text
None required, just an instruction to FAI.
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.
This is not
a proposal to introduce a new category of records but simply to expand the
listings on the FAI website to include an ‘overall best’ listing for each
available microlight record.
Comments from S10 Sub Committee
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
CIMA decision
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 4.
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 triangle as fast as he can. Of course complete proof has to be supplied to FAI in order to make a 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 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 not, and tries to make the whole business of making World records simpler but without devaluing the ‘value’ 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 gate shall not be less than its altitude at the start gate” and leave it at that? This is slightly more severe than the old requirement, but much simpler to manage. 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.
3.4.11 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, the deviation of up to ± 5% per leg is an insignificant 0.33% more severe than the existing 28% rule.
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, 3.9.3 & 3.10.2 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.
3.13.2 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.
3.15.1 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
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
None at this time
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
AMEND: 5.7.1 Start and Finish gates are maximum 1 km in
length and maximum 1000 m in height. For Championships any dimensions shall be
detailed in the Local Regulations or given at briefing.
Reason
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
None at this time
Comments from CIMA delegates
None at this time
CIMA decision
ACCEPTED DENIED