Source: http://www.flymicro.com/cima07/
Timestamp: 2019-07-23 03:51:46
Document Index: 215602203

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2']

This year, 2007, Richard Meredith-Hardy is the coordinating editor for Section 10 and its annexes.
Only CIMA delegates have submitted proposals for inclusion here. Anyone else should have submited their proposal to their delegate first. The full list of delegates is on the FAI website.
The amendment scheme operated as it was done last year, all proposals from CIMA delegates should have been sent to Richard Meredith-Hardy with:
Each proposal will be put to the vote in its exact wording at the CIMA Plenary meeting 16 -18 November 2007 on the basis of a YES or a NO. It is not usual for the wording of proposals to be amended at the meeting itself.
The deadline for proposals for amendments was 23:59:59 UTC THURSDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 2007. To make proposals you must now wait until next year.
Comment from the S10 Sub-Committee will be inserted before Monday 1 October when it will be passed to the CIMA Secretary for inclusion in the CIMA Plenary agenda.
This is the latest draft. Draft 16 28 September 2007 Complete renumbering of proposals to reflect their order in S10 for sensible discussion at the Plenary meeting. (Original numbers are shown in the 'orig' column of the contents).
Draft 15 28 September 2007 Renumbering of proposals 33-37, addition of proposal 38 (which was received before the deadline).
Draft 14 28 September 2007 Addition of proposals 26 - 37
Draft 13 27 September 2007 Addition of proposals 22,23, 24 & 25
Draft 12 27 September 2007 Amendment to proposals 14b & 18, Addition of proposals 19, 20 & 21
Draft 11 26 September 2007 Addition of proposals 17 and 18
Draft 10 26 September 2007 Addition of proposal 16
Draft 9 26 September 2007 Editorial alteration of proposal 13
Draft 8 25 September 2007 Addition of proposals 14 and 15
Draft 7 24 September 2007 Amendment to proposal 6, addition of proposals 12 and 13
Draft 6 23 September 2007 Amendment to proposal 11
Draft 5 22 September 2007 Addition of proposals 10 and 11
Draft 4, 18 September 2007 Addition of proposals 8 & 9
Draft 3, 14 September 2007 Addition of proposal 7
Draft 2, 13 September 2007 Addition of proposals 5 and 6
Draft 1, 11 September 2007
The naming of Microlights and Paramotors.
Improvement of the 'foot launch' definition.
S10 CHAPTER 3 (RECORDS)
Delete the two 'without engine power' records
Sporting Licences in Records.
Joel Amiable FRA Delegate.
Altitude tolerance in Records.
Clarification of minimum leg lengths in closed circuit records.
Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
Clarification of laps in closed circuit records
Shorten total elapsed time in Speed over a Straight Course records.
Clarification of altitude tolerance in speed records over a straight course
Payment for Championship records
Championship record claim forms
Limited fuel championship records in Class PF2
S10 CHAPTER 4 (CHAMPIONSHIPS)
Length of championships.
Delete rest days in championships
Mandatory internet cafe.
Additional place for wheel chaired pilot in PL1 class as a way to encourage participation of disabled pilots.
Wojtek Jerzy DOMAŃSKI, POL alternate delegate.
Change in paramotor task proportions.
José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate
Rules for team scoring in paramotor classes
Clarification of units of time in S10 and Annex 3
Equalisation the task score of competitors who prove they were not given a fair chance compared to other pilots.
S10 CHAPTER 5 (CONTROL & MEASUREMENT)
Exceptional units of measurement in timing
Richard Meredith-Hardy GBR Delegate
S10 ANNEX 3 (MASTER LOCAL REGULATIONS FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS)
Competition Official Map.
Enforce fuel seal checking
Temperature of fuel measured by volume
Standardisation of launch technique for PL1 class.
Paramotor take-off penalties
S10 ANNEX 4 (TASK CATALOGUE FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS)
New structure for S10 Annex 4 (Task Catalogue)
Addition of three tasks into the task catalogue
Common description for navigation tasks
PL precision landing.
New scoring for slaloms.
Fast-slow or Slow-fast
Slow-fast – landing between courses.
One standard grid for Clover leaf and Japanese slaloms.
