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.

 

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 is 23:59:59 UTC WEDNESDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2006.  After that, you will have to wait until next year....

Changes

Contents

Attachments

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

 

Soft wing classes: Proposals:  4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

PROPOSAL 1

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 2

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 3

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 4

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

See document http://www.flymicro.com/cima06/Section_10_2007_proposed_ch3_v1.pdf

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 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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 5

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

PROPOSAL 6

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

AMEND:  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 championship records in class may be established for that performance.

 

Proposal 6b

No new text, however, if proposal 6a is accepted the Plenary should confirm the Championship Records established at EMC2006 were indeed World ‘Championship Records’ and not Continental ‘Championship Records’.

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 6a                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 6b                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 7

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

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.

Ground marker size, colour and shape must be pre-declared by the organiser.  Each must be at least 1.5m in its smallest dimension and of a colour and shape not easily confused with existing features on the ground or any other marker in the catalogue.

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.

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 7                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 8

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate

Proposal title

Tighten the rules for prohibited electronic equipment.

Existing text

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 normal penalty is disqualification from the competition.

New text

S10 4.22.3        ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

CIMA approved GNSS flight recorders and ELT’s without voice transmission capability are permitted and may be carried. Sealed mobile phones may be carried for use after landing or in an emergency. All other electronic devices must be declared and approved for carriage by the Championship Director. Failure to declare such devices or misuse of this rule may result in disqualification.

 

S10 Annex 3  1.10.11    ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

CIMA approved GNSS flight recorders and ELT’s without voice transmission capability are permitted and may be carried. Sealed mobile phones may be carried for use after landing or in an emergency, the director must be immediately informed if the seal is broken. All other electronic devices must be declared and approved for carriage by the Championship Director.

 

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

Reason

There are so many variations of electronic devices now available it is impossible to be prescriptive in any set of rules.  This is a proposal to tighten the rules to now say ALL electronic equipment must be approved by the competition director before it may be carried during a championship.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 8                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 9

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

S10 4.22.3

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 which emanates from either the Competition Director, or the scoring staff, or the equipment being used for the GNSS flight analysis or scoring, this failure must be corrected regardless of time limits for complaints and protests in S10 and the Local Regulations.

Reason

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 9                   ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 10

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

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 competitor, the competitor number and score.

 

Score sheets shall be marked Provisional, and Official, or if a protest is involved, Final. A Provisional score sheet may only become Official after all complaints have been addressed. Scores may not be altered when the Provisional sheet is made Official.

 

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.

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 10                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 11

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

S10 Annex 4 2.C1  Summary

This task simulates a landing on an aircraft carrier deck, the deck being a deck 100 metres long and 25 metres wide.  The first 25-metre section of the deck is divided into five 5 metre strips which are scored from 250 to 50 points as shown.  The remainder of the deck scores 25 points.  In order to score the main wheels must touch down and stay down in a particular strip and the aircraft must come to a complete halt within the 100-metre deck, as close to the start of the deck as possible.

 

S10 Annex 4 2.C1  Scoring

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down and remain in contact with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). If the aircraft bounces the score will be the lowest value of the strips entered. Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.  The pilot will be scored zero if: [….]

 

S10 Annex 4 2.C2  Summary

This task simulates a landing on an aircraft carrier deck, the deck being a deck 100 metres long and 25 metres wide.  The first 25-metre section of the deck is divided into five 5 metre strips which are scored from 250 to 50 points as shown.  The remainder of the deck scores 25 points.  In order to score the main wheels must touch down and stay down in a particular strip and the aircraft must come to a complete halt within the 100-metre deck, as close to the start of the deck as possible. Additional points may be scored if the scoring touchdown takes place at or near an exact full minute as indicated by the competition clock, eg 11:31:00 hrs is a full minute, 11:31 17 hrs is not.

 

S10 Annex 4 2.C2  Scoring

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down and remain in contact with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). If the aircraft bounces the score will be the lowest value of the strips entered. Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.  If the aircraft touches down on a full minute, the time being taken from the official clock, ±5 seconds a further 100 points is scored (PT).  This score will be reduced by 5 points for every second outside ±5 seconds from a full minute.  The pilot will be scored zero if: [….]

