FAI Hang Gliding & Paragliding Commission (CIVL)

MINUTES - CIVL Plenary Meeting,
Lausanne 22nd - 23th February 2002

Agenda for 2002 CIVL Meeting, Lausanne, Switzerland




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)


  1. Opening of the meeting
  2. Roll call, apologies and proxies: number of votes
  3. Approval of the Agenda
  4. CIVL Internal Rules modification § 3.9  (Draft 1)
  5. Approval of the minutes of last meeting available on the Website
  6. Report of CIVL President
  7. Report of FAI Secretary General
  8. 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)
  9. Selection procedures to enter a Cat 1 event. Paula Bowyer
  10. Necessary Glider documentation reminder of Section 7 rule Olivier Burghelle
  11. HG Sub committee report and proposal ( Draft 4) Dennis Pagen
  12. PG Sub committee report and Proposal ( Draft 5) Xavier Murillo
  13. Accuracy and environment reports: Riikka Vilkuna.
  14. Flight verification sub committee report and proposal ( Draft 6) Fred Escriba
  15. Safety & training sub committee report and proposal ( Draft 7) Klaus Tänzler
  16. WPRS HG Working group report and proposal (Draft 8) Michael Zupanc
  17. WPRS PG Working Group report and proposal (Draft 9) Paula Bowyer
  18. Class definition working group report and proposal (Draft 10 ) Dennis Pagen
  19. Aerobatics Working Group report and proposal (Draft 11 ) No Chair at present
  20. Section 7 sub committee report and proposal ( Draft 12) Michael Zupanc
  21. Presentation of bids: (Draft 13)
  22. Waiver
  23. Selection criteria for hosting of category events (Draft 14)
  24. Future of the WAG: Olivier Burghelle
  25. Treasurer report and Budget
  26. Diplomas and medals: No nomination have been received at present
  27. THK Proposal to create a new FAI medal
  28. Elections
  29. Dates and venue of the Next meeting
  30. 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

-         12-12 Section 7 draft 1.3  

-         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




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 :



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


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


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


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


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”


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


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.


Any competition that includes pilots irrespective of their country of origin may be included in the

world ranking system.


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


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



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.



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







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









-         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 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: 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: 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.


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.






Draft 1.3  12-12-2001







Draft Proposals for Section 7



This paper is for discussion



Comments, alterations or deletions should be forwarded Michael Zupanc zupy@ozemail.com.au


Most of the updates to Section 7 will be the product of the various working groups, and these will simply be added to the document when they are finalised and voted on by the Plenary.


Some of the proposed changed changes in this paper may contradict the work of the various working groups. In cases such as this, the working groups’ results will simply replace what is within this paper 





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



1.3General Section

1.4General requirements for hang gliders       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.                   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                   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                   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.                   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.         Class 5:










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.


5.1General rules

5.2World and Continental championships

5.3Authority and bids

5.4General organization 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       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 “Competition Organisers should” with regard to pilot entry criteria.          

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    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.               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.               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.



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    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


5.15Contest numbers

5.16Registration and scrutineering


5.18Team leaders' meetings

5.19Operational regulations

5.20Flight safety    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.    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.    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"    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. 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., 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.

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


5.24Rest 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. 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. 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. 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

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. ‘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


5.32Scoring 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






8scoring systems      










13Official observers









15.4Local regulations




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……….










[Insert Scoring system approved by CIVL when making a bid including method for normalising group scores (if needed).

5.32, 5.33


Team Scoring. State approved team score procedure


5.33, 23.5, 24.9.6


For scoring purpose, guest pilots are / are not counted as competing pilots.




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.



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.












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.)








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





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


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


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