A tandem grid for Japanese and Clover leaf slaloms.
PF2 & PL2
S10 ANNEX 6 (GNSS Flight Recorders)
Improvement of the FR track file naming protocol
Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA FRAC chairman
Attachments to proposals
Re. Proposals 29 & 30: Proposed Task Sheets.pdf
Unintelligible proposals are contained in: Unintelligible_proposals_2007.pdf
from Richard Meredith-Hardy CIMA S10 Editor.
Microlights and Paramotors.
Many references; but starting from the very top: S10 Microlights.
1.3 DEFINITION OF A MICROLIGHT AIRCRAFT
Note. These definitions also apply to foot-launched microlight aircraft and microlight aircraft with wings of a non-rigid structure.
1.4 TYPES OF MICROLIGHT AIRCRAFT
A microlight with movable aerodynamic control is a fixed wing aircraft with moveable aerodynamic surfaces for control.
A microlight with weight-shift control is a flexwing aircraft with pilot weightshift as primary method of control
A microlight with paraglider control is an aircraft which has a wing without any rigid structure and is controlled via movable aerodynamic surfaces and pilot weightshift
A microlight Landplane is an aircraft only capable of taking off and land on land, ice or snow
A microlight Seaplane is an aircraft only capable of taking off and land on water.
A microlight Amphibian is an aircraft capable of taking off and land on water and land.
A foot-launched microlight is an aircraft where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and / or crews legs and is demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind.
... many other references in S10.
Rename the whole of S10: Microlights and Paramotors
1.3 DEFINITION OF A MICROLIGHT OR PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT
Note. These definitions also apply to foot-launched microlight and paramotor aircraft and microlight aircraft with wings of a non-rigid structure.
1.4 TYPES OF MICROLIGHT AND PARAMOTOR AIRCRAFT
A microlight with paraglider control Paramotor is an aircraft which has a wing without any rigid structure and is controlled via movable aerodynamic surfaces and pilot weightshift
A microlight Landplane is an aircraft only capable of taking off and landing on land, ice or snow
A microlight Seaplane is an aircraft only capable of taking off and landing on water.
An microlight Amphibian is an aircraft capable of taking off and landing on water and land.
A foot-launched microlight or paramotor is an aircraft where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and / or crews legs and is demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind.
All references in S10 and its annexes to classes PF1, PF2, PL1, PL2 should be altered to match the changes shown above within the principle that they should be known collectively as "Paramotors" or, in some contexts, the "Paramotor classes".
All references in S10 and its annexes to "classics" should be altered to match the changes shown above so classes AL1, AL2, WL1, WL2, WF1 Etc. are known as "Microlights" or in some contexts "the Microlight classes".
There has been an on-going discussion, notably at the CIMA plenary 2006 about what things should be named as far as S10 is concerned. Should classes PF1, PF2, PL1, PL2 be the "Softwing classes", "Microlight softwing classes", "Microlight Paramotor classes" Etc. At the same time classes AL1, AL2, WL1 and WL2 Etc. are not so 'classic' any more and more commonly known as 'Microlights'.
WPC 2007 in China was known as the "World Paramotor Championships" and WMC 2007 in Czech Republic was known as the "World Microlight Championships".
There were 110 competitors in China so Paramotor championships have for the last 5 years been consistently as large or larger than their equivalent 'classics' microlight championships. In naming terms, Paramotors should therefore now be treated equally but distinctly in S10 from microlights and not as some kind of sub-class inferred in the phrase 'microlight paramotors'.
On this same basis microlights should no longer be referred to as the 'classics'. They are "Microlights".
This proposal suggests that henceforth classes PF1, PF2, PL1, PL2 should be known collectively as Paramotors and the 'classics' should be known as Microlights.
Note: Rather than including all the many changes meant by this proposal here, the S10 Editor proposes the plenary will consider this a matter which can be dealt with editorially within the scope of the overall principle of the proposal.
Comments from S10 Sub Committee or CIMA delegates
Proposal 1 ACCEPTED DENIED
All foot launched Microlights and Paramotors.