 

S10 Annex 4 2.C3   Summary

This task simulates a landing on an aircraft carrier deck, the deck being a deck 100 metres long and 25 metres wide.  The first 25-metre section of the deck is divided into five 5 metre strips which are scored from 250 to 50 points as shown.  The remainder of the deck scores 25 points.  In order to score the main wheels must touch down and stay down in a particular strip and the aircraft must come to a complete halt within the 100-metre deck, as close to the start of the deck as possible.

 

S10 Annex 4 2.C3  Scoring

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down and remain in contact with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). If the aircraft bounces the score will be the lowest value of the strips entered. Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.  The pilot will be scored zero if:  [….]

 

S10 Annex 4 2.C4  Summary

This task simulates a landing on an aircraft carrier deck, the deck being a deck 100 metres long and 25 metres wide.  The first 25-metre section of the deck is divided into five 5 metre strips which are scored from 250 to 50 points as shown.  The remainder of the deck scores 25 points.  In order to score the main wheels must touch down and stay down in a particular strip and the aircraft must come to a complete halt within the 100-metre deck, as close to the start of the deck as possible. . Additional points may be scored if the scoring touchdown takes place at or near an exact full minute as indicated by the competition clock, eg 11:31:00 hrs is a full minute, 11:31 17 hrs is not.

 

S10 Annex 4 2.C4  Scoring

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down and remain in contact with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). If the aircraft bounces the score will be the lowest value of the strips entered. Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.  If the aircraft touches down on a full minute, the time being taken from the official clock, ±5 seconds a further 100 points is scored (PT).  This score will be reduced by 5 points for every second outside ±5 seconds from a full minute.  The pilot will be scored zero if:    [….]

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 11                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 12

Proposal from

Joel Amiable, FRA Delegate

Proposal title

New precision landing task for PL1 & PL2.

Existing text

None.

New text

S10 Annex 4  3.C11       SPOT LANDING  (PL1 & PL2 Only)

 

Objectives

The objective is for the aircraft to touch down within a marked deck, as close to the start of the deck as possible, coming to a halt in as short a distance as possible.

 

Summary

This task simulates a landing on an aircraft carrier deck, the deck being a deck 6 metres long and 6 metres wide.  The deck is divided into a 0.5 m grid which are scored from 250 to 50 points as shown.  The remainder of the deck scores 25 points.  In order to score the main wheels must touch down in a particular strip and the aircraft must come to a complete halt within the 6 metre deck.

 

 

 

Takeoff

The takeoff order will be specified at the task briefing. The pilot must position his aircraft to the satisfaction of the marshal and must not take off until instructed to do so by the marshal. The form of signal to be used by the marshal for this purpose will be specified at the briefing.

 

Climbing Circuit

The procedure for the climbing circuit will be specified at the task briefing.

 

Engine to Stop or Idle

The aircraft must approach the deck in the landing direction at a height of 1,000 ft. Before passing over the start of the deck the engine must be switched off or the throttle must be closed and the engine set to idle, as specified in the briefing.  The aircraft must then fly over the full length of the deck before starting the descending circuit.

 

Descending Circuit

The procedure for the descending circuit will be specified at the briefing.

 

Landing

Once the aircraft has started its final approach no deviation of over 90deg from the deck centre line either in the air or on the ground is permitted and the engine must remain at idle or may be switched off.  The aircraft must come to a complete standstill and must not move until instructed to do so by a marshal.

 

Scoring

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per 10cm (PD).  Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips. 

The pilot will be scored zero if:

-           The aircraft commences takeoff before instructed to do so by the marshal

-           The engine is not stopped or the throttle is not closed before passing over the deck

-           The aircraft does not pass over the entire length of the deck before turning to descend.

-           The engine does not remain at idle once final approach has started if engine idle permitted

-           The aircraft turns by more than 90 degrees from the deck centreline between starting the landing approach and coming to a standstill

-           Any part of the aircraft touches the ground before the deck.

-           The aircraft does not stop within the limits of the deck.

-           The aircraft moves from the deck before instructed to do so by a marshal

-           The aircraft is unable to taxi or take off unaided following the touchdown although failure to start the engine will not incur a penalty.

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) x 250/310 with a maximum score of 250

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 12                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 13

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

S10 Annex 4,  3.C3  none (delete)

 

S10 Annex 4,  3.C10  none (delete)

Reason

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

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 13                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 14

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

S10  4.13.4       An emergency parachute is excluded from the aircraft gross mass requirements and in the case of a PF or PL aircraft is not to be considered as a part of the structural entity and may be removed or added during a competition.

 

S 10  4.20.1      Safety systems. A protective helmet must be worn on all flights unless this restricts vision from within an enclosed cockpit canopy with supine seating. An emergency parachute is highly recommended mandatory.

 

S10 Annex 3  2.1.5        PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

A protective helmet must be worn on all flights unless this restricts vision from within an enclosed cockpit canopy with supine seating. An emergency parachute system is highly recommended mandatory. (S10 Chapter 4, 4.20.1)

 

S10 Annex 3,   3.1.6      EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT

An emergency parachute is not to be considered as a part of the structural entity of a PF and may be removed or added during a competition.  [Delete entire provision]

 

S10 Annex 3,   3.1.7      PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

A protective helmet must be worn whenever the pilot is strapped into the harness of a PF. An emergency parachute system is highly recommended mandatory.

Reason

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

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 14                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 15

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

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: 60% of the total value of the tasks flown.

B Tasks for fuel economy, speed, duration, etc with limited fuel: 30% of the total value of the tasks flown.

C Tasks for precision landing: 10% of the total value of the tasks flown.

 

For Microlight aircraft classes PF and PL

A Navigation: 40% of the total value of the tasks flown.

B Economy: 40% of the total value of the tasks flown.

C Precision: 20% of the total value of the tasks flown.

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 15                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 16

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

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

Pilot Score = 1000 * Q / Qmax  [ NOT CHANGED ]

 

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

Pilot Score = 1000 * Q / Qmax

 

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

Pilot Score = 1000 * Q / Qmax

 

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

Pilot Score = 1000 * Q / Qmax

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 16                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 17

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:

S10 Annex 4, 4.24.3

For Microlight aircraft classes PF and PL

A Navigation: 35% of the total value of the tasks flown.

B Economy: 35% of the total value of the tasks flown.

C Precision: 30% of the total value of the tasks flown.

 

Proposal 17b:

S10 Annex 4, 4.24.3

For Microlight aircraft classes PF and PL

A Navigation: 33% of the total value of the tasks flown.

B Economy: 33% of the total value of the tasks flown.

C Precision: 33% of the total value of the tasks flown.

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 17a                ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

Proposal 17b               ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 18

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

S10 Annex 6, 6.3.3 Gate or point time is taken from the fix immediately before it is crossed.

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 18                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 19

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Definitions and criteria for flight analysis.

Existing text

None.

New text

S10 Annex 6, New section 8

 

8   Definitions and criteria for flight analysis.

 

8.1   Flight log elements

Flight logs, also known as tracks are basically composed by a sequence of fixes. Each fix is composed by a pair of coordinates (latitude and longitude), altitude and a time mark.

The interval between two consecutive fixes is the logging period.

The track can be viewed as a sequence of points (track points), but for the purpose of its analysis it is also convenient to think of it as a sequence of segments (track segments) defined by pairs of consecutive points.

 

Speed can be calculated for each segment:

    S = segment length / logging period

Acceleration can be calculated for every point (except the first and last ones)

    A = speed difference between adjacent_segments / logging_period

    (Note this is longitudinal acceleration, it doesn't include normal acceleration)

 

8.2   Invalid fixes

Checking acceleration at every fix is an easy way to detect noise due to signal reception problems. Longitudinal accelerations higher than 2 m/s are very strange in microlights or paramotors.

 

High acceleration points and adjacent segments should be discarded during flight log analysis.

 

8.3   Crossing gates

Gates are defined by two end points forming a segment.

When a track segment cuts the segment formed by the two gate ends, the gate is said to be crossed. This can be done in two different directions. When a task specifies a certain direction for crossing a gate, the inverse crossing is considered incorrect.

 

8.4   Timing in gates

Crossing time will be taken from the oldest point defining the track segment that crosses the gate. This is the track point just before crossing the gate.

When crossing time is to be checked against an estimation given by the pilot or calculated by the scoring team, a margin equivalent to the logging period (P) must be applied. If a pilot crosses the gate up to P seconds too early or too late, he gets a zero (0) time error in the gate. If a pilot crosses the gate one more second too early or too late, he gets 1 second error in the gate.

 

8.5   Crossing turn-points

Turn points are defined by a central point, referenced to a ground feature, and a certain radius forming a circle.

When a track segment cuts, enters or exits the turn-point circle or it entirely lies inside of it, the turn point is said to be crossed. Normally, more than one track segment crosses the turn-point circle.

The turn point radius is a margin to absorb a number of error sources: GPS error when taking the fix by the organization, GPS error when pilot flies over the point, size of the ground feature, cartographic precision,...

If a pilot is flying to and from a certain turn-point, and he decides to turn back at some distance before the actual ground feature, he is taking chances. The only way for a pilot to be sure of flying through a turn-point is to fly exactly above the reference ground feature.

 

8.6   Timing in turn-points

One of the segments that crosses the turn-point circle is nearest to the centre. Crossing time will be taken from the oldest point defining this track segment. This it is the track point just before reaching the nearest distance to the ideal centre of the turn-point.

When crossing time is to be checked against an estimation given by the pilot or calculated by the scoring team, a margin equivalent to the logging period (P) must be applied. If a pilot crosses the turn-point up to P seconds too early or too late, he gets a zero (0) time error in the turn-point. If a pilot crosses the turn-point one more second too early or too late, he gets 1 second error in the turn-point.

 

 

8.7   Take off and landing times

If take-off or landing times are needed, the following procedures can be used:

 

8.7.1   Classic classes

 - Take-off time: A take-off gate is placed at the end of the take-off deck.

 - Landing time: A landing gate is placed at the beginning of the landing deck.

 

Take-off and landing gates will be defined by a central point obtained from a GNSS fix and sufficient margin on both sides to avoid problems with noise. A total width of 100 m has been proven to be enough.

 

Basically, the idea is to make measurements while the microlight has a speed compatible with flight. Otherwise, random measurements are obtained with lower speeds.

 

8.7.2  Classes PF & PL

- Take-off time: Time of the oldest fix in the first segment with a speed compatible with flight, which is maintained in the next segments.

- Landing time: Time of the oldest fix in the last segment with a speed compatible with flight, which was maintained in the previous segments.

 

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 19                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 20

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

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

S10, 4.9.1 The organisers shall appoint not less than 2 stewards. If classic and new classes are competing in the same venue at the same time, there will be a minimum of 3 stewards.

All stewards will be of 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.

 

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

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.

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 20                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 21

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

S10 4.29.5 A pilot who did not fly scores zero and is indicated DNF or "Did Not Fly" on the score sheet. A pilot who is disqualified will be indicated DSQ or "Disqualified" on the score sheet.

 

S10  Annex 2, 4.2 SCORE SHEETS

Task score sheets to have column for penalties, and to display DNF or "Did Not Fly" for a pilot who Did Not Fly, and DSQ or "Disqualified" for Disqualified.

 

S10, Annex 3:  1.14.1     GENERAL

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

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 21                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

PROPOSAL 22

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

S10  4.29.1 […]  The Official score sheet must be posted as soon as possible. In the case of the last task, the time limit is 2 hours after the posting of the Provisional score sheet.

Reason

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

Comments from S10 Sub Committee

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

 

Proposal 22                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 23

Proposal from

Jose Luis Esteban, ESP Delegate

Proposal title

Publishing overall and team scores

Existing text

None

New text

S10  New paragraph at the end of 4.29.1

Overall scores will be posted as soon as the provisional scores for the second task are available.

Team scores will be posted as soon as the provisional scores for the first task are available.

Overall scores and team scores will be updated at least:

- When the first provisional scores for a new task are posted.

- When a task scoring goes official or final.

- Once a day if there are changes in provisional scores.

Overall scores will reflect the status of each individual task (provisional, official, final).

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

None at this time

 

 

Comments from CIMA delegates

None at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 23                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED

 

 

PROPOSAL 24

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

S10 4.29.3 The team score shall be computed from the sum of the scores of the top three pilots of each country in each class in each task grouped together in:

- Classes AL1, AL2, WL1, and WL2

- Classes PL1 and PL2

- Class PF

 

S 10  4.29.4 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.

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

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 at this time

 

 

CIMA decision

Proposal 24                 ACCEPTED                              DENIED