FAI Hang Gliding
& Paragliding Commission (CIVL)
MINUTES - CIVL Plenary
Meeting,
Lausanne 22nd - 23th February 2002
Agenda for 2002 CIVL Meeting, Lausanne, Switzerland
Timetable
Following the last year recommendation, the Bureau decided to run the Sub-Committees and Working Groups workshops before the Plenary session. In addition the meeting room is not available on Sunday therefore the schedule is the following:
Plenary session from 09.00 on Friday 22/02/2002 to 18.00 on Saturday 23/23/2002
Sub committees and Working Groups workshops on Thursday 21/02/2002
Each Chairman will produce a written report to be distributed to the Plenary.
This year we have enough Juries and Stewards who have been following the training sessions so no training session will be hold this year.
Note: You are kindly invited to appoint experts in the various sub-committees and working groups which are going to meet on Thursday. Unless they are delegate or alternate, the attendance of these experts is not necessarily needed during the Plenary meeting.
It is recommended to read carefully the attached (Draft 2): Guide lines for sub committees and working groups.
Agenda (Index)
- Opening of the meeting
- Roll call, apologies and proxies: number of votes
- Approval of the Agenda
- CIVL Internal Rules modification § 3.9 (Draft 1)
- Approval of the minutes of last meeting available on the Website
- Report of CIVL President
- Report of FAI Secretary General
- Review of the 2001 WAG. The complete Jury Presidents’ reports are available on the website. Riikka Vilkuna will report for Algodonales, Leonard Gregorescu will report for Sierra Nevada. Olivier Burghelle will report for the overall WAG including the Sanction fees problem: (Draft 3)
- Selection procedures to enter a Cat 1 event. Paula Bowyer
- Necessary Glider documentation reminder of Section 7 rule Olivier Burghelle
- HG Sub committee report and proposal ( Draft 4) Dennis Pagen
- PG Sub committee report and Proposal ( Draft 5) Xavier Murillo
- Accuracy and environment reports: Riikka Vilkuna.
- Flight verification sub committee report and proposal ( Draft 6) Fred Escriba
- Safety & training sub committee report and proposal ( Draft 7) Klaus Tänzler
- WPRS HG Working group report and proposal (Draft 8) Michael Zupanc
- WPRS PG Working Group report and proposal (Draft 9) Paula Bowyer
- Class definition working group report and proposal (Draft 10 ) Dennis Pagen
- Aerobatics Working Group report and proposal (Draft 11 ) No Chair at present
- Section 7 sub committee report and proposal ( Draft 12) Michael Zupanc
- Presentation of bids: (Draft 13)
- Waiver
- Selection criteria for hosting of category events (Draft 14)
- Future of the WAG: Olivier Burghelle
- Treasurer report and Budget
- Diplomas and medals: No nomination have been received at present
- THK Proposal to create a new FAI medal
- Elections
- Dates and venue of the Next meeting
- President closing remarks
Note : Drafts provided
- Draft 1 Amendment to the CIVL Internal Rules
- Draft 2 Guide lines for Sub committees and Working groups
- Draft 3 New procedure for payment of Sanction fees
- Draft 4 HG Competition Sub committee
- Draft 5 PG Competition Sub committee
- Draft 6 Flight verification sub committee
- Draft 7 Safety & Training Sub committee
- Draft 8 WPRS HG Working group
- Draft 9 WPRS PG Working group
- Draft 10 Class definition Working group
- Draft 11 Aerobatics Working group
- Draft 12 Section 7 Sub committee
- Draft 13 Presentation of bids
- Draft 14 Selection criteria for hosting of cat 1 events
- Accuracy rules 02
- THK_medal_proposal
- 2001 Bureau minutes
Draft 1
Amendment to the CIVL Internal Rules
Paragraph 3.9 of the CIVL Internal Regulation reads:
Postal voting is not permitted. Voting shall take
place either by a show of hands or a secret vote. A vote shall be secret if
requested by one Delegate. When a secret vote takes place
1) any ballot paper marked so that the source can be identified shall be
considered invalid
2) any unmarked ballot paper shall be counted as an abstention.
Except as provided by 5 1.7, 3.7.2 and 7.4 decisions shall be taken on a
simple majority vote of the Delegates present or represented by proxy. In
the event of a tie in two successive votes (excluding abstentions) the
President shall cast a deciding vote without appeal.
The underline sentence means that an abstention is counted as a negative vote which is usually not the intention of a delegate when he abstains.
So it its proposed to replace the underlined sentence by the following:
Decisions will be taken on a simple majority of votes cast. For the purpose of this vote, an abstention is not counted as a vote cast.
In addition the
references above concern the votes that need a 2/3 majority and obviously there
are some typo. Actually this paragraph should read :
§ 1.7 , 3.7.2
As it is a modification of the internal Regulations to be accepted it requires a 2/3 majority vote according to:
1.7. Amendments to the internal regulations.
Amendments to the internal regulations requires a 2/3
majority in the CIVL plenary meeting.
Draft 2
Guide lines for Sub-Committees and Working Groups
The Chairman is appointed by the President
Members: The members after consulting the Chairman join the Subcommittee / Working Group of their own wish. The chairman may restrict number of members to 7 + himself.
There will be a maximum of 2 representatives per country in each SC / WG
Each Country has only one vote in the SC / WG
The SC / WG should take care of urgent matters communicated by the President and prepare paper for submission to the Plenary.
The chairman has to prepare an agenda and make a written report to the CIVL Plenary including Decisions and recommendations.
All Technical SC / WG decisions and recommendations are subject to approval by the CIVL Plenary
It is recommended to
announce the results of the votes.
The Chairman will present
his report to the Plenary
Draft 3
New procedure for payment of the sanction fee.
The Jury President is responsible for verifying that the Sanction fee was paid before the start of the meet in order to sanction the meet as a category one FAI meet. It happens that often the sanction fee is not paid in due time and it’s almost impossible to declare that the meet will not be sanctioned as a category 1 FAI event when all the pilots are on site.
So the Bureau is proposing the following:
1° Double the Sanction fee deposit: 1000 CHF when presenting the Bid
2° Then 50% of the remaining sanction fee has to be paid one year before the competition start.
3° The balance must be paid one month before the start of the event. At that time the organiser has received most of the entry fees and has enough money at his disposal.
Implementation from the 2005 Championships awarded in February 2003.
Bureau Proposal concerning late payment of WAG sanction
fee.
As at the date of Agenda publication, the WAG Sanction fees have not been paid, the Bureau is proposing that, if the situation is not remedied by the February 21st 2002, Spain will not be able to hold a category 1 meet for 5 years nor a category 2 event for 2 years.