S10 1.4
A foot-launched microlight is an aircraft where the main undercarriage consists of the pilot and / or crews legs and is launched on foot without any external assistance during the takeoff run. demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind.
A problem arose in 2007 with a PF1 record attempt where the pilot was so loaded down with fuel he wanted to take off on skates.
Current wording suggests that he -might- have been able to do this, as the proof of definition suggests that once the aircraft has been shown demonstrably capable of being foot-launched from level ground in nil or light wind then with consideration for S10 3.4.5 No fuel, ballast or other disposable items may be jettisoned after take-off or prior to the completion of the record attempt. he could then fill it with a vast amount of fuel and take off on skates so long as they went with him.
This proposal seeks to clarify the fact that any flight is only "foot launched" if the aircraft is actually launched on the main undercarriage (legs/feet), and that there must be no external assistance to achieve this.
Proposal 2 ACCEPTED DENIED
From Richard Meredith-Hardy, S10 Editor
3.2 RECORD CATEGORIES IN EACH CLASS
3.6 Special rules for distance in a straight line without engine power.
3.6.1 A barograph or GNSS flight recorder shall be carried which records any use of engine.
3.6.2 The aircraft must have its engine stopped prior to crossing the start line and it must not be re-started until after crossing the finish line.
3.6.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
3.6.4 The distance shall be measured as the geodesic joining the point the start line was crossed and the point the finish line was crossed.
3.10 Special rules for distance in a closed circuit without engine power.
3.10.1 The barograph or GNSS flight recorder used must be capable of recording any use of engine. 3.10.2 The aircraft must have its engine stopped prior to crossing the start line and it must not be re-started until after crossing the finish line.
3.10.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
Renumber S10 chapter 3 to account for the deleted paragraphs.
In the 25 years since these records were created there has been NOT ONE World record claim for either of these two records in any of the 18 microlight classes.
This clearly demonstrates that microlight pilots consider these two records to be irrelevant and it is time they were deleted from the catalogue of possible records.
Proposal 3 ACCEPTED DENIED
from Joel Amiable FRA Delegate.
S10 3.4.9 Only the pilot-in-command need hold a sporting licence but pilots not holding sporting licences will not be shown on FAI Diplomas.
S10 3.4.9 Pilot and crew must hold a sporting licence.
Pilot And Crew need to hold a sporting licence
Proposal 4 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 3.6.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
S10 3.7.2 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be lower than the takeoff point.
S10 3.9.1 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
S10 3.10.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
S10 3.11.2 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
S10 3.14.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than its altitude at the start line.
S10 3.15.4 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than its altitude at the start line.
S10 3.6.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than 100m of the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
S10 3.7.2 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be lower than 100m of its altitude at the takeoff point.
S10 3.9.1 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than 100m of the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
S10 3.10.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than 100m of the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
S10 3.11.2 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than 100m of the altitude of the aircraft at the start line.
S10 3.14.3 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than 100m of its altitude at the start line.
S10 3.15.4 The altitude of the aircraft at the finish line shall not be less than 100m of its altitude at the start line.
For all these points it is just necessary to specify that : Before crossing the start line the aircraft shall fly level for the last 500 metres for classic class and 200 metres for PPG within a tolerance of 100 metres. The altitude at the finish line shall be in the tolerance of 100 metres.
Proposal 5 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 3.8.3 All legs of closed circuits must be of equal length but a deviation of up to ± 5% per leg is permitted in circuits of three or more legs.
S10, 3.8.3 All legs of closed circuits must be of equal length with the following permitted deviation:
- 3 legs: all legs must be between 28% and 38% of the total length.
- 4 legs: all legs must be between 20% and 30% of the total length.
- 5 legs: all legs must be between 15% and 25% of the total length.
- 6 legs: all legs must be between 11% and 27% of the total length.
When the rules for records were re-written in 2006, the purpose was to clarify and simplify without substantially altering the principle objectives of any record.
Pre 2007 rules said a closed circuit can be an out and return or a triangle, and triangles must be quite equal in as much as no leg can be less than 28% of the total distance. The 2007 rules allowed more turnpoints for closed circuits longer than 100 Km. (up to 6), but leg length must still be more or less equal but with a permitted deviation of up to ± 5% per leg which was intended to be an insignificant 0.33% more severe than the existing 28% rule.
