Proposals for amendments to FAI Section 10.

This year, 2008, Richard Meredith-Hardy is the coordinating editor for Section 10 and its annexes.

How amendments were submitted

Only CIMA delegates could submit proposals for inclusion here.  Anyone else had to send it via their delegate.  The full list of delegates is on the FAI website.

The amendment scheme was operated as it was done in previous years, all proposals from CIMA delegates were 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 then assembled 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.

A special notice in the Plenary meeting agenda set the deadline for proposals for amendments later than usual at 23:59:59 Monday 20 October 2008 which is now past. You will now have to wait until next year to submit further proposals. 

The period for S10 Sub-committee review is also now past, this is the FINAL set of proposals which formally form part of the agenda for the 2008 CIMA Plenary meeting.

Detailed S10 sub-committee comment is available in www.flymicro.com/cima08/S10_proposals_2009_subcommittee_comment.pdf

This document is also available as a PDF www.flymicro.com/cima08/S10_proposals_2009_v12_final.pdf

Each proposal will be put to the vote in its exact wording at the CIMA Plenary meeting 13 -15 November 2008 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.

Summary of all proposal documents

· This document

 www.flymicro.com/cima08/S10_proposals_2009_v12_final.pdf

· S10 sub committee comment
www.flymicro.com/cima08/S10_proposals_2009_subcommittee_comment.pdf

· Attachment: Automatic kick-stick sensor devices
www.flymicro.com/cima08/Proposed_tests_for_electronic_kicking_stick_sensors_v3.pdf

· Attachment: Addition of three precision tasks for paramotors
www.flymicro.com/cima08/tasks_proposed_by_ESP_v2.pdf

· All four documents are together in
www.flymicro.com/cima08/S10_proposals_2009_all.zip

Changes

• This is the final version. Draft 12  31 October 2008  Addition of S10 subcommittee comment, editorial correction to proposal 2b.
• Draft 11  21 October 2008  Proposals re-ordered and re-numbered according to the layout of S10. (The original proposal numbers are in the “Orig No” column).
• Draft 10  21 October 2008  Addition of proposals 33,34,35,36
• Draft 9  20 October 2008  Amendment to proposal 23
• Draft 8  20 October 2008  Addition of proposal 33
• Draft 7  14 October 2008  Amendment to proposal 10, Addition of proposal 32
• Draft 6  24 September 2008  Deadlines changed. Amendments to proposals 17 & 28    Withdrawal of proposal 27.
• Draft 5  23 September 2008.  Addition of proposals 24, 25,26,27,28,29,30 & 31  Withdrawal of proposal 21
• Draft 4  22 September 2008.  Addition of proposals 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 & 23. Alteration to proposal 10.
• Draft 3  28 August 2008.  Addition of proposals 10, 11 & 12.
• Draft 2  18 August 2008.  Addition of proposal 9 and summary of proposed editorial changes.
• Draft 1 18 August 2008.

Contents

Summary of proposed editorial changes to S10.

Proposals

Proposal	Chapter	Orig No.	Title	From	Affects
1	0	3	Clarification of S10 wording.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	All
2a	1.4	10a	Introduction of a new class of Electrically powered Microlights and Paramotors.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	All
2b	1.5.2	10b	Introduction of a new class of Electrically powered Microlights and Paramotors.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	All
3a	1.5.1	13a	Extension of class names.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	All
3b	1.5.1	13b	Extension of class names.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	All
4	1.5.3	11	Change to the designation of amphibians	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	All
5	2.2.2	4	Amendment to the Ann Welch Diploma.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	All
6	2.3.2	32	Recording of Colibri awards	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	All
7	3.1	15	Female PF1 class in records.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	Paramotors
8	3.8.7	2	Definition of turnpoints in record attempts.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	All
9	3.17.8	8	Alter the rules for the two slalom championship records to fit the new definition of the tasks.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	Paramotors
10a	4.3.2	18a	Championship validity.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	All
10b	4.3.2	18b	Championship validity.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	All
11	4.3.2	25	Change RAL1 championship class validity	Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate	Microlights
12	4.5.3	19	Airfield infrastructure ready during official practice days.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	All
13	4.6.1.1	26	Alteration to what is supplied as part of the entry fee.	Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate	All
14	4.22	33	Promote pilot's navigation planning skills.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	All
15	4.24.3	24	Task proportions in microlights	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	Microlights
16	4.29.1	28	Alteration to the requirements for score sheets.	Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate	All
17	4.29.1	29	Alteration to the way penalties are applied.	Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate	All
18	4.29.1	34	Results deadline.	Márton Ordody, HUN delegate.	All
19	4.29.1	35	Results deadlines to be published on provisional score sheets.	Márton Ordody, HUN delegate.	All
20	4.29.3	17	Team scoring in paramotor classes.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	Paramotors
21	4.30	30	Alteration to complaints deadlines.	Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate	All
22	4.30.1	36	Absolute complaints deadline.	Márton Ordody, HUN delegate.	All
23	4.30.2	31	Alteration to protest deadlines.	Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate	All
24	AN3 1.9.7	20	Deadlines for protests	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	All
25	AN2 5.5	1	Inclusion of some new provisions from the 2008 General Section.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	All
26	AN3 1.4	16	No extra female team member when competition includes PF1f class.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	Paramotors
27	AN3 1.8	14	Female PF1 class in championships.	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	Paramotors
28	AN3 1.14.2	37	Delete penalty for tactical protests.	Márton Ordody, HUN delegate.	All
29a	AN4 3	23a	Addition of three precision tasks for paramotors	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	Paramotors
29b	AN4 3	23b	Addition of three precision tasks for paramotors	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	Paramotors
29c	AN4 3	23c	Addition of three precision tasks for paramotors	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	Paramotors
30a	AN4 3.2.4	12a	Automatic kick-stick sensor devices.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	Paramotors
30b	AN4 3.2.4	12b	Automatic kick-stick sensor devices.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	Paramotors
31	AN4 3B2	9	Revision of the laps task	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	Paramotors
32	AN4 3C2	5	Delete Paramotor task S10 AN 4 3.C2. PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	Paramotors
33	AN4 3C3	6	Delete Paramotor task S10 AN 4 3.C3.FAST / SLOW SPEED  (Original variant).	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	Paramotors
34	AN4 3C4	7	Delete the option of landing markers in PL2 precision tasks.	Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor	Paramotors
35	AN6 8	22	Criteria for track analysis	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate	All
36		21	Withdrawn	José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate
37		27	Withdrawn	Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate

Summary of proposed editorial changes to S10

These are problems which people have spotted in S10 and need changing, but which are considered editorial issues which do not need formal Plenary approval.

1.  S10 AN4 3.C10 FAST / SLOW SPEED

Special rules …In the slow course;…. VP1 should read VP2 … and  … In the fast course; VP2 should read VP1.

Grateful acknowledgement to the Italian team who spotted this anomaly at EPC2008

2.  Erroneous negative sign in task calculations

In tasks:

S10 AN4 2.A1    Curve Navigation with Time Estimation

S10 AN4 2.A2    Precision Navigation

S10 AN4 2.A3    Contract Navigation with Time Controls

The calculation Q = Qh – Qt should read Q = Qh + Qt

In tasks:

S10 AN4 2.A4    Navigation over a known circuit

S10 AN4 2.A5    Navigation with unknown legs

S10 AN4 3.A5    Navigation over a known circuit

S10 AN4 3.A6    Navigation with unknown legs

The calculation  Q = Qh – Qt + Qv should read  Q = Qh + Qt + Qv

Grateful acknowledgement to Jose Luis Esteban who spotted this error.

3.  Move the protest time limits to a more sensible place

S10 4.6.3 INTERNATIONAL JURY

There shall be a nominated jury of 3 persons of different nationalities excluding that of the organisers. The president of the jury shall be appointed by the FAI Microlight Commission. The two other jury members shall be confirmed by the FAI Microlight Commission. The time limits within which a protest may be made and the amount of the fee shall be stated in the local regulations.

Move the struck out part above to a new provision in the Complaints and protests section.

S10 4.30.3 The time limits within which a protest may be made and the amount of the fee shall be stated in the local regulations.

Editor’s note: An equivalent change shall be made to S10 An3 1.4

Grateful acknowledgement to Carlos Trigo who identified this.

PROPOSAL 1

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Proposal title

Clarification of S10 wording.

Existing text

None

New text

INSERT:  S10 Before chapter 1, after ABBREVIATIONS

WORDING

The use of “shall” and “must” implies that the aspect concerned is mandatory; the use of “should” implies a non-mandatory recommendation; “may” indicates what is permitted

and “will” indicates what is going to happen. Words of masculine gender should be taken

as including the feminine gender unless the context indicates otherwise. Italics are used

for explanatory notes.

NOTE  If this proposal is accepted, the S10 Sub-Committee will conduct a full editorial review of S10 to make sure everything complies with this wording in the 2009 edition.

Reason

This text comes directly from the Glossary of terms and Abbreviations in the General Section and represents a useful reminder of what the words  ‘must’, ‘shall’, ’may’, ‘will’, ‘should’ Etc. shall actually mean in S10.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 2

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Introduction of a new class of electrically powered Microlights and Paramotors.

Existing text

S10 1.4 TYPES OF MICROLIGHT AND PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT

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

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

A Paramotor is a powered aircraft which has a wing without any rigid structure and is controlled via movable aerodynamic surfaces and pilot weightshift.

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

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

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

A foot-launched Microlight or Paramotor is an aircraft where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and / or crews legs and is launched on foot without any external assistance during the takeoff run.

Note. According to the General Section of the Sporting code, Microlight and Paramotor Aircraft are defined as class R. To avoid the expression “sub-classes”, which would be the correct definition when dealing with the various classes of aircraft in Section 10, the prefix “sub” has been omitted.

S10 1.5 CLASSES OF MICROLIGHT AND PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT

1.5.1     Organisation of class names.

First character: FAI class	Second character: Type of control system	Third character: Type of landing device	Fourth character: Number of persons
R	A =  Movable Aerodynamic  Control System  W =  Weight-shift Control System P =  Paraglider Control System	L = Landplane S = Seaplane A = Amphibian F = Foot-launched	1 =  Flown solo 2 =  Flown with two persons

S10 1.5.2 Table of Microlight and Paramotor classes

Microlight description	Class name
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Landplane / Flown solo	RAL1
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Landplane / Flown with two persons	RAL2
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Seaplane / Flown solo	RAS1
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Seaplane / Flown with two persons	RAS2
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Amphibian / Flown solo	RAA1
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Amphibian / Flown with two persons	RAA2
Weight-shift Control / Landplane / Flown solo	RWL1
Weight-shift Control / Landplane / Flown with two persons	RWL2
Weight-shift Control / Seaplane / Flown solo	RWS1
Weight-shift Control / Seaplane / Flown with two persons	RWS2
Weight-shift Control / Amphibian / Flown solo	RWA1
Weight-shift Control / Amphibian / Flown with two persons	RWA2
Weight-shift Control / Foot-launched / Flown solo	RWF1
Weight-shift Control / Foot-launched / Flown with two persons	RWF2
Paraglider Control / Foot-launched / Flown solo	RPF1
Paraglider Control / Foot-launched / Flown with two persons	RPF2
Paraglider Control / Landplane / Flown solo	RPL1
Paraglider Control / Landplane / Flown with two persons	RPL2

S10 3.1 SUB CLASSES

Records are open to all aircraft classes listed in 1.5.2

Proposal 2a new text

S10 1.4 TYPES OF MICROLIGHT AND PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT

No change, except INSERT two new paragraphs after: A foot-launched Microlight or Paramotor is....

A thermal powered Microlight or Paramotor is one with an engine that converts thermal energy to mechanical output, typically by burning a hydrocarbon fuel.

An electrically powered Microlight or Paramotor is one powered exclusively by electricity, typically sourced from a battery, fuel cell or photo-voltaic cell.  For the purposes of comparison with other fuel types, the source device shall be considered 'fuel' rather than a 'fuel tank'.

S10 1.5 CLASSES OF MICROLIGHT AND PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT

1.5.1     Organisation of class names.

First character: FAI class	Second character: Type of control system	Third character: Type of landing device	Fourth character: Power source	Fifth character: Number of persons
R	A =  Movable Aerodynamic  Control System  W =  Weight-shift Control System P =  Paraglider Control System	L = Landplane S = Seaplane A = Amphibian F = Foot-launched	E = Electric engine T = Thermal engine	1 =  Flown solo 2 =  Flown with two persons

Add S10 4.13 AIRCRAFT AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

4.13.9  If there is no separate class for aircraft with electric engines there shall be no fuel limit for them in any task.

S10 Editor’s note:  If this proposal is accepted,

S10 1.5.2 Table of Microlight and Paramotor classes shall be amended to include all the new classes.

The text of provision 4.13.9 should be added to S10 AN4 1.9.3

Proposal 2b new text

ALTER  S10 1.5.2

Table of Microlight and Paramotor classes

Aircraft description	Class name
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Landplane / Thermal engine / Flown solo	RALT1
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Landplane / Electric engine / Flown solo	RALE1
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Landplane / Thermal engine / Flown with two persons	RALT2
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Landplane / Electric engine / Flown with two persons	RALE2
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Seaplane / Flown solo	RAS1
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Seaplane / Flown with two persons	RAS2
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Amphibian / Flown solo	RAA1
Movable Aerodynamic Control / Amphibian / Flown with two persons	RAA2
Weight-shift Control / Landplane / Thermal engine / Flown solo	RWLT1
Weight-shift Control / Landplane / Electric engine / Flown solo	RWLE1
Weight-shift Control / Landplane / Thermal engine / Flown with two persons	RWLT2
Weight-shift Control / Landplane / Electric engine / Flown with two persons	RWLE2
Weight-shift Control / Seaplane / Flown solo	RWS1
Weight-shift Control / Seaplane / Flown with two persons	RWS2
Weight-shift Control / Amphibian / Flown solo	RWA1
Weight-shift Control / Amphibian / Flown with two persons	RWA2
Weight-shift Control / Foot-launched / Thermal engine / Flown solo	RWFT1
Weight-shift Control / Foot-launched / Electric engine / Flown solo	RWFE1
Weight-shift Control / Foot-launched / Thermal engine / Flown with two persons	RWFT2
Weight-shift Control / Foot-launched / Electric engine / Flown with two persons	RWFE2
Paraglider Control / Foot-launched / Thermal engine / Flown solo	RPFT1
Paraglider Control / Foot-launched / Electric engine / Flown solo	RPFE1
Paraglider Control / Foot-launched / Thermal engine / Flown with two persons	RPFT2
Paraglider Control / Foot-launched / Electric engine / Flown with two persons	RPFE2
Paraglider Control / Landplane / Thermal engine / Flown solo	RPLT1
Paraglider Control / Landplane / Electric engine / Flown solo	RPLE1
Paraglider Control / Landplane / Thermal engine / Flown with two persons	RPLT2
Paraglider Control / Landplane / Electric engine / Flown with two persons	RPLE2

Reason

The issue of electric engines is fairly urgent given that there are production aircraft coming onto the market right now and it would seem to be the duty of CIMA to encourage these new aircraft by introducing records for them.  It is NOT intended that (initially anyway) there should be separate classes for these aircraft in championships, but instead they should be encouraged to compete alongside their thermal engine powered equivalents.

The simplest way to do this without creating a plethora of exceptions throughout S10 is to approach the problem at its root and add a new character to the definition of class names.  The current consensus seems to be to divide everything into two this year: those with "Electric engines" and the rest, which universally have "thermal engines" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermal_engine so RAL1 becomes RALT1 and the electric variant RALE1

"H" may be reserved for Hybrid which can be introduced as a third option at a later date once everyone is a bit more clear about how one should be defined.

Instead of “Thermal engine” it could be possible to define them as “any other type of engine”.  However, a problem arises with this style of ‘negative description’ when the long form of describing a class is used, eg in S10 1.5.2.  It is much clearer to describe class RALT1 as

Microlight / Aerodynamic control / landplane / thermal engine / flown solo

than

Microlight / Aerodynamic control / landplane / any non-electric engine / flown solo

and if H is introduced, this could become…

Microlight / Aerodynamic control / landplane / any non-electric or hybrid engine / flown solo.

which is getting a bit ridiculous.

The option of just “any engine” is also not a good solution as this creates an “open” element in what is otherwise a precise protocol for defining different types of microlights and paramotors.  It would, for example, allow electrically powered aircraft to fly the limited fuel records in the “any engine” class which is not the intention of making a new ‘electric’ class in the first place.

The provision “For the purposes of comparison….” Is important to prevent the confusion that a battery is considered a “fuel container” which could have unintended consequences under the ‘no changes’ rules S10 An3 1.9.3 when they do not have to carry ‘full fuel’.  This is also in line with various national legislative proposals including the UK deregulated system and the current EAA petition to FAA with regards to FAR 103.

If a battery is ‘fuel’, then without any specific alternative provision, electric powered aircraft must carry the same weight of fuel as any other type of aircraft when limited fuel is required.  LiPo batteries manage about 150Wh/kg x 90% engine efficiency whilst petrol about 13000 Wh/Kg x 20% engine efficiency.  Effectively the comparative energy density is 19:1 or 10Kg of petrol equates to about 190Kg of batteries and they don’t get lighter as they consume fuel either. With this stacked against them, it is believed the only way they can be encouraged to enter championships is by being permitted unlimited fuel in all tasks, hence the proposal to add clause 4.13.9

Proposal 10b suggests to apply the new sub-division of E and T only to Landplanes and Foot launched aircraft.  The reason for this is really because there are hardly any records claimed in the seaplane and amphibian classes (only three of a possible 112 World records, none in Amphibians) so it would seem completely unnecessary to create a proliferation of 112 more of them especially for electric powered seaplanes and amphibians.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  2a Undecided   2b Undecided

2a CIMA decision                                         ACCEPTED                             DENIED

2b CIMA decision                                         ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 3

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Extension of class names.

Existing text

S10 1.5.1 Organisation of class names.

First character: FAI class R

Second character: Type of control system

A = Movable Aerodynamic Control System

W = Weight-shift Control System

P = Paraglider Control System

Third character: Type of landing device

L = Landplane

S = Seaplane

A = Amphibian

Fourth character: Number of persons

F = Foot-launched

1 = Flown solo

2 = Flown with two persons

Proposal 3a new text

Optional additional characters. They are written in lower case in any order.

Crew gender:

f  = all female crew

m = at least one male crew member

no character = all aircraft in the category regardless of gender

Proposal 3b new text

Optional additional characters. They are written in lower case in any order.

Engine type:

t = Thermal, based in a combustion cycle

e = Electric

no character = any kind of engine

Reason

This proposal provides a naming framework for the inclusion of female categories or alternative methods of propulsion.

The use of lower case indicates that the character is not mandatory. It will only be used when it is necessary to make a distinction.

Order in these new characters is not relevant as long as we can use different ones for any further extensions.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  3a Not supported   3b Not supported

3a CIMA decision                                         ACCEPTED                             DENIED

3b CIMA decision                                         ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 4

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Change to the designation of amphibians.

Existing text

S10 1.5 CLASSES OF MICROLIGHT AND PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT

1.5.1     Organisation of class names.

…

A = Amphibian

….

S10 1.5.3

For the purposes of simplification within this document the R is omitted from class names.

New text

S10 1.5 CLASSES OF MICROLIGHT AND PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT

1.5.1     Organisation of class names.

…

M = Amphibian

S10 1.5.3

ADD  A microlight or paramotor class is always one where the full four [five] letter designation is used eg the class Movable Aerodynamic Control / Landplane / [Thermal engine] / Flown solo is class RAL[T]1.  However, where it is convenient to refer to groups of classes it is acceptable to use a subset of the designation, eg AL refers to all types of microlights with Movable Aerodynamic Control and are Landplanes, or P1 refers to all types of Paramotors which are Flown solo.

NO CHANGE  For the purposes of simplification within this document the R is omitted from class names.

NOTE: Items in [square brackets] are dependent on whether the proposal to introduce a new class for electric powered microlights and paramotors is accepted.

Reason

We already refer to groups of classes in this way in the task catalogue and elsewhere eg “PF” and “PL”.  This provision simply formalizes and explains what we already do.

However – in pure form it relies on a unique character being used for every separate designation and currently A is being used to refer to aircraft which have Movable Aerodynamic Control –and- aircraft which are Amphibians.  This proposal therefore recommends a change of designation for Amphibians from A to M.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Undecided

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 5

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Amendment to the Ann Welch Diploma.

Existing text

S10 2.2.2 One Diploma may be awarded each year to the pilot or crew of a Microlight who made the most meritorious flight which resulted in a Microlight World record claim ratified in the previous calendar year.

New text

S10 2.2.2   One Diploma may be awarded each year to the pilot or crew of a Microlight or Paramotor who made the most meritorious flight which resulted in a Microlight or Paramotor World record claim ratified in the calendar year preceding the CIMA meeting.

Reason

Update to S10 to reflect the new 2008 wording in the FAI bye-laws altering ‘previous calendar year’ to ‘the calendar year preceding the CIMA meeting’.

(Note: the S10 editor believes this is what the plenary wanted all along so it is good to see CASI has done it).

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 6

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Recording of Colibri awards

Existing text

S10 2.3.2 Each NAC shall keep a register of badge flights which it has validated, and shall inform FAI of the names of pilots gaining the gold badge until the international total has reached 50. FAI shall keep a register of these names.

New text

S10 2.3.2 Each NAC shall keep a register of badge flights which it has validated, and shall inform FAI of the names of pilots gaining the Gold badge. FAI shall maintain a register of Gold and Diamond awards on its website.

If this proposal is accepted, to complete the list, a request should be sent out by CIMA to all NAC’s for a list of Gold Colibris they have issued since 1990.

Reason

FAI records suggest that Gold Colibri No 50 was awarded in August 1990, this text has therefore been obsolete for 18 years! 

Gold Colibris are nevertheless a prestigious achievement, and as it is likely there are no more than a handful awarded each year it would not be much of a burden for FAI to carry on recording them as they are issued in future, and maintaining this list on the FAI website for the benefit of future generations.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 7

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Female PF1 class in records.

Existing text

S10 3.1 SUB CLASSES

Records are open to all aircraft classes listed in 1.5.2

New text

S10 3.1 SUB CLASSES

Records are open to all aircraft classes listed in 1.5.2 plus PF1f.

Reason

Encouraging female pilots to attempt records.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Not supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 8

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor

Proposal title

Definition of turnpoints in record attempts.

Existing text

None

New text

INSERT:  S10 3.8.7 

A turn point is reached when a photo is taken of the turnpoint from the correct photo sector (S10 5.6.4) or the FR trace is observed to pass through that sector.

Reason

S10 chapter 5 describes the turnpoints to be used in championships and when photography is used, but the turnpoint to be used in closed circuit record attempts is not described anywhere when FR’s are used.

The proposed text uses the standard 90° degree photo sector so the conditions are the same whether the claim is made using FR or photo evidence.  This text originally comes from GS, except ‘Entire aircraft’ is replaced with ‘FR trace’ which removes any ambiguity when the aircraft passes very close to the turnpoint.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 9

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Alter the rules for the two slalom championship records to fit the new definition of the tasks.

Existing text

S10 3.17.8.4 ….The square pattern of the task must not be less than 75m

S10 3.17.8.5 ….The grid pattern of the task must not be less than 50m

New text

ALTER  S10 3.17.8.4

….The square pattern of the task must not be less than:

70.71m for classes PF1 and PL1

100m for classes PF2 and PL2

ALTER  S10 3.17.8.5

….The square pattern of the task must not be less than:

50m for classes PF1 and PL1

70.71m for classes PF2 and PL2

NOTE:  As the rules for the tasks have changed, all existing records must be retired and entirely new ones established.

NOTE:  The Championship record claim form should be amended to match the new rules.

Reason

The grid size in these tasks was changed on 1 Jan 2008 but the rules for championship records in them were not, so currently it is impossible to get a championship record in any of them except for classes PF1 and PL1 in the Japanese slalom.

This is an alteration to the rules for championship records so it is again possible to claim one.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 10

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Championship validity

Existing text

S10 4.3.2 For a World or Continental Championship to be valid there must be competitors from no less than 4 countries in a class, with entry fees paid.

S10 AN3 1.8.1    CLASS VIABILITY (S10 4.3.2)

For the championships to be valid there must be competitors from no less than 4 countries in a class, with entry fees paid.

Proposal 10a new text

S10 4.3.2 For a World or Continental Championship to be valid there must be competitors from no less than 4 countries in a class, ready to fly the first task.

S10 AN3 1.8.1    CLASS VIABILITY (S10 4.3.2)

For the championships to be valid there must be competitors from no less than 4 countries in a class, ready to fly the first task.

Proposal 10b new text

S10 4.3.2 For a World or Continental Championship to be valid there must be competitors from no less than 4 countries in a class, who fly the first task.

S10 AN3 1.8.1    CLASS VIABILITY (S10 4.3.2)

For the championships to be valid there must be competitors from no less than 4 countries in a class, who fly the first task.

Reason

During last European championship, classes PF1 and PF2 had to be grouped for team prize, and the vast majority of teams didn't like the idea. The only possibility to have different a team prize so some teams entered fake crews, although they paid for their entry fees.

That was done according to the rules, but that's not the spirit of the rules

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  10a Supported   10b Not supported

10a CIMA decision                                      ACCEPTED                             DENIED

10b CIMA decision                                      ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 11

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate.

Proposal title

Change RAL1 championship class validity.

Existing text

S10 4.3.2  For a World or Continental Championship to be valid there must be competitors from no less than 4 countries in a class, with entry fees paid.

New text

S10 4.3.2 For a World or Continental Championship to be valid there must be competitors from no less than 4 countries in a class, with entry fees paid, except in Class RAL1, which is valid with a minimum of 5 competitors from no less than 3 countries.

Editor’s note: If this is accepted an equivalent change shall be made to S10 An3 1.8.1

Reason

I am not that in favour of this change, but I feel that this discussion should be done, in order to “save” (or not) the single-seater 3-axis class.

At Leszno, 2 pilots who had already paid their fee just quitted the championship the day before the beginning, when they realized there were not competitors from 4 countries

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Not supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 12

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Airfield infrastructure ready during official practice days.

Existing text

S10 4.5.3 An official practice period of not less than 2 and not more than 5 days immediately preceding the opening of the Championships shall be made available to all competitors. If practicable, on at least one practice day a set task should be flown under competition conditions to test the integrity of the organisation. The scores thus generated shall not be counted.

New text

Add to S10 4.5.3

All the infrastructure for the competition (camping, maps, offices, scoring...) shall be ready for the first day of the official practice period.

Add new paragraph S10 4.6.1.3

Teams wishing to take advantage of the official practice period shall be able to register and get all items mentioned in 4.6.1.1 at least the day before the first official practice starts.

Reason

During a number of recent championships, the infrastructure was only ready for the first competition day, not during the training days, ruining the whole purpose of the official training period. An effort must be made to encourage organizers to take advantage of having some practice days. Therefore, registration must start at least the day before.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 13

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate.

Proposal title

Alteration to what is supplied as part of the entry fee.

Existing text

4.6.1.1 ENTRY FEE

As a minimum the following should be included in the entry fee:

- Use of airfield and task area during the event.

- One copy of official competition map for each pilot and team leader.

- One film for each cross-country task.

- Contest numbers, identity badges, Opening and Closing Ceremonies, and all championship information.

New text

4.6.1.1 ENTRY FEE

As a minimum the following should be included in the entry fee:

- Use of airfield and task area during the event.

- One copy of official competition map for each pilot and team leader.

Delete: - One film for each cross-country task.

- Contest numbers, identity badges, Opening and Closing Ceremonies, and all championship information.

Editor’s note: If this is accepted an equivalent change shall be made to S10 An3 1.4

Reason

The deleted phrase was “One film for each cross-country task”, which everybody knows is now obsolete.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 14

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Promote pilot's navigation planning skills.

Existing text

None

New text

S10 4.22 EXTERNAL AID TO COMPETITORS

Addition of:

4.22.3 Pilots must be qualified for flight planning in navigation or economy tasks. Competition directors are encouraged to run some of the navigation or economy tasks in a way that pilots must prepare their flight plans individually.

Reason

It is obvious that pilots must be qualified for flight planning in navigation or economy tasks. On one hand, it is not a bad thing to have experts in a team who can use their skills and technology to create good flight plans for their team. This promotes the improvement of flight planning by applying the best possible methods and technology. But, on the other hand, this makes impossible to know whether a certain pilot can produce a good flight plan or not.

Individual flight planning skills must have an influence in the pilot's score, and the only way to achieve this is to give pilots the relevant task information in quarantine conditions, so that they have to prepare their flight plans individually with limited time.

It is up to the competition director to find the right balance between team planning and individual planning, and to decide in which tasks this should be applied.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 15

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Task proportions in microlights

Existing text

S10 4.24.3 Tasks should, as far as practicable, conform to the following guidelines in standard championships:
For Microlight aircraft classes AL, WL and WF
A Tasks for flight planning, navigation, etc with no fuel limit: 50% of the total value of the tasks flown.
B Tasks for fuel economy, speed, duration, etc with limited fuel: 20% of the total value of the tasks flown.
C Precision tasks: 30% of the total value of the tasks flown.

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: 55% 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: 15% of the total value of the tasks flown.

Reason

In 2006 the tasks proportions were 50 / 25 / 25 measured by number of tasks.
In 2007 (CIMA06) proportions were changed to 50 / 20 / 30 measured by total task points.

The effect is summarised in the following table:

		Nav	Eco	Pre
2006	Tasks	50%	25%	25%
	Points	62%	31%	8%
2007	Tasks	26%	11%	63%
	Points	50%	20%	30%

There was a decrease of 47% in navigation tasks, a decrease of 58% in economy tasks and an increase of 153% in precision tasks.
Or, a decrease of 19% in navigation points, a decrease of 35% in economy points, and an increase of 290% in precision points.

As an example, in order to comply with this rule, a championship with 12 tasks should have:

3 navigation tasks

1 economy task

8 precision tasks

Did any of the championships in 2007 or 2008 achieve the new proportions?
In any case, is that what we really want?

With this proposal, the task distribution in a championship with 12 tasks would be:

4 or 5 navigation tasks

3 or 2 economy tasks

5 precision tasks

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 16

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate.

Proposal title

Alteration to the requirements for 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, 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.

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, 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 answered by the Director. Scores may not be altered when the Provisional sheet is made Official.

Editor’s note: If this is accepted an equivalent change shall be made to S10 An3 1.14.1

Reason

The task description has never been put in a score sheet and it’s not necessary. This

deletion is needed because some Team Leader(s) could complaint (and have

already complained) about that.

Adding “answered by the Director” makes it clearer, because there has been some

confusion about what means “addressed”, and makes it consistent with the last sentence

of paragraph 4.30.1

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 17

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate.

Proposal title

Alteration to the way penalties are applied

Existing text

S10 4.29.8 Deduction of penalty points for a task shall be made after scoring is completed.

New text

S10 4.29.1 

4.29.8 Deduction of penalty points for a task shall be made after the scoring calculations by the task formula is completed, but before normalization.

Editor’s note: If this is accepted an equivalent change shall be made to S10 An3 1.14.1

Reason

Some change must be made to this paragraph, because there has been some confusion about the mathematical procedure when applying penalties. Shall the deduction be made after or before the 1000 points relativization?

Mathematically, it is indifferent for all competitors except for the one placed first in the task.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Undecided

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 18

Proposal from

Márton Ordody, HUN delegate.

Proposal title

Results deadline.

Existing text

None

New text

S10 4.29.1

Add to the end of the provision:

If a task’s official result cannot be published within 24 hours of the last competitor landing in the task then the task shall be cancelled.

Reason

It happened many times on the competitions of the last few years, but particularly in 2008, that the participants till days didn’t know the results of the tasks those they completed some days ago. This rule could help to stop the long process of complaints.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Not supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 19

Proposal from

Márton Ordody, HUN delegate.

Proposal title

Results deadlines to be published on provisional score sheets.

Existing text

S10 4.29.1

[…]

The Provisional Score sheet must be posted within 6 hours after finishing the task. The Official score sheet must be posted as soon as possible thereafter. In the case of the last task, the time limit is 2 hours after the posting of the Provisional score sheet.

[…]

New text

S10 4.29.1

[…]

The last landing, complaint, protest times shall be published on the provisional score sheet in order to make it possible for the official result to be published within 24 hours of the last landing.

[…]

Reason

At the time of the first temporary result publishing the organizers should inform the participants about the time of the last landing in the given task too.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Not supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 20

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Team scoring in paramotor classes

Existing 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

- Class PF1

- Class PF2

- Class PL1

- Class PL2

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

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

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

S10 AN3 3.4.1    ALL TASKS

[...]

The paramotor team prize is computed from the sum of the scores of the top three pilots of each country in each class in each task grouped together in:

- Class PF1

- Class PF2

- Class PL1

- Class PL2

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

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

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

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

- Each valid paramotor class which has a minimum of 8 pilots.

S10 AN3 3.4.1    ALL TASKS

[...]

The paramotor team prize is computed from the sum of the scores of the top three pilots of each country in each task in each valid class which has minimum of 8 pilots.

Reason

During last European championship, classes PF1 and PF2 had to be grouped for team prize, and the vast majority of teams didn't like the idea (although eventually, PF2 had its own team prize).

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 21

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate.

Proposal title

Alteration to complaints deadlines

Existing text

S10 4.30 COMPLAINTS AND PROTESTS (Ref. GS, Chapter 5)

4.30.1 A competitor who is dissatisfied on any matter may, through his team leader, make a complaint in writing to the Director. Complaints shall be made and dealt with without delay. A complaint that could effect a task result, must be dealt with and answered in writing before any Official score sheet is issued.

4.30.2 If the competitor is dissatisfied with the decision, the Team Leader may make a protest to the Director in writing, within the time limits stated in the Local Regulations and accompanied by the protest fee. The fee is returnable if the protest is upheld or withdrawn before the start of the proceedings. A protest may be made only against a decision of the Championship Director.

New text

S10 4.30 COMPLAINTS AND PROTESTS (Ref. GS, Chapter 5)

4.30.1 A competitor who is dissatisfied on any matter may, through his team leader, make a complaint in writing to the Director.

4.30.1.1 Complaints must be presented not later than 6 hours after the respective Provisional Score sheet has been published, not counting the time between 22:00 and 07:00, except for the tasks of the last competition day, or for Provisional Score sheets published on or after the last competition day, when the time limit is 2 hours

4.30.1.2 Complaints shall be made and dealt with without delay. A complaint that could effect a task result, must be dealt with and answered in writing before any Official score sheet is issued.

Editor’s note: If this is accepted an equivalent change shall be made to S10 An3 1.9.7

Reason

There has been, in all past Championships, lots of discussion about this limit, and sometimes it is not even stated on the Local Regulations.

This time rule would end all discussion about this subject, and all Team Leaders would know what to do, or better, when to deal with Complaints in future Championships.

Further, Directors and Scorers will get used to a fixed time limit to receive Complaints, which will turn Scoring smoother.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 22

Proposal from

Márton Ordody, HUN delegate.

Proposal title

Absolute complaints deadline.

Existing text

S10 4.30.1

A competitor who is dissatisfied on any matter may, through his team leader, make a complaint in writing to the Director. Complaints shall be made and dealt with without delay. A complaint that could effect a task result, must be dealt with and answered in writing before any Official score sheet is issued.

New text

S10 4.30.1

A competitor who is dissatisfied on any matter may, through his team leader, make a complaint in writing to the Director. There shall be a single deadline for complaints defined in the first provisional score sheet and all complaints shall be made and dealt with without delay. A complaint that could effect a task result, must be dealt with and answered in writing before any Official score sheet is issued.

Reason

This rule promotes that the teamleaders and the competitors do their work with due foresight, moreover it prevents from producing new complaints from the previous ones.

With this rule it is impossible to have 8 temporary results (the acceptance of the complaint produced a new complaint).

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Not supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 23

Proposal from

Carlos Trigo, PRT delegate.

Proposal title

Alteration to protest deadlines

Existing text

S10 4.30.2

If the competitor is dissatisfied with the decision, the Team Leader may make a protest to the Director in writing, within the time limits stated in the Local Regulations and accompanied by the protest fee. The fee is returnable if the protest is upheld or withdrawn before the start of the proceedings. A protest may be made only against a decision of the Championship Director.

New text

4.30.2

If the competitor is dissatisfied with the decision about its Complaint, the Team Leader may make a protest to the Director in writing and accompanied by the protest fee. The fee is returnable if the protest is upheld or withdrawn before the start of the proceedings. A protest may be made only against a decision of the Championship Director.

4.30.2.1

A protest must be presented not later than 6 hours after the respective Official score sheet has been published, except for the tasks of the last competition day, or for Official Score sheets published on or after the last competition day, when the time limit is 2 hours. The night time between 22:00 and 07:00 is never included.

Editor’s note: If this is accepted an equivalent change shall be made to S10 An3 1.9.7

Reason

Same reasons as for my proposal about complaints deadlines, putting it in main Section 10 instead of leaving that for the Local regulations

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 24

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Deadlines for protests

Existing text

S10 AN3 1.9.7     COMPLAINTS AND PROTESTS

[...]

A complaint that could effect a task result must be dealt with and answered in writing before any official score sheet is issued.

If the competitor is dissatisfied with the decision, the Team Leader may make a protest to the director in writing within 12 hours of an OFFICIAL score sheet being issued, or two hours in the case of the last contest task. The protest fee is .......... USD (S10 4.30)

New text

S10 AN3 1.9.7     COMPLAINTS AND PROTESTS

[...]

A complaint that could effect a task result must be dealt with and answered in writing before any official score sheet is issued.

If the competitor is dissatisfied with the decision, the Team Leader may make a protest to the director in writing within 12 hours of an OFFICIAL score sheet being issued. or two hours in the case of the last contest task.

In any case, the latest deadline for protests must be 6 hours before the start of the closing ceremony. The competition director will establish the proper schedule to run the tasks and to issue their provisional and official scorings giving reasonable periods for complaints and protests.

The protest fee is .......... USD (S10 4.30)

Reason

During a number of championships, the deadlines for protests were too close to the closing ceremony. So it is not strange to see the closing ceremony delayed for many hours. There must be a minimum time for the jury to deal with any proposals, not only from the last task, but also from previous ones, whose deadlines may go beyond the current 2 hour limit.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Not supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 25

Proposal title

Inclusion of some new provisions from the 2008 General Section.

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA S10 Editor.

Existing text

S10  AN2  5.5 CHAMPIONSHIPS REPORT

A final report giving results of the championships, with note of any protests or problems must be sent to FAI, the Organiser's NAC and the Microlight Commission President within 48 hours of the end of the event.

S10 AN5 3.3

…The jury is required to report to FAI and the CIMA President on the meeting, including information on protests and any special problems.

New text

S10 An2  5.5 CHAMPIONSHIPS REPORT

The officially accepted entry list and results of a First Category Event shall be sent electronically to the FAI Secretariat if possible before the prize-giving and in any case within 24 hours of the end of the event. (GS 3.16.2.1)

The results of any FAI air sport event shall be given in writing to the host NAC, all competitors and the NACs they represent and for First Category Events to the FAI Secretariat without delay. (GS 3.16.2.2)

S10 An5 3.3

…The jury is required to report to FAI and the CIMA President on the meeting, including information on protests and any special problems.

INSERT For First Category Events, the FAI Secretariat shall be advised by the President of the Jury, within a maximum of eight days of the end of the event, of the number of protests made, together with the numbers of protests withdrawn, upheld or failed, and the respective Jury decisions. (GS 3.16.2.3)

Reasons

Three new provisions from the 2008 FAI General Section are included in S10 in place, or in addition to the text already in S10 AN2 and S10 AN5

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 26

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

No extra female team member when competition includes PF1f class

Existing text

S10 AN3 1.4     ENTRY

The Championships are open to all Active Member and Associate Member countries of FAI who may enter ..... (put number) pilots plus one all-female crew (no more) in each classic class and ........... (put number) pilots plus one all-female crew (no more) in the PF & PL classes, plus one wheelchair bound pilot in class PL1

New text

Add to S10 AN3 1.4     ENTRY

When there is a PF1f class in competition the provision about an extra female crew does not apply to PF1 class.

Reason

The extra female member in a team is not necessary when there is a PF1f class is a competition.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 27

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Female PF1 class in championships.

Existing text

S10 AN3 1.8    CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSES

The Championships may be held in the following classes (S10 1.5):

WL1, WL2, AL1, AL2, PF1, PF2, PL1 and PL2

New text

S10 AN3 1.8    CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSES

The Championships may be held in the following classes (S10 1.5):

WL1, WL2, AL1, AL2, PF1, PF1m, PF1f, PF2, PL1 and PL2

Reason

Observation:

A championship organizer could create a PF1m + PF1f competition (male and female) or a PF1 + PF1m competition (absolute and female).

· There are good female pilots, but not all of them are as good as the best male pilots in each team, so

o the probability for a girl to win a medal in PF1 is low,

o and the possibility of adding points to the team scoring is not quite relevant.

· Therefore, the teams are not encouraged to include female pilots because they won't get better individual or team results.

· Having a female class would open the possibility for a team to win another individual medal (and even a team medal), so the investment in female participation is more likely to have a revenue.

· This option will possibly help breaking some critical mass limit which prevents females to participate in PF1.

· This applies only to PF1, where the difference between a man and a woman during take-off is quite relevant. There are female categories in hang gliding and paragliding, where the differences are less relevant. In our current rules, if a woman flies paragliders she can compete in a female class. But when she carries 35 additional Kg on her back, then she must compete with men.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Not supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 28

Proposal from

Márton Ordody, HUN delegate.

Proposal title

Delete penalty for tactical protests.

Existing text

S10 An3 1.14.2 PENALTIES

In general, any infringement of any flying, safety or task regulation will result in penalty.

Actions which will normally result in disqualification:

a. Bringing the event, its organisers, the FAI or the sporting code into disrepute. The use of hostile 'tactical protests' falls into this category.

[…]

New text

S10 An3 1.14.2 PENALTIES

In general, any infringement of any flying, safety or task regulation will result in penalty.

Actions which will normally result in disqualification:

a. Bringing the event, its organisers, the FAI or the sporting code into disrepute. The use of hostile 'tactical protests' falls into this category.

[…]

Reason

I suggest to cancel that – I think hypocritical – rule which prohibits to make a tactical protest, so I can not do anything even if one of my enemy/opponent obviously wrongly gets points. (For example I see vainly on the official video that a landing was false, I can not do anything if this participant in spite of his fault got the points, as it happened many times)

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Undecided

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 29

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Addition of three precision tasks for paramotors

Existing text

None

Proposal 29a new text

Insert into S10 An4 part 3:

Round the Triangle. See description in www.flymicro.com/cima08/tasks_proposed_by_ESP_v2.pdf

Proposal 29b new text

Insert into S10 An4 part 3:

The Eight. See description in www.flymicro.com/cima08/tasks_proposed_by_ESP_v2.pdf

Proposal 29c new text

Insert into S10 An4 part 3:

Bowling landing. See description in www.flymicro.com/cima08/tasks_proposed_by_ESP_v2.pdf

Reason

The proposed tasks have been tested during championships with international competitors and the pilots have enjoyed them. The marshalling complexity is similar to other ground tasks.

23c is an alternative to the current precision landing. Pins are easy for the public to watch. Classic targets aren't. Pilots who have tried this have enjoyed the task. Simple pins are easy to build from broom sticks covered with foam tubes (those used by children for swimming) and attached to a stable base. Alternatively, a mechanism similar to current kicking sticks can also be used and sensors can be attached to them. The low cost version is to use traffic cones.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  29a Supported   29b Supported   29c Supported

29a CIMA decision                                      ACCEPTED                             DENIED

29b CIMA decision                                      ACCEPTED                             DENIED

29c CIMA decision                                      ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 30

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Automatic Kick-stick sensor devices.

30a Existing text

None

20a New text

Proposed tests for electronic kicking stick sensors: see attachment http://www.flymicro.com/cima08/Proposed_tests_for_electronic_kicking_stick_sensors_v3.pdf

NOTE: It is proposed that the tests are inserted into a renamed S10 Annex 6 “GNSS Flight Recorders and other electronic devices”.  The exact method of insertion is at the discretion of the S10 Editor.  Current version of proposed tests is draft 3, 28 Aug 2008.

30b Existing text

S10 AN4 3.2.4 FLIGHT ACCURACY MEASUREMENT

…

Kick sticks - Some tasks may involve the use of "Kicking sticks". A valid strike on a stick is one where the pilot or any part of the PF has been clearly observed to touch it.

30b New text

S10 AN3 3.2.4 FLIGHT ACCURACY MEASUREMENT

…

Kick sticks - Some tasks may involve the use of "Kicking sticks". A valid strike on a stick is one where the pilot or any part of the PF has been clearly observed to touch it OR when electronic ‘kick stick’ sensors which have been shown to meet the standard tests are used, a valid strike is one which is recorded by the device.

NOTE: If this provision is accepted some changes to S10 AN4 Task Catalogue are also required to match the proposed new ‘valid strike’ requirement.

Reason

If we are to use electronic devices to record a kicked stick, there must be some new definition of what a ‘kicked stick’ is beyond one which is simply ‘observed to touch it’ or the possibility that electronic timing could be used without a manual backup can never exist,

To establish what a ‘kicked stick’ is when recorded electronically, it is proposed to introduce some standard tests which define sensitivity and ensure that other common problems don’t arise.  These are proposed in the attachment, and that they should be placed in a renamed Annex 6 to S10.

A system called ElectroKick  was used successfully at EPC 2008, in other words it is a system which is known to work to a standard we need.  These proposed tests have been created in consultation with ElectroKick and it is known that the ElectroKick system easily and reliably passes the tests. 

Although the primary purpose of the tests is so other manufacturers understand the requirement and can make their own systems, they are also designed to be so simple that any system can be quickly demonstrated to be compliant with the standard at any time, eg before they are used in a task.

Note that a “Standard FIS ski slalom pole” is quoted.  This is not as scary as it sounds as it is thought that every commercially available ski-slalom pole is probably made to this standard which carefully defines weight, dimensions, rebound characteristics Etc.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  30a Supported   30b Supported

30a CIMA decision                                      ACCEPTED                             DENIED

30b CIMA decision                                      ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 31

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate.

Proposal title

Revision of the laps task.

Existing text

3.B2     ECONOMY & DISTANCE

Objective

To take off from the deck with a given quantity of fuel, fly as many laps as possible around a course not exceeding 1Km in length and land on another deck.

Special rules

-           Pilots must not exceed 200ft height at any time, or 30ft whilst rounding pylons.

-           Exceeding the height limitations or failure to round a pylon does not score that lap.