Implementation date March 1st 2002
Draft 4
HG Competition Sub committee agenda:
Chair : Dennis Pagen
A meeting will be held on Thursday morning from 09.00 in the Olympic museum chaired by Dennis. You are kindly requested to appoint your experts directly to Dennis: e mail address:
- Progress report on the future competitions:
o Euro HG Championship 2002 that includes rigid wings
o Progress report on the World HG Championship in 2003 Brazil
o Progress report on the Chelan World Championships
- Approval of the local regulations for the European HG Championship
- Approval of the Chelan Local regulation
- Brazil pre world local regulation
- Study and recommendations on the bureau proposal for section 7 changes. The proposed section seven changes are attached : (05-12 Section 7 draft 1.2 doc) and have to be read together with the minutes of the Bureau meeting
- Number of medals to be awarded when the team size in a championship is bigger than 6+2
- Pilots selection criteria for cat 1 meets
o For world and continental Championships
§ Class 1
§ Rigid
o Exemption for women: Bureau Recommendation
Women’s World Championship must have
§ Safe Pro 5 or equivalent
§ Must have competed in at least 1 National Championship or 2x Cat 2 events
§ Have gaggle flying experience
§ Flown 40 ks
§ Answer the questionnaire bellow:
This exemption will be removed Jan 1st 2003
Implementation procedure
Questionnaire
Requirements for Women’s World Championships
Pilot Name:
Date and location of Birth:
a) Has the pilot finished in the top 2/3 of a HG event ?
If yes, name and date of the HG event ? Ranking of the pilot ?
b) Has the pilot received the Delta Silver Badge?
c) In case, the answers to a) and b) are NO, please fill in the following questionnaire :
QUESTIONNAIRE
General experience:
Year of first flights ?
Year of first competitions ?
Number of flights and hours flown every year ?
Experience in competitions :
Name of competition, Location, Date, Level, N° of tasks of the competition ?
Ranking of the pilot in each task/ Number of pilots in the competition ?
Distance flown by the pilot in each task/ Distance of the winner
Cross Country flight experience :
Location, Date, Type of flight, Distance flown by the pilot ?
Glider :
Glider used usually ?
Glider you will use at Chelan ?
Comments of the team leader about the pilot ?
Is she able to take part safely to the World championship in Chelan ?
- Qualification procedures including exemption procedures:
Any applications for exemptions to the stated method of qualifying must
be made by the pilots NAC, with supporting evidence of the pilot’s international
competition history. This should be received by the CIVL
PR Co-ordinator at least 60
days before the Championship.
Draft
5
PG Competition Sub committee Agenda
Chair : Xavier Murillo
A meeting will be held on Thursday morning from 09.00 in the Olympic museum chaired by Xavier. You are kindly requested to appoint your experts directly to Xavier: e mail address:
- Progress report on the future competitions:
o Euro PG Championship 2002
o World PG Championship in 2003 Portugal
- Approval of the local regulations for the European PG Championship
- Team size for the Euro PG 6+2
- Policy for the non European pilots:
o Absolute priority for the European pilots
o Maximum number of pilots 150
o Priority for the non European pilots ranked in the top 50 of the WPRS 2 months before the start of the event
o If still vacancies what criteria for selecting the pilots: WPRS order? Priority to female? and/or First declared first served rule
o Dead line for selection and registration for the Euro PG recommended 2 months before the start of the event. Dead line for payment?
o The selection committee will include the meet organiser, Paula and Olivier.
- Study and recommendations on the bureau proposal for section 7 changes. The proposed section seven changes are attached : (05-12 Section 7 draft 1.2 doc) and have to be read together with the minutes of the Bureau meeting
- Section 7. 23.3 Ballast harmonise with PWCA new rule
- Additional requirement for pilots to be selected to a Cat 1 event:
The Bureau proposed to keep the same standard that has been used in Sierra Nevada
unless a more convenient solution is proposed. At the moment it is 2/3 cat 2 meet AND top 2/3 PWC or flight of 100kms
- Minimum criteria for a cat 2 event to be considered as qualifying according to the top 2/3 rule: X number of pilots and X number of tasks flown.
- Recommendations on the Nordic countries’ proposals:
Proposal for CIVL Plenary Meeting feb. 2002
Serial Class Paragliding
Background
Competition in paragliding today has become a testing arena for manufacturers where many
competition pilots fly previously untested glider designs and configurations. Unfortunately,
not all these prototypes are flown by professional pilots, but rather by amateur competition
pilots trying to stay competitive. This has led to many serious accidents and incidents.
There is a need to encourage the interest of flying certified gliders in competitions.
What
we want to achieve
Start a serial class in PG competitions again. This will be a process that needs a few years and
a number of competitions to become established. It will take some time for the pilots to
adjust. As matter of fact, a large portion of the competition pilots around the world is already
flying certified gliders, and we feel this should be encouraged by giving them a fair chance of
winning in competitions.
There has for a long time been thoughts and discussions with good intentions about safety in
PG competitions. Unfortunately, in reality the development has been contrary to these
intentions. For example: the last World Championships, Sierra Nevada with its notoriously
strong conditions was chosen as competition site – and there were several incidents and
accidents.
Starting from European Championships 2002 in Slovenia, we want the following set of rules
to be established:
• A serial class in Paragliding.
• Minimum half of the members of every team should fly in the serial class
• Every pilot is personally responsible for making sure his or her glider adheres to
serial class regulations
• When a NAC enters a pilot into the competition, it is the NAC’s responsibility
to ensure that the pilot adheres to the Serial Class regulations
• At the actual competition, the organisation and stewards will make random
checks on a sample of the gliders from each heat. By the end of a competition
at least 15% of all gliders will have undergone such an inspection.
• Documentation of the glider certification must be presented, latest, when
registering at the competition site.
• If any pilot is caught, not following these rules, the pilot will automatically be
ousted from the competition and not allowed to participate in any other CIVL
competitions for one year.
• The definition of a serial glider is a glider certified to a level corresponding to
DHV 2-3 or AFNOR Performance by a testing organisation approved by CIVL
Stockholm 6/12/2001
.........................................
Mark Presson
CIVL delegate of Sweden
Proposal for CIVL Plenary Meeting Feb. 2002
Pilot Qualifications Paragliding
Background
For safety reasons, there is a need for pilots to be qualified before being allowed into
Category 1 competitions
What
we want to achieve
Pilots need experience from competitions and gaggle flying before they are allowed to enter a
category 1 competition.
We believe all this could be achieved by the following proposal:
• Each NAC is responsible for making sure the pilots they enter into
competitions meet these criteria.
• Suitable competition sites need to be chosen for category 1 events, to avoid
situations where “temporary” higher qualification demands have to be
fabricated to match a specific flying site (for example WAG in Sierra
Nevada).
• All FAI member countries with good competition pilots must be able to
participate in category 1 events with a minimum of 3 pilots to achieve
maximum nation ranking points.
• If category 2 competitions are used as pilot qualification criteria, the pilot must
have participated in minimum 2 competitions with a minimum of 20
participants in each of them.
• No pilots will be accepted into competitions without proper documentation
being presented at registration. This includes valid FAI and NAC licences and
insurance documents.
The NAC is responsible for making sure the pilots have adequate qualifications when entering
their pilots into the competition. If CIVL discovers that certain NACs fail to follow these
rules, then CIVL must be prepared to take action against these NACs. This to avoid the
recurring situations where NACs encourage individual pilots to try entering competitions
without proper qualifications.
Stockholm 6/12/2001
.........................................
Mark Presson
CIVL delegate of Sweden
Draft 6
Flight verification sub committee
Chair : Fred Escriba
No Working session is planned, however Fred will be available during the meeting and especially on Thursday if one feels a need of a short meeting to be arranged directly with Fred: e mail address:
- Progress report on what has been decided last CIVL meeting with reference to the minutes
o GPS verification software
o Barograph standards
o RACE scoring modules
- Review of the GPS rules in section 7 in view of updating them to take into account the progresses of the 2001 season
Draft 7
Safety & training sub committee
Chair : Klaus Tänzler
A meeting will be held on Thursday after noon from 14.00 in the Olympic museum chaired by Klaus. You are kindly requested to appoint your experts directly to Klaus: e mail address:
- Update of the safe pro and para pro
o Review of the minimum experience for XC rating stage 5. The present text states 5 XC flights. There is no distance mentioned and when considering the minimum experience for the girls to compete in the World female Championship, the Bureau wished to set a minimum distance XC flight : 40 ks. Perhaps should it be good to introduce this distance in the Stage 5 for at least one flight.
o
Review a point raised by the BHPA: We've just noticed a
difference between Safe pro and Para pro Stage 5 requirements in terms of
minimum air time.
<<SAFE PRO Stage 5, EXPERIENCE Requirements: Same as for stage 4,
plus. A total of 40 flying hours. A
total of 5 cross country flights in various lift (ridge soaring and flying
along the same ridge, only, is not approved). >>
<<PARA PRO Stage 5, EXPERIENCE Requirements: Same as for stage 4, plus.
1. A total of 100 flying hours. 2. A total of 5 cross country flights in
various lift (ridge soaring and flying along the same ridge, only, is not
approved).>>
Please could you confirm if this is correct, in which case why is there a
difference? If the minimum requirement should be the same for HG and PG, how
many hours should a pilot have for Stage 5?
- Progress report on the new European norm including
o Investigation of the test laboratory that are performing tests
o Standards for these organisations to be recognised by CIVL
o Procedures for controlling the test organisations
- Standard information for emerging countries as regards to organisation, safety standards, licensing operation etc..
- Minimum standards for a cat 2 event for pilots’ qualification purpose.
- Review of the section 7 changes proposal especially with regards to safety
- Swedish proposal:
Proposal for CIVL Plenary Meeting
feb. 2002
Long Term Plan “Safety and Training”
Background
The
Long-term Plan states "Provide a forum for the exchange of information
and discussion
of
safety and training matters in HG and PG".
We feel that this is not happening. The issue of general safety has been somewhat lost among
all discussions about competition related subjects.
The issues of general safety and overall information are of the utmost importance for those
countries where HG and PG still are new sports.
What
we want to achive
The Safety and Training Committee (STC) should be working continuously throughout the
year. We also want STC not only focusing on competition safety. In Europe the European
Hanggliding and Paragliding Union (EHPU) already is working with these issues and making
good progress. It would be beneficial if a process like this could be started globally through
CIVL.
We believe all this could be achieved by the following proposal:
• There should be a permanent item on the agenda for CIVL plenary and bureau
meetings covering these issues, and also sufficient times set aside to
thoroughly present and discuss them.
• CIVL should invite appropriate representatives on these matters, for example
members from the EHPU.
• Information, or links to information, already gathered by EHPU or other
organisations on matters like safety, training, insurance policies, authority etc,
should be presented on the CIVL web site.
Stockholm 6/12/2001
.........................................
Mark Presson
CIVL delegate of Sweden
Draft
8
WPRS HG Working Group
Chair : Michael Zupanc
No Working Group session is planned, however Zupy will be available during the meeting and especially on Thursday if one feels a need of a short meeting to be arranged directly with Zupy e mail address:
Progress report on what has been decided last CIVL Plenary:
CIVL minutes 2001
Hand Gliding WPRS
Annex
7
Hang Gliding WPRS.
There is a fundamental problem with some major competitions.
The world number one pilot lost his ranking position because he was denied entry into a European
Championship because he was not European. There was a limit on competitor entries in the
competition and only Europeans were allowed to enter.
To deny a high ranking pilot the opportunity to compete for high competition points is
fundamentally wrong.
To address this problem, a two-part proposal is being put to the Plenary for approval.
Firstly,
Any competition that includes pilots irrespective of their country of origin may be included in the
world ranking system.
Then.
Continental Championships must allow at least the top 50 pilots of the world ranking system into
the competition. Except that no nation can enter more pilots than the normal team size.
These proposals were accepted by the working group without dissent
Note if there is conflict with the GS in terms of “guest” pilots, these issues can easily be fixed by
using two score sheets. Ie. The “continental championship” and “all pilots”, with the complete
score being used for WPRS purposes. - The RACE scoring program accommodates this function
easily.
An ongoing working group, which will be advertised on the internet, will continue to evaluate the
HG aspects of the WPRS
Martin’s system will be run in the background in parallel with the current system (if possible) so
that the formulas can be evaluated.
Of special concern is the level where the pilot weighting begins to devalue a competition.
We need to have a system whereby smaller competitions that have solid competition between the
potential winners are not penalised if there are small numbers of competitors overall.
It is impossible to evaluate where the formulas allocate this level is at the moment. We need time
to examine the system during the year.
Also during the year the concept of a super series (or whatever, it ends up being called), whereby
known sanction points are available to whoever turns up will also be investigated further.
The aim of this concept, is that pilots are able to plan in advance which competitions they will or
will not attend, and it will ensure that the pool of HG skill is demonstrated around the world.
With appropriate mathematical tuning, Martin’s proposal may (or may not) be able to address
some, or possibly all of these issues, hence the need for time to evaluate the options with thorough
mathematical
and philosophical consideration.
Draft 9
WPRS PG Working Group
Chair : Paula Bowyer assisted by Fred Escriba
No Working Group session is planned, however Paula and Fred will be available during the meeting and especially on Thursday if one feels a need of a short meeting to be arranged directly with Paula and Fred: e mail address:
Progress report on what has been decided during the last Plenary
CIVL minutes 2001
WPRS Working Group Report
WPRS
PG working group
Present: Sarah Fenwick (CIVL), Miyuki Tanaka (Japan), Paul Thomas (S Africa), Urs Dubach
(CH), Stefan Mast (Germany), Anestis Paliatsos (Greece), Fred Escriba (France), Xavier Murillo
(CIVL), Olav Kant (Norway), Martin Brunn (Austria), Philippe Broers (Belgium), Scott
Torkelson (Denmark) & Mark Presson
(Sweden).
Martin will present a brief outline of his proposed formula
Recommendation to the Plenary that:
1. Martin Brunn’s formula is run in parallel to the current WPRS for 2001.
2. The formula is ‘live’ and under continuous development
3. The rankings of the new formula are published alongside the current system
4. There will be an open e-mail discussion group set up on the CIVL website
5. The sub-committee will consist of Fred Escriba (chair/co-ordinator), Xavier Murillo, Ulf (S
Africa), Stefan Mast, Miyuki Tanaka & Martin Brunn.
6. If the trial is considered successful the results and implementation proposals will be presented
to the Plenary meeting 2002.
Sarah Fenwick will be the CIVL co-ordinator between the two working groups.
Mike
Zupanc will provide a report on the WPRS HG working group.
Draft 10
Class definition working group
Chair Dennis Pagen
A meeting will be held on Thursday morning from 11.00 in the Olympic museum chaired by Dennis. You are kindly requested to appoint your experts directly to Dennis: e mail address:
Discussion and recommendations to the following proposal that has been submitted by the working group to the Bureau.
Minutes Bureau meeting 26th – 28th October 2001
Wales, UK
Page 8 12/11/01
CLASS DEFINITIONS
There was a lengthy discussion on Class definitions. There was a Class Definition Sub-
Committee Proposal. This amended proposal is acceptable to the Bureau.
The definition of classes are as follows:
Class 1 Flex wings – no change
Class 2 Rigid wings with full fairings capable of nil-wind launches
Class 3 Paragliders – no change
Class 4 Rigid wings capable of foot-launching
Class 5 Rigid wings with no full-fairings (1) capable of nil-wind launches
- World records that have previously been set will revert to the class (or
classes)appropriate to the glider in which they have been flown.
- Additional limitations such as weight or dimension limits are not deemed necessary at
this time
(1) A full-fairing is a streamlined structure rigidly attached to the glider frame,
partially or fully enclosing the pilot as much as is practical the surrounding structures.
The shape of the fairing is designed to minimise the contribution to the total parasitic
drag of the glider, the pilot and the glider-surrounding structures. Windscreens fairing the
pilot’s head that are not directly attached to a helmet are not allowed.
Category 1 championship organisers are strongly recommended to run class 2
and class 4 (is now class 5) concurrently with the same tasks and launch
points as long as safety is not compromised. Meet organisers are encouraged
to bid for both class championships simultaneously.
The newly-named Open class is identical to the previous class 4 and may be renamed in
light of decisions taken at the Plenary meeting in February 2002.
THE
FOLLOWING WAS DISCUSSED BUT REJECTED:
Pilots
in class 5 MAY be allowed to fly in Class 2 if CIVL deems it desirable for
increasing
meet size or increasing the number of pilots attempting records (otherwise,
pilots
are not allowed to enter classes outside their defined class) If a pilot changes
class,
(in
order to compete in another class) then this should not interfere with General
section.”
(Rejected)
Draft 11
Aerobatics working group
Chair - No chair at present. Volunteers are kindly requested to contact the CIVL president
No Working session is planned, however if one feels a need of a meeting please contact Olivier who will arrange if there are enough attendees. This meet will take place if organised on Thursday morning.
The work of this working group would be:
- Survey on the regulation in the various countries in the world
- Contact the manufacturers to convince them to design specific gliders for aerobatics.
- Harmonise all the existing rules for aerobatics
- Set up selection criteria for pilots wishing to participate to aerobatics competitions
- Review the safety rules
-
Organise a panel of FAI judges.
Draft 12
Section 7 Sub committee
Chair: Michael Zupanc
A working session is planned late afternoon or at night after all the other working sessions.
- The aim is to finalise recommendations for amendments if any to the proposed changes in section 7: (05-12 Section 7 draft 1.2 doc) with reference to the Minutes of the Bureau meeting.
A strategy for presentation must be established to make it well understandable to the Plenary.
The members of this sub committee are in addition to the President and a Secretary, the chairmen of the sub committees and Working groups involved: namely
Dennis
Xavier
Klaus
Paula
Fred
Rikka
- Add a rule that make it clear how a pilot can be removed from a team, either by the meet director or the team leader
- Team size: add a rule stating that “ where there is no separate championship for women, the team size is X+2 except perhaps for Class 3 World Championships wher the team size could be 2+1”
- New procedure for payment of the sanction fees.
- Amendments to Accuracy set of rules: Riikka proposal
- Medals for team
members
General section 3.16.3.2 The final part of the third sentence before the end to
read….”placed first, second and third, and, if the ASC decide, smaller FAI Team medals may be awarded to all members of such teams”.
This modification has been accepted by CASI at the last October meeting and will be in force January 1st 2002. Section 7 needs to be modified accordingly, as it was s a request from the last Plenary February 2001.
ACTION: MZ to modify Section 7 5.4.8 accordingly.
- Bureau recommendation:
The CIVL recommends that cat 2 events have a meet steward (technical delegate)
who ensures the section 7 rules are applied. This steward can be chosen by the
organiser, and needs to have familiarity with section 7.
- US amendment Proposal to Section 7 not included in the Bureau proposal
Current CIVL Sporting code:
3.5.6.2 Speed and Distance
Speed and distance flights exceeding 100km: no
time or distance penalty is applied for height differential.
Where tow-launch or powered launch of any type is used, start height must not
exceed 2,000m a.g.l. of the place of launch.
Change desired:
3.5.6.2 Speed and Distance
Speed flights exceeding 100km: no time or
distance penalty is applied for height differential.
Where tow-launch or powered launch of any type is used, start height must not
exceed 2,000m a.g.l. of the place of launch.
Distance flights exceeding 100km: no time or
distance penalty is applied for height differential.
Where tow-launch or powered launch of any type is used, start height must not
exceed 1,000m a.g.l. of the place of launch.
Reasons:
Originally CIVL restricted the start height of a distance flight to 2,000 meters in order to reduce it from 1% of a very long distance.
We (the World Record Encampment at Zapata, Texas in 2001) have now had a opportunity to test the 2000 meter limit for distance flights and found that it is excessive. The flight starts with a tow and begins when you are let off tow (it is very difficult to circle up early in the morning). Towing to 2,000 meters (the limit) means slow turnaround between tows, pilots backed up on the ground, and 20-35 mile downwind glides before attempting to turn in the lift under 500 meters. We would be forced to continue to tow to 2,000 meters if this rule was kept in place.
1000 meters over launch gets you up high enough to get going. You don't need the extra altitude to set a world record as we have proven. The extra 1000 meters just gets you a very nice glide for 15 miles. There is no real need to tack this on to your record distance.
Our (Manfred's and mine) existing world record distance flights took place from tows of less than 1,000 meters (mine from 590 feet) . Other pilots who set records went higher, but gained little advantage on the days they set their records. Their records are quite vulnerable and no one with be much disadvantaged trying to break them with under this rule change.
It would be much easier for all concerned and wouldn't cut into the chance to set new world records if we limited our start altitudes to 1,000 meters.
1INTRODUCTION
1.1Description
Section
7 of the Sporting Code deals with
records, proficiency badges and world and continental championships for hang
gliders in all classes.
Category 2 competitions will strictly follow the class definitions and safety standards contained within Section 7
1.2Conjunction
1.3General Section
1.4General requirements for hang gliders
1.4.11.1.1 Definitions of hang gliders, as per General
section.
To be alerted as per working group results
A glider capable of being carried, foot launched and landed solely by the use of the pilot's legs.
Classes of hang gliders.
1.4.1.11.1.1.1
Class
1:
Hang gliders having a rigid primary structure with pilot weight-shift as the sole method of control, and which are able to demonstrate consistent ability to safely take-off and land in nil-wind conditions. Subsidiary controls affecting trim and/or drag are permitted, but only if they operate symmetrically. Note chapter 22, Hang Gliding Safety Standards
1.4.1.21.1.1.2
Class
2:
Hang gliders having a rigid primary structure with movable aerodynamic surfaces as the primary method of control in any axis, and which are able to demonstrate consistent ability to safely take-off and land in nil-wind conditions. Note chapter 20, Guidelines for Class 2 Determination
1.4.1.31.1.1.3
Class
3:
Hang gliders having no rigid primary structure (paragliders), and which are able to demonstrate consistent ability to safely take-off and land in nil-wind conditions. Note chapter 17, Paraglider Line Strength Requirements.
1.4.1.41.1.1.4
Class
4:
Hang
gliders that are unable to demonstrate consistent ability to safely take-off
and/or land in nil-wind conditions, but otherwise are capable of being launched
and landed by the use of the pilots legs.
1.1.1.5
Class
5:
2FAI
PROFICIENCY BADGES
3WORLD AND NATIONAL RECORDS
4TABLE OF CERTIFICATES AND PROOFS
THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATES, PROOFS AND INFORMATION ARE REQUIRED FOR RECORDS AND FAI SILVER AND GOLD BADGES AND DIAMONDS
Information
required Claim Evidence Declaration Evidence Evidence Barogram Barogram
Statement
of take-off of goal
and of reaching of landing or Calibration
and
start turn points each or
arrival printout
turn
point at goal
Date
of flight X X X X X X
Name
of pilot and address X X X X X X
Nationality X
Type,
category and class
of record or badge X X X X X
Performance
claimed X
No.
& expiry of FAI licence X
Type
& Number of glider X X X X X X
Type
& Number of barograph X X
Calibration
certificate X
No
intermediate landing X X
Take-off
place X X
Pressure
at Ground level at
take-off (1) X
Departure
point X X X
Start
altitude X
Start
time X X
Type
of launch or tow X X
Certificate
of aero tow release X
Goal
and turn points X X X X
Time
of declaration of above X
Time
at turn points (2) X
Estimated
height at T.P. (2) X
Uncut
film of photo evidence,
signed off by .Observer X X X X X
Time
of landing at goal, X
or
finish time X X
Landing
place, if not a goal X X
Altitude
at finish point X X
Distance X
Distance penalty (if any) X
Date
& signature of pilot X X
Date
& signature of calibra-
tion laboratory official X
Date
& signature of official
Observer X X X X X X
Name
& sex of passenger(s) X X
Age
declaration signed by
passenger(s) X
(1) Altitude (record claims only)
(2) Ground observation only
Signature of Official Observer with declaration of
freedom of interest in the claim.
5CIVL
RECOGNISED 1st CATEGORY EVENTS
5.1General rules
5.2World and Continental championships
5.3Authority and bids
5.4General organization
5.4.61.1.1The Organisers
Are responsible for
travel, accommodation, meals and refreshments for the International Jury and
Stewards.
5.5Local regulations
5.6Responsibilities of the organiser and
the director
5.6.11.1.2 The NAC
1.1.3
The
Competition organiser
After the pre-competition the organisers must institute the
changes requested by the steward unless the organisers present a
written document explaining why these changes are undesirable. The final
agreement between the organiser and the CIVL should
include a requirement for a certain minimum
number of competition staff personnel.
The organisers must implement any safety recommendations
of the CIVL experts.
At the Plenary prior to the competition, the
Bureau will discuss the requirements with
the competition organiser.
If the competition organiser does not
implement the requirements, the Jury President may suspend
the competition until such a time that the
requirements are satisfied.
The Competition Organiser must follow 5.11.1.2 “Competition
Organisers should” with regard to pilot entry criteria.
1.1.3.1
He Competition Organiser is
responsible for travel, accommodation,
meals and refreshments for the international jury and
steward(s)
The minimum standards are:
·
An individual room in
the equivalent of 2 star hotel, with,
when available, air
conditioning should the temperatures be above 30 o
·
Suitable dedicated transport
for the Jury and
Steward(s) must be provided. This transportation will consist
of two vehicles in proper working order unless the Steward of the Pre-competition deems
otherwise.
·
A suitable sum for
out-of-pocket expenses must be allocated. The
amount which would be reasonable will be agreed between the Steward of the
Pre-competition and the Competition Organiser.
5.7Programme and facilities
5.8Stewards and Jury
5.9National entry
5.10Team leader responsibilities
5.11Pilot qualifications
Qualification criteria for pilots wishing to compete in a Category 1 competition are:
From 1-1-2001,
the requirements will be that a pilot has either:
· Competed in a Category 1 event after 1st January 2000, or
· Previously placed in the top 2/3 of pilots in a Category 2 event during the 3 years prior to the Category 1 Championships.
From 2003, the requirement will be that during the 3 years prior to the Category 1 Championships, a pilot has either:
· Competed in a Category 1 event, or
· Previously placed in the top 2/3 of pilots in a Category 2 event.
Other qualifying criteria
may be specified by CIVL and included in the approved local rules.
To avoid pilots travelling to Championships which may have their validity refused because of lack of preparation of the competition facilities, the CIVL will publish details regarding the competition preparations on the CIVL web site.
The onus is on the pilot to make sure he has qualified
5.11.11.1.4 Procedure for checking
Qualification will be checked by three parties to avoid unnecessary travel, expenses and disappointment in the event his/her entry is rejected due to not meeting the qualification criteria
· The NAC or National Association/Federation before selecting their team .
· The competition organiser.
· The pilot.
Pilot qualifications
will be finalised no later than 60 days prior to the start of the competition.
5.11.1.11.1.4.1
Check
the current WPRS available on the CIVL website
All pilots who appear on this will have competed in a Category 1 event, or finished in the top 2/3rds of a category 2 event in the previous 3 years.
5.11.1.21.1.4.2
Competition
organisers should
Have a signed declaration on the entry form that the pilot meets the qualification criteria of finishing in the top 2/3rd of a (any) category 2 event in the previous 3 years.
Have
available at registration the current list of qualified pilots downloaded from
the CIVL website.
If a pilot does not meet the qualification criteria then his/her entry cannot be accepted.
5.12Exceptions
Any exceptions -
applications must be made by the pilots NAC, with supporting evidence of the
pilot’s international competition history.
This should be received by CIVL (currently Sarah
Fenwick) public
relations coordinator at least one month 60 days before the start
of the Championship,
· Women’s hang gliding for which previous cross-country requirements will continue to be accepted.
If the competitor's country issues pilot licences for hang gliding or paragliding, the pilot should hold a valid licence.
Each competitor shall hold a valid FAI sporting licence issued by his own NAC. Competitors from prospective FAI member-countries may use a licence issued by the FAI-Secretary General.
5.13Hang gliders and associated equipment
5.13.11.1.5 Hang gliders and other equipment
Which are provided by the competitors, must be of a performance and
standard suitable for the event.
Section 22 details Hang Glider Safety Standards
5.14Insurance
5.15Contest numbers
5.16Registration and scrutineering
5.17Briefing
5.18Team leaders' meetings
5.19Operational regulations
5.20Flight safety
5.20.11.1.6 Dangerous flying conduct
It is the responsibility of every pilot to fly in
such a way that personal safety and the safety of others is maintained at all
times. Directors may penalise competitors who fail to observe this rule, or
exclude them from the results.
5.20.21.1.7 Helmet and parachute
A helmet is not compulsory in hang gliders with enclosed cockpits if it will restrict pilot vision.
With the exception of Short Course Speed events, pilots must carry a serviceable rescue parachute that must be capable of deployment r by each of the pilot's hands in a normal flying attitude.
Further safety requirements may be detailed in the local regulations.
5.20.31.1.8 Fitness
A pilot may not fly unless
he is fit. Any injury, drugs or medication
that might affect the pilot’s performance in the air must be reported to the
Director before flying. Performance enhancing drugs are
prohibited. "See GS 3.11.2"
5.20.41.1.9 Collision avoidance
Circuit, turning and landing patterns shall be complied with and a proper lookout kept at all times. A glider joining another in a thermal shall circle in the same direction as that established by the first regardless of height separation. All pilots must read and understand the explanation of proper thermal procedures presented in the local regulations. Failure to follow these guidelines may result in penalties to the pilot concerned including disqualification from the event.
A competitor involved in a collision in the air must not continue the flight if the structural integrity of his glider is in doubt.
5.20.51.1.10Cloud flying
Cloud flying is prohibited and gliders may not carry gyro instruments or other equipment permitting flight without visual reference to the ground. The organisers may include special instruments by type or name under this prohibition. Failure to keep clear of cloud may result in penalties to the pilot concerned including disqualification from the event.
5.20.61.1.11Suspension, cancellation or stopping of a task
The Competition director may suspend the launch if
conditions become unsuitable, for safety reasons.
If launching is suspended only for a short period,
the Director need not cancel the task.
The Competition Director may cancel a task before any competitor has taken off if the weather becomes unsuitable, for safety reasons.
If launching is
suspended only for a short period, the Director need not cancel the task.
The Director has the power
to suspend or
stop a task after some or all pilots have taken off only in an emergency
resulting from hazardous weather or other conditions which could not be avoided
by the pilots, and which would endanger their safety.
When a task is stopped, if 50% of the pilots have not completed 50% of the task, the task will be cancelled (the day is not scored).
Information on the
reasons for, and provisions for cancellation or stopping the task, have to be
stated in the local regulations and announced in the briefings. Otherwise, theIf the
task is stopped, goal will be closed at the time the task was stopped and pilot’s score will be determined from their
GPS track log position at the time the task was stopped. Some nominal amount of
points may be awarded to pilots who do not present a satisfactory track log.
No other means of flight verification will be
accepted for evidence of the finish of flight (including photographs). The
Competition Director may cancel a task if this is deemed to be the best option.
5.20.71.1.12Ballast
A competing glider may carry jettisonable ballast only in the form of fine sand or water. A pilot shall avoid dropping ballast at any time in a manner likely to affect other competing gliders and other third parties.
5.21Test flying
5.22External aid to competitors
5.23Retrieving
5.24Rest days
5.25Championship classes
The organisers shall hold the championship in one or more of the classes as approved by CIVL (see 1.4), provided that at least eight pilots from four countries in each Class, are entered, with entry fees paid, and available to fly during the competition.
If a championship is held in
more than one class, each class shall be regarded as a championship in its own
right and the organisers must, as far as possible, avoid interference of one
class by another, except .Category
1 Championship Organisers are strongly recommended to run Atos? And Swift?
Classes concurrently, with the same tasks and launch points
as long as safety is not compromised. Competition Organisers are encouraged to
bid for both class championships simultaneously.
Each competing glider will be subject to inspection for compliance with class rules at any time during the championships.
5.26Championship tasks
5.27Start of a task
The organisers may use any of the following start
systems as agreed by CIVL at the time of the acceptance of the bid to run the
championships. The local regulations shall state which is to be used. The local
regulations must state the minimum length of time that the launch window must
be open for the round to be considered valid.
1.1.13
Launch
window open time.
The launch window open his
length of time will be based on the number of competitors and the
number of the simultaneous launch
points available. Normally a minimum of 45 seconds of safe launch
conditions per pilot is recommended. The
precise method for determining the minimum launch window open time will be a
method agreed to by the Steward and the
Competition Director at the Pre-competition. The launch
window will be considered adequate if
the amount of safe launchable time available exceeds the
designated minimum time.
5.27.11.1.14Open window
Free take-off without any set order.
A large enough rigging area for competitors with enough marshals to ensure easy entry into the take-off corridors.
There should be at least one ramp or take-off place for each 25 competitors, and competitors should be able to take-off at a rate of at least two per minute.
5.27.21.1.15Pilot choice
Pilots choose their take-off time on a time board.
A board marked with suitable time intervals (e.g. 30 seconds) with a hook at each time space. The board should have spaces for about 3-4 hours time. Each pilot is given a small disc bearing his contest number.
Each pilot hangs his contest number disc on the take-off time hook of his choice. Only one disc is permitted on any hook. Pilots may re-hang their discs on any empty hook until ten minutes before take-off. If a pilot is not ready to go at his time he must pull out of the line and hang his disc on an empty hook giving a time at least ten minutes later.
5.27.31.1.16Start list
Pilot’s take-off in a scheduled order, which advances automatically each day.
A take-off order is made by
lottery before the first task. This order advances each day by a proportion of
the competitors (say 2/7). If space allows (as in an aero tow launch
competition) the gliders can be placed on numbered spots before first take-off
time.
1.1.17
Ordered
Launch
Pilot’s take-off in a scheduled order, which is determined by the Competition Director using the method approved by CIVL in the local regulations. When there is no activity during the launching of the competition pilots, the Competition Director may allow pilots outside their launch order to move to the front of the launch queue, where they will be treated in the same fashion as a pilot who has ‘pushed’ under 5.27.6
5.27.41.1.18Other
A new proposal by an organiser.
The new organiser shall produce his proposals in detail before acceptance of his bid. His system must have been used successfully in at least one national championship of similar size to the event for which the bid is being made.
5.27.51.1.19Take-off ‘push’ system
At sites where the pilots are required to queue to take-off, the Competition Director may use the push system. This allows any pilot to push a line of competitors by announcing to the take-off official ‘Pilot number X is pushing”. Immediately, all pilots ahead of the one pushing have 30 seconds (see note) in which to decide to take-off and then a further 30 seconds to complete the take-off. A pilot who declines to take-off during his decision period must immediately go to the end of the queue. A pilot who fails to take-off within the completion period will be scored zero for the task. When the pushing pilot arrives at the take-off point he is not permitted any decision time, but must take-off within 30 seconds or be scored zero for the task.
Note: Competition Director may specify different time periods to suit local site conditions, but these must not be changed during the period of the competition.
5.28Flying the task
5.29Out landings
5.30Flight boundaries
5.31Scoring
5.32Scoring formula
5.33Unsporting behaviour
Unsporting behaviour,
which involves the conduct of competition participants with respect to their
behaviour towards CIVL representatives at, sanctioned CIVL
competitions, refer to chapter 19, Participant Incident Policy.
Unsporting behaviour, which involves technical infringements, mistakes, attempts to deceive officials, wilful interference with other pilots, the public or their property, airspace violations or any other behaviour which is deemed to be dangerous or unsporting will be dealt with in the manner described in the General Section 5.2
6CONTROL AND MEASUREMENT OF FLIGHTS
7
PRE-FLIERS (WIND DUMMIES)
8scoring systems
9HANG GLIDERS FITTED WITH A POWER SOURCE
10CHECK LISTS FOR CHAMPIONSHIP ORGANISERS
11 SANCTION FEES
12TASK DECLARATION FORM
13Official observers
14DISTANCE CALCULATION
15SAMPLE LOCAL REGULATIONS
15.1Purpose
15.2Programme
15.3Officials
15.4Local regulations
|
8 |
TASK PERIOD. Times of window open for
take-off and times for the closing of the window, turn points and last
landing will be displayed in writing. Any window extension policy will also
be displayed in writing. The minimum period of time that the launch window will remain open for the day to be considered valid is………. |
5.28 |
|
9 |
SCORING. |
|
|
9.1 |
[Insert Scoring system approved by CIVL when making a bid including method for normalising group scores (if needed). |
5.32, 5.33 |
|
9.2 |
Team Scoring. State approved team score procedure |
5.33, 23.5, 24.9.6 |
|
9.3 |
For scoring purpose, guest pilots are / are not counted as competing pilots. |
|
|
10 |
Thermalling rules and
procedures. All pilots must read and understand the attached
Thermalling document. |
|
Thermaling
rules and procedures
It is apparent from the experience of many pilots
and officials at category 1 events that quite a few pilots do not know how to
thermal effectively and safely with a large group of pilots. Despite the CIVL
qualification requirements for the entry of these events, not all countries
teach proper technique and etiquette or may not know the universally accepted
procedures. In order to enhance the safety of competitions, we present these
rules which must be read and understood by all pilots entering CIVL sanctioned
competitions.
Aggressiveness
One of the biggest problems in competitions with
many pilots is the over-aggressiveness of certain individuals.
Over-aggressiveness in crowded skies can lead to mid-air collisions and
mid-airs can lead to fatalities. Nearly every pilot in a crowded thermal would
like to circle tighter to better use the core, but it is impossible to do so
without a great disruption of the entire circling group. A pilot that makes
close passes to others or avoids clearing all turns endangers everyone. Not
only that but he or she risks the anger of his fellow pilots which eventually
causes later confrontations that require an unnecessary expenditure of energy.
An overly-aggressive pilot ultimately hurts his or her own long-term
competition results.
Meet directors are required to deal with
overly-aggressive and unsafe pilots in the following manner: The pilot should
be given a warning as soon as a confirmed report of his dangerous behaviour is
presented. If the pilot doesn’t cease
and desist immediately, the pilot must be removed from the meet.
Entering
a thermal
1. The first
rule of entering a thermal is to turn in the same direction of the pilots
already in the thermal (either clockwise of counter clockwise). This
rule holds strictly even if you enter well above or below the previous
pilot(s). The reason for this last point is that often lift lower down catches
up to lift above so you may eventually be at the same level. Also, in crowded
skies it is common for many pilots to join a climb and pilots coming in between
two pilots turning different directions will not know which way to turn. Often
this factor results in several groups of pilots at different levels turning in
different directions. When these groups merge, chaos and endangerment occurs.
So we repeat: Always enter the thermal in the same
direction as a previous pilot no matter what the height separation. Often
pilots have a turn direction preference which induces them to turn opposite to
the direction already established. If you are a pilot with such strong
preference, you should not enter a competition until you have practiced turning
to your undesirable side to the point that
you will automatically turn in the established direction.
If you approach a thermal in which pilots are
turning opposite ways, which way should you turn? This problem is common enough
and difficult. If you are closer to one group (above or below you), it’s best
to turn in the direction of that group. If you are approaching the thermal with
other pilots and are not in the lead, you must circle in the same direction as
the first pilots that reach the thermal do (assuming you are nearly at the same
level).
In general if you are midway between an upper and
lower group it is best to circle in the same direction as the upper group, for
you can’t see them as well and
will coordinate with them if you climb up to them. If the lower group climbs up
to you, you can see them clearly and reverse your direction. Do not wait until they
are at your level to reverse, since it may result in a mass confusion as some
pilots change direction and others don’t.
Besides, the reason they are climbing up to you may be that their turn
direction is more efficient due to a rotating thermal.
2. The second rule for entering a thermal is to
approach the thermal tangentially to the other glider’s
circle on the side where he or she is flying away from you (see figure 1). This
procedure allows you to make a simple turn to follow the previous pilot’s
circling path even if you are both at the same level.
Approaching a thermal circle at any point other
than the tangent (where your path just touches the circle diameter) is extremely dangerous. Pilots doing so are
guilty of inducing confrontations and possible mid-airs. Never fly through the middle of a thermal circle.
Ideally you will arrive at a thermal circle when
the pilot already circling is on the opposite side of the circle. You must
watch the pilot who has established the circle to see where the tangent point
is on the side of the circle you will enter. By watching the pilot for two or
more 360 degree turns as you get closer, you should be able to establish this
point and fly right to it.
Sometimes you reach the circle at the same time as
the circling pilot is on the entry side of the thermal. In that case, approach the
circle on the normal side, but further out from the centre to
give the other pilot room to continue his circle with no variation. You should
then start circling in the same direction with a bigger radius as shown in
figure 2. Your larger radius will soon result in you falling behind the other
pilot so that you can then tighten up your circle to follow the ideal path.
Naturally, if you are the pilot already circling you should maintain your
regular circle, both so the other pilot can judge where to be and so you can
maintain the core position. Cooperating in this manner is what the top pilots
do in order to fly more efficiently and assure safety.
Multiple
Cores
Quite often multiple thermal cores exist in close
proximity to one another. This feature presents a real problem in crowded
skies, because these cores often merge as the thermal rises higher. If you are
approaching a thermal climb and encounter a good core before you reach it,
which way should you turn? There are benefits and problems relating to either
direction. If you turn in the same direction as the nearby circling pilot, you
may enter their circle simply by making yours larger as you get closer. On the
other hand, you will be approaching them
head on at the near part of your circle as you get closer (see figure 3).
If you circle in the opposite direction, you do not
have as much head on confrontation, but must do a full turn reversal to join
the other circle as your cores merge. If other pilots have joined your circle,
this turn reversal can create great confusion and potential conflicts. For the
latter reason we recommend turning in the same direction as other pilots in a
nearby core.
Often thermals can be broken with light multiple
cores appearing for a few turns then disappearing. This situation may be a
result of weak heating, wind or an inversion layer. When a group of pilots are
trying to work such conditions at the same time,
constant conflicts can result. Generally, the only safe policy is to use common
courtesy. If the cores are short-lived, it doesn’t make
sense to rush around like crazy towards each pilot that tightens up in a better
core. If you do, you often have a conflict with other gliders and miss the core
yourself while knocking out the original pilot or lower ones coming up.
The best policy is to wait until the climbing pilot
is clear and you can enter the core without conflict. That way you can tighten
up successfully and climb best
yourself. If you go blundering through the group trying to grab everything that
is marked, you will just anger the others who then won’t
cooperate with you and will do everything they can to block your progress.
Remember, overly-aggressive pilots alternately hurt themselves psychologically.
In broken thermals, all pilots should orbit in the
lifting area and allow a pilot that hits a surge of lift to tighten up and
climb above. That way the crowding becomes less and everyone will have a better
chance of getting up. Remember, in such conditions all pilots are your helpers,
at least until you get close to goal. The weaker and more rare the lift, the
more you need other gliders around to cover more area to find thermals. If you
play the game of forcing others out of the lift you find yourself alone in an
often fruitless hunt for lift.
General
Rules
When you are thermaling in a
crowd, the number one rule is to maintain constant vigilance. That
means looking around continuously to avoid conflicts. You must look to the
outside of your turn as well as inside, for often gliders outside of you get
forced inward or circling path get offset. Do not get confused by the mass of
gliders above or below you. Focus on the ones at your level and a bit above and
below.
The second important rule is to maintain a regular,
predictable turning circle. Try to keep the same radius turn without varying it
so other pilots know where you are going to be as they come around each time.
Some pilots get fearful as the crowd increases
and they flatten out their turns. This results in a reduce climb rate for
everyone and even more crowding as more pilots end up at the same level.
Maintain as tight a turn in the core as possible for maximum climb so pilots
get spread out vertically, not horizontally.
Two pilots on the same level can work together very
nicely at quite steep banks. To do this, maintain a constant bank and remember,
as long as you can’t see the other pilot he
or she has either climbed above you or is on the exact opposite side of the
circle and you will not hit. If you flatten out you may end up with a conflict.
Three pilots can also work together in this manner if each pilot is very careful to
keep a regular circle and the lift is smooth. Four pilots at the same level are
too many for the efficient use of most cores.
Be
aware of the fact that it always appears that the other pilot is going around
your circle. This visual mirage makes you think that the other pilot is turning
flatter than you. Don’t make this perception
error and flatten out or you’ll cause
conflicts. The only way to tell who is turning flatter is to see who catches up
to whom. If you are catching up to the other pilots, you are turning more
steeply, and vice versa.
Many pilots use techniques of quickly altering
their turns when surges of lift pass through. This practice is
overly-aggressive in very crowded situations and will eventually get reported
with a subsequent penalty. No pilot has the right to endanger others for his or
her gain. For more information on thermal procedures and thermal behaviour, see
Performance Flying published by Sport Aviation Publications.
16CHAMPIONSHIP ENTRY FORM EXAMPLE
17PARAGLIDER LINE STRENGtH DOCUMENTATION
REQUIREMENTS
18GUIDELINES FOR ASSISTANCE TO A PILOT IN
DANGER
19PARTICIPANT INCIDENT POLICY
19.1Procedure
19.2Lesser offences
These offences consist of excessively the
use of moderately abusive language.
or
hitting an official with an object not causing physical damage (liquids, paper,
dirt etc.)
Punishment (in order of severity)
· The offending individual and his/her Aero club receives a letter of reprimand from the CIVL
· The offending individual is required to send a letter of apology to the offended official before he is allowed to participate in another CIVL sanctioned event.
19.3Serious offences
These offences include the use of excessively abusive language, hitting an official with fists feet or other body parts as well as hitting with solid objects (sticks, rocks etc.) or otherwise causing bodily abuse (tripping pushing etc.)
19.3.11.1.20Punishment
20GUIDELINES FOR CLASS II DETERMINATION
21RULES FOR GPS FLIGHT VERIFICATION
22HANG GLIDING SAFETY STANDARDS
22.1Purpose
The purpose of these standards is to insure a certain minimum level of structural integrity and pilot safety in class 1, 2 and Class 4 (Open Class) Hang Gliders.
In general hang gliders should comply with the load test certification standards of, the HGMA, BHPA or DHV, or similar testing body.
Where dimensional limits are applied to structures, these have been chosen such that adequate strength is achievable with materials currently in use.
Reduced strength due to use
of unconventional materials meeting these
dimensional limits is the competitors responsibility. Where relevant the conventional
material is stated.
These standards override the certified configuration of a glider if the certified configuration does not met these standards unless engineering data from a CIVL approved testing body
22.2Structural limits
· Minimum diameter of any structural external wire cables is 1.9 mm or 5/64 inches.
· Where an external compression strut is braced with rigging wires they must attach within 10cm of the point were the compression load is applied.
·
Side-wires
shall attach to A-frames at no more than 10cm above the plane of the control tube,
measured when the glider is resting on a horizontal
surface.
· If a control bar is made of materials other than metal, it must have an internal steel rigging cable that serves as a structural backup
·
The pilot suspension must include a non-metallic load
bearing material webbing
of minimum 25mm width 50 mm2 cross-section
area (normal material Nylon woven webbing with 1000kg breaking
strain). The attachment loop must have a backup, which bypasses any mechanical
devices and either the main, or backup must be non-metallic.
· A rescue parachute must be capable of deployment by each of the pilot's hands in a normal flying attitude is mandatory.
References to
compression struts and rigging wires refers to the loads placed on parts of a
glider by flight stresses. Gliders with cantilevered wings
(most of the current Class 2 gliders) do not apply
compression loads to the uprights, while in general, Class 1 gliders do have
uprights which are under compression in flight.
Control cables are
not deemed to be structural.
Any external
part of the glider which has compression loads
placed upon it during flight is an “external
compression strut”, and therefore bracing
wires attached to it shall conform to these rules.
Where
the terminology or definitions which
are used in these rules are in question with
any particular glider, the relevant protest committee will provide a ruling.
Draft 13
Presentation of bids
This year the CIVL Plenary will award the following championships to be hosted in 2004:
- World HG female and World Rigid Championships
- Euro HG Championship
- Continental PG Championships
o European
o Asian 1st edition
o Pan-American 1st edition
The formal bids will be circulated when received to the NACs and the delegates as requested by the last CIVL Plenary
The Candidates will make their presentation on Friday p.m. from 14.00
The presentation must be as short and precise as possible video are acceptable only if they show technical interest.
The maximum presentation time is 15 minutes
The Bureau will evaluate the bids on Friday evening
The votes will take place on Saturday morning.
Draft 14
SELECTION CRITERIA FOR HOSTING OF CATEGORY 1 EVENTS
Category 1 competitions in new classes – Bureau proposal to introduce a new rule in section 7
CIVL should establish new competition classes for category 1 events only when such a class is already well documented and established. Well established means that more than 5 NACs can show well documented activity in the class, such as national championships, during the last 2 years. The class will be awarded a Continental Championship before a World Championship.
Swedish proposal which is similar to the Bureau proposal:
Proposal for CIVL Plenary Meeting Feb. 2002
Creation of new Classes
Background
CIVL currently works somewhat backwards in that new classes are created with the
idea that more classes will promote interest in the sport. In this way CIVL attempts to
create artificial development, rather then managing the existing natural development
of the sports. The idea of trying to plan reality rather then managing it tends to look
good in theory, however rarely leads to any lasting results.
One measurement to use is simply the number of people already interested in what
will become a new class, and the distribution of these people around the world. A new
class will look ridiculous if there are only a few pilots from a small number of
countries participating in it.
What
we want to achieve:
To create a new class there should be already well documented and established
activity in what will become the new class.
To create new classes there should be significant differences to already existing
classes. Creating many new classes based on very small differences in equipment will
lead to devaluation of the sport.
We believe this could be achieved by the following proposal:
• CIVL should establish new classes only when such a class is already well
documented and established.
• Well established for example means, that more then 5 NACs can show well
documented activity such as competitions within what will become the new
class during the previous two years.
• The suggestion to create a new class must be put forward by at least 5 different
NACs.
With such a mechanism CIVL could ensure not spending time and resources on
issues concerning only a very small fraction of all the thousands pilots worldwide
that CIVL is set to represent and work for.
Stockholm 6/12/2001
.........................................
Mark Presson
CIVL delegate of Sweden