In the current S10 3.8.3 there are several interpretations of how this deviation should be calculated, in other words the phraseology of the provision is unsatisfactory. For people attempting records in 2007, guidance of how FAI / CIMA has chosen to interpret the rule was inserted in the notes at the beginning of the record claim form on the FAI web site.
This proposal is therefore not a change but intended to formalize the guidance currently being used and which can be removed from the notes in the claim form.
Proposal 6 ACCEPTED DENIED
INSERT: S10 3.8.6
A closed circuit may only be flown once.
The amendments to S10 which came into effect 1 Jan 2007 inadvertently omitted that the pre-2007 rules did not allow multiple laps of closed circuits in closed circuit record claims.
Interpretive guidance was placed in the claim form notes early 2007 making it clear that adding together the combined distance of multiple laps of a closed circuit is not acceptable in a closed circuit record claim.
This amendment returns the record to what it was before 1 Jan 2007 in a clearer form. The current guidance can be removed from the notes in the claim form.
Proposal 7 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 3.14.4 The speed adopted shall be the average of the two speeds from two consecutive runs over the same course in opposite directions. The two runs must be completed within a maximum elapsed time of 1 hour with no landing between runs.
S10 3.14.4 The speed adopted shall be the average of the two speeds from two consecutive runs over the same course in opposite directions. The two runs must be completed within a maximum elapsed time of 1 hour 15 minutes with no landing between runs.
RMH S10 Editor: An observation: Assuming a turn-round of 1 minute, no record could be claimed under a speed of 128.5 Km/h. (I hour, with a 5 minute turn round means the minimum possible record is 32.7 Km/h)
Proposal 8 ACCEPTED DENIED
INSERT: S10 3.14.5
The altitude at which the aircraft crosses the start line on the second run must be within 100m of the altitude at which it crossed the start line on the first run.
The amendments to S10 which came into effect 1 Jan 2007 inadvertently forgot that there are 2 runs associated with this record and to be like the pre 2007 rules, both runs must done at approximately the same altitude. Guidance of how FAI / CIMA has chosen to maintain this for people attempting records in 2007 was inserted in the notes at the beginning of the record claim form on the FAI web site and says that they will interpret S10 3.14.2 to mean the SAME tolerance of 100 metres on the 1000m run-up applies to BOTH runs, not each run separately.
Proposal 9 ACCEPTED DENIED
Payment for Championship records.
Microlight and Paramotor classes which compete in Cat. 1 Championships.
S10 3.17.3 A championship record can only be claimed for performances where no penalties or other adjustments were applied to the competitor’s task score.
Proposal 10a new text
S10 3.17.3 A championship record can only be claimed for performances where no penalties or other adjustments were applied to the competitor’s task score and the claimant agrees to pay the fee as may be levied by FAI for making the record claim.
Proposal 10b new text
S10 3.17.3 A championship record can only be claimed for performances where no penalties or other adjustments were applied to the competitor’s task score and the claimant pays such record claim fee as may be levied by FAI before the end of the championships.
FAI secretariat charges CHF 100 per Microlight or Paramotor World record claim regardless of whether the claim is eventually ratified or not. (see minutes of CASI meeting 2000).
This proposal puts the onus of who pays the fee on the person who stands to gain most - the claimant. The claimant can of course refuse to pay, and in that case no claim will be made.
The difference between Proposals a and b is that a says the claimant promises to pay the fee whereas b says the claimant should actually pay the fee to FAI whilst still on the Championships site (either to the Jury, in the same way as they collect Protest fees, or FAI directly) so there is no doubt that it is a genuine and full claim and there aren't the logistical difficulties of making later payments and checking they've been paid.
Note: If Championship record claim forms are introduced then a place will be set aside for the claimant to sign that he/she agrees to pay the fee (a) or has paid the fee (b).
Proposal 10a ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 10b ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 3.17.4 The International Jury must certify that all the conditions attached to a Championship record claim are satisfied and they must include all valid claims in their championship report to FAI. Information to be provided should include Pilot/co-pilot name, nation, competition class, aircraft type, the performance and type of record claimed.
S10 An 5, 2.8 OTHER WORK OF THE JURY
The International Jury must certify that all the conditions attached to each Championship record claim are satisfied and they must include all valid claims in their championship report to FAI. Information to be provided should include Pilot/co-pilot name, nation, competition class, class, aircraft type, the performance, type of record claimed, and whether it was a World or Continental claim.
S10 3.17.4 and S10 An 5, 2.8 OTHER WORK OF THE JURY
The International Jury must certify that all the conditions attached to each Championship record claim are satisfied and they must include all valid claims on Championship Record Claim forms with their championship report to FAI. Information to be provided should include Pilot/co-pilot name, nation, competition class, class, aircraft type, the performance, type of record claimed, and whether it was a World or Continental claim.
Championship Record Claim forms to be prepared by the S10 Editor before 1 Jan 2008
The introduction of Microlight Record claim forms in 2007 has hopefully helped pilots to collect all the information required to make a valid record claim making the job easier for the observer, the pilot, the NAC controlling the claim and FAI office.
It is proposed a set of similar claim forms are created for Championship records which MUST be used in any record claim. By asking all the right questions pertinent to each record they make the job of making a valid claim easier for everyone involved. Advice can also be included in these forms and their use also makes the requirement for a checklist in S10 obsolete; this is therefore deleted in the proposal above.
Rather than building these forms into S10, it is proposed they are separate documents available from the FAI website and maintained as necessary by the S10 editor so they are compatible with the requirements of S10. It is therefore proposed that work does not start on this until after the 2007 plenary meeting when the forms can be edited to suit, and published on 1 Jan 2008 at the same time as the 2008 version of S10.
Proposal 11 ACCEPTED DENIED
From Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA S10 Editor
Only class PF2.
3.17.8.1 DISTANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL ..... Classes WL1, AL1 & PL2: 4 Kg .....
3.17.8.2 ENDURANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL ..... Classes WL1, AL1 & PL2: 4 Kg .....
3.17.8.1 DISTANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL ..... Classes WL1, AL1, PF2 & PL2: 4 Kg .....
3.17.8.2 ENDURANCE WITH LIMITED FUEL ..... Classes WL1, AL1, PF2 & PL2: 4 Kg ......
PF2 competed in 2007 for the first time in China, but they could not qualify for either of the above two championship records because nothing is said in S10 about what the maximum permitted fuel quantity is for this class.
This proposal seeks to include PF2 in the max 4Kg fuel bracket along with WL1, AL1 and PL2
Note: The endurance task was done in China. If this proposal is accepted and the International Jury has ratified that the winner of the PF2 class in the endurance task satisfied all the conditions, then the Jury may ask the plenary (in another agenda item) to accept the performance done in China as a new Championship record.
Proposal 12 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 4.4.2 Where the candidate competition director for a Cat. 1 championship has not previously organized a successful FAI Category 1 microlight championship he/she must as a minimum:
1) Have actively participated in an FAI Category 1 microlight championship as a competitor, team leader or a key person listed in the Local Regulations, and;
2) Have organized national competitions.
1) Have actively participated in an FAI Category 1 microlight championship as a competitor, team leader or a key person listed in the Local Regulations, in the last 2 years (no more), and;
Proposal 13 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 4.5.2 The total period of the Championships shall not exceed 14 days including the opening and closing ceremonies.
S10 4.5.2 The total period of the Championships shall not exceed 10 days including the opening and closing ceremonies.
... 14 days... it’s too long 10 days should be the maximum.
Proposal 14 ACCEPTED DENIED
Delete rest days in championships.
S10 4.5.5 There will normally be a rest day only after 6 consecutive days flying, unless this day is the last one of the Championships. The policy for rest days shall be declared by the Director at the first Briefing.
Delete entire provision S10 4.5.5
We can withdraw this point. If a rest day is needed Team leader, International Jury , Stewards and director can take this decision during the championship.
Proposal 15 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 4.6.1.1 ENTRY FEE
As a minimum the following should be included in the entry fee:
- One film for each cross-country task.
- Free access to an internet café with a minimum of 5 computers reserved for competitors to see their tracks.