-           If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the task and takes off again, score zero.

-           Failure to land in the landing deck: 20% penalty.

Scoring

Pilot score =  

Where:            

Lp = The number of whole laps completed by the pilot

Lmax = The maximum number of whole laps achieved in the task.

New text

ALTER  S10 An3 3.B2

3.B2     ECONOMY & DISTANCE

Objective

To take off from the deck with a given quantity of fuel, fly as many sections as possible around a course of one or more sections and land in a landing deck.

Description

Each section must be approximately 1Km in length and must contain a landing deck.  Lines of no return are arranged to prevent aircraft flying in the reverse direction to the general flow of traffic.

Special rules

-           Pilots must not exceed 200ft height at any time.

-           Exceeding the height limitations or failure of the complete aircraft to round a pylon does not score that section.

-           Pilots should overtake on the outside of the course, they may overtake on the inside but will not score that section if the manoeuvre is considered to be overly aggressive.

-           If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the task and takes off again, score zero.

-           Flying back across a ‘line of no return’ score zero.

-           Failure to land in a landing deck: 20% penalty.

Scoring

Pilot score =   

Where:            

Lp = The number of whole sections completed by the pilot

Lmax = The maximum number of whole sections achieved in the task.

Reason

This amendment only changes one thing, the requirement to pass pylons at 10m is removed which was tried at EPC2008 and considered a good improvement.  Otherwise the task is identical, but described in the form it is usually implemented as it will accommodate many more aircraft simultaneously (about 40 with 3 sections) than the original description. (about 8 with one ‘lap’) and doesn’t present overtaking problems.

Comments please about overtaking.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 32

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Delete Paramotor task 3.C2. PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME

Existing text

3.C2.    PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME

Objective

To strike a number of targets laid out in a given order in the shortest possible time and return to the deck.

Description

8 targets 2m in height are laid out 50M apart in two arrays.  The first array has 4 targets in a straight line, the second array has 4 targets in a slalom. 

A further target is placed 50M behind target 10 to serve as a pylon which must be flown round (by the body of the pilot) before target 10 is struck.

Special rules

- A valid strike on a target is one where the pilot or any part of the paramotor has been clearly observed to touch it.

- To count as a strike, target No. 9, the pylon, must be rounded in a CLOCKWISE direction.

- A strike on target 1 starts the clock, a strike on target 10 stops the clock.

- Pilots may have only one attempt at striking each target except for the first and last targets where three attempts at each are permitted. 

- Failure to strike the first or last target or touch the ground at any point between them: score zero.

Scoring

N     =   number of targets

T     =   time from first to last target

Q     =   N^3 / T

Pq   =   500 * Q / Qmax

Ps   =   500 – 30 * (T – Tpmin).    Minimum Ps = 0;  if N < 9, Ps = 0.

P     =   Pq + Ps

New text

DELETE entire provision. S10 AN4 3.C2. PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME

RENUMBER S10 ANNEX 4 – PART 3, PARAMOTORS

DELETE entire provision: S10, Championship records: 3.17.8.3 PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME ('Classical slalom')

RENUMBER S10, 3.17 Championship records.

Reason

Although this is a great task, it requires a huge area (around 3Ha) and is not an easy task to turn around if there is a wind-shift.  Since the other slalom tasks have been in the catalogue it has not been used in international championships (last time was WAG 2001?) and is therefore effectively obsolete and should be deleted from the task catalogue.

No championship record has ever been established in this task so there are no complications with retiring the record.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 33

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Delete Paramotor task S10 AN 4 3.C3.    FAST / SLOW SPEED  (Original variant).

Existing text

S10 AN 4 3.C3. FAST / SLOW SPEED

Objective

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

Description

A straight course of between 250m and 500m long and 25m wide is laid out approximately into wind with gates at each end.

The course shall be flown twice.  The order will be briefed (fast then slow or slow then fast).

The pilot makes a timed pass along the course, returns to the start, and makes a second timed pass in the same direction. 

There may be two courses but they must be of equal dimensions and orientation and separated by at least 200m flying distance.

Special rules

- For each course, 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 fast course: VP1 = zero and EP = zero

- If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the slow course: 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 course is 5 minutes.

Scoring

Pilot score = 

Where:

Vmax  = The highest speed achieved in the fast course, in Km/H

Vp1  = The speed of the pilot in Km/H in the fast course

Vmin  = The lowest speed achieved in the slow course, in Km/H

Vp2  = The speed of the pilot in Km/H in the slow course

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

DELETE entire provision. S10 AN 4 3.C3.  FAST / SLOW SPEED

RENUMBER S10 ANNEX 4 – PART 3, PARAMOTORS

Reason

This task has never been used since the variant S10 AN 4 3.C10 using 4 sticks to control pilot height was introduced and which is considered to be much a better form of the task.

The task is therefore effectively obsolete and should be deleted from the task catalogue.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 34

Proposal from

Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor.

Proposal title

Delete the option of landing markers in PL2 precision tasks.

Existing text

S10 AN4 task 3.C4: For class PL2 landing markers may replace sticks.

S10 AN4 task 3.C7: For class PL2 the target T may be replaced with a landing marker.

S10 AN4 task 3.C9: (landing markers for class PL2).

New text

DELETE the three lines above.

Reason

It was thought that there might be safety implications with PL2’s kicking sticks so the championship director was given the option of replacing them with landing markers.  This has been shown to be unfounded in at least the last two championships. 

This proposal simply tidies up the task catalogue to reflect current practice.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 35

Proposal from

José Luis Esteban, ESP delegate.

Proposal title

Criteria for track analysis

Existing text

S10 AN6 8 DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR FLIGHT ANALYSIS.
Designers of track analysis programs and their users should follow these guidelines.

S10 AN6 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.

S10 AN6 8.6 Timing in turn-points
One of the segments that crosses the scoring zone 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.

New text

S10 AN6 8 DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR FLIGHT ANALYSIS.

This guidelines are written to establish common criteria for track analysis in microlight and paramotor championships.

Add to both

S10 AN6 8.4 Timing in gates

S10 AN6 8.6 Timing in turn-points

The logging period (P) applied above must be the maximum allowed, regardless of the specific logging period used by an individual competitor, to avoid random advantage of some pilots over others. P is currently 5 seconds (see 2.1.1.3)

Reason

There must be a common body of criteria for track analysis. It is reasonable to discuss them in CIMA but not during a championship.
Part a: After a number of years, these criteria have proven to be reliable, so the word should is deleted so that must is effective in the places where it appears.
Part b: The introduction of new loggers with different logging periods can create a problem with the rule in 8.4 and 8.6, so the maximum allowed value is applied.

S10 Sub-committee opinion:  Supported

CIMA decision                                               ACCEPTED                             DENIED

PROPOSAL 36

Withdrawn and moved to editorial change 2.

PROPOSAL 37

Withdrawn and moved to editorial change 3.