Proposal 16 ACCEPTED DENIED
From Wojtek Jerzy DOMAŃSKI, POL alternate delegate.
Class PL1.
S10 An 3 3.3.2 ASSISTANTS
Help from assistants is positively encouraged until a competitor enters the deck to start a task. From that moment onwards, all external assistance is forbidden except from marshals or those people expressly appointed by the Director, until the moment the competitor leaves the deck having finished a task, or otherwise lands according to the outlanding rules.
S10 4.10.6 NAC’s may enter one extra disabled (wheel chair bound) team pilot in the PL1 class above the maximum number stated by the organizer in the local regulations.
3.3.2.2 PL1 WHEEL-CHAIRED DISABLED PILOT
Disabled pilot flying in PL1 class may be assisted in pre-launch preparation by one authorized person. Once the pilot is ready to launch the assistant shall report that fact to the marshal, and will not help any more in the launch procedure. Either holding any part of paramotor or wing canopy, or giving information about a canopy inflation is considered as a help.
PL1 class is naturally suited for disabled paramotor pilots. Allowing team scoring of PL1 class to be calculated upon results of teams enlarged by one additional wheel chaired pilot can encourage disabled pilots to take up flying again.
Proposal 17 ACCEPTED DENIED
Change in paramotor task proportions
From José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate.
S10 - 4.24.3
A Navigation: 33% of the total value of the tasks flown.
B Economy: 33% of the total value of the tasks flown.
C Precision: 33% of the total value of the tasks flown.
A Navigation: 35% of the total value of the tasks flown.
B Economy: 25% of the total value of the tasks flown.
C Precision: 40% of the total value of the tasks flown.
There is a common opinion among pilots that they would like to increase precision a bit, taking this proportion from the economy tasks.
Proposal 18 ACCEPTED DENIED
Rules for team scoring in paramotor classes.
4.29.3 The team score shall be computed from the sum of the scores of the top three pilots of each country in each class in each task grouped together in:
Proposal 19a new text
- Classes PF1, PF2, PL1 and PL2
Proposal 19b new text
- Class PF1
- Class PF2
- Class PL1
- Class PL2
If there are less than 8 competitors in either PF1 or PF2, they will be combined into PF team prize.
If there are less than 8 competitors in either PL1 or PL2, they will be combined into PL team prize.
If there are less than 8 competitors in either PF or PL, they will be combined in a common team prize.
During the last World championship in China, PF2 was an official class for the first time. However, there was no agreement on how to incorporate this class in team scoring. Mixing PF2 with PF1 seemed like a contamination to PF1. On the other hand, mixing PF2 with PL did not make much sense. In any case
Option A is consistent with the classic classes approach and it encourages countries to enter competitors in all classes.
Option B allows one team prize per class, but provides a method to mix related classes in the team prize so that a reasonable number of competitors and countries is achieved.
Proposal 19a ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 19b ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 20a existing text
4.29.6 All distances not obtained from GNSS shall be calculated from the official map and rounded up to the next 0.5 km. All times are taken to hours, minutes and seconds.
Proposal 20a new text
Note: The same thing should be deleted from S10 An 3 1.14.1
Proposal 20b existing text
An 3, 1.12.1 TIMING All times are given, taken and calculated in local time to the nearest second.
Proposal 20b new text
An 3, 1.12.1 TIMING All times are given, taken and calculated in local time to the nearest second. or simple elapsed time, rounded down to the most accurate permitted precision. (see S10 5.2.6 and 5.2.7)
a: S10 5.2.6 adequately describes units of measure that should always be used. When mixed in with a reference to distances measured off maps and instances when sub-second timings may be used, (see proposal 4) this reference to hours minutes and seconds is confusing and should be deleted.
b: A problem arose about this at WPC 2007. The phrase 'nearest second' in this context implies that some sort of rounding in sub-second increments should be applied even though the notion of sub-one second timing increments does not exist in the main body of S10. (ref S10 5.2.6)
b therefore seeks to delete this inadequate description of S10 requirements as stated in S10 5.2.6 (and additionally Proposal 22 for sub-second intervals in certain cases)
By stating 'rounded down' b seeks to establish that a time taken or given is the time as displayed on a timing device and no artificial rounding is applied in increments smaller than those permitted.
b also establishes that elapsed time may be used (as it is in fact more convenient and commonly used in certain tasks, but nothing to say it can be used).
Proposal 20a ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 20b ACCEPTED DENIED
INSERT NEW PROVISION AFTER S10 4.29.8 (Renumber existing 4.29 after 4.29.9)
A pilot who is able to prove (by means of a valid complaint or protest) that in specific task he was not given a fair chances compared to other pilots, is to be scored for that task with the amount of points that correspond to the amount of points he got in all other tasks. The task remains valid. The pilot's task score is marked EQU or “Equalized” on the task score sheet. On General Classification task score sheet pilots points are calculated using a formula:
Qtask = Qmax * SUM ( Qother_tasks ) / SUM( Qmax_other_tasks )
Qtask – pilot's calculated score for the task
Qmax – maximum points to get in that task
SUM( Qother_tasks ) - the sum of points pilot got in all other (not equalized) tasks
SUM( Qmax_other_task ) - the sum of maximum points pilot might get in all other tasks.
INSERT AT THE END OF S10 An 3 1.14.1 GENERAL
A pilot who is able to prove (by means of a valid complaint or protest) that in specific task he was not given a fair chances compared to other pilots, is to be scored for that task with the amount of points that correspond to the amount of points he got in all other tasks. The task remains valid. The pilot's task score is marked EQU or “Equalized” on the task score sheet. On General Classification task score sheet pilots points for that task are calculated using a formula:
One of the precision tasks of World Championship in China was completely cancelled by international jury because one pilot proved that one of the marshals weaved a red flag during his flight. As he claimed this made him upset and he couldn't finish the task. A reason to cancel the task was that the organizer failed to ensure equal conditions for all pilots.
With this decision efforts of all other 71 pilots were ruined. Their sometimes very hard all year round work in preparation to championships was useless. Proposed solution will allow to equalize score of aggrieved pilot, however will save the efforts of other pilots.
Proposal 21 ACCEPTED DENIED
Exceptional units of measurement in timing.
From Richard Meredith-Hardy, GBR Delegate
In principle, all classes, in current practice; only Paramotors.
INSERT: S10 5.2.7
Exceptional units of measurement.
A problem arose about this at WPC 2007.
Normal units of measurement as stated in S10 5.2.6 are HH:MM:SS. Increments of less than a second do not exist in S10. This is adequate for all purposes except some paramotor precision tasks where more accurate timing is desirable.
1/10th of a second is considered about as accurate as can be done by manually timing with a stopwatch whereas electronic timing systems may provide greater accuracy. In the absence of any approval system, "approved" is intended to mean "Approved by the International Jury", in other words if an electronic timing system appears to work to their satisfaction for the intended purpose then timing may be done to an accuracy of 1/100th of a second.
"Rounded down" is intended to mean the time which is taken is the time which is displayed on the time piece rather than it being artificially rounded later to a precision greater than permitted. Thus if a manual time of 0:0:45.5655 is taken, the time recorded shall be 0:0:45.5 as was displayed on the stopwatch to the required precision and NOT rounded in 1/100ths of a second to 0:0:45.6
Proposal 22 ACCEPTED DENIED
INSERT into S10 An 3
1.10.13 COMPETITION OFFICIAL MAP
A competition official map (S10 4.6.1.1) is the only map that pilot is allowed to use during the task. If during the course of a certain task pilot uses any other map, or a copy of a satellite or an air image of the competition area, the competitor will get a 100% penalty for the task.
During World Championship in China some teams used satellite images of the site. While using such images in preparation to the task seems to not be a problem, using them during navigation tasks is unfair. This proposal regulates that issue.
Proposal 23 ACCEPTED DENIED
INSERT AFTER EXISTING TEXT S10 An 3 1.12.2 FUELLING
Official observers will collect documentary evidence that all competitor's fuel systems are sealed immediately after fuelling, and that all competitor's fuel systems seals have been inspected after landing.
During recent championships many pilots have complained that their fuel seals had not been checked after the flight. This kind of marshal negligence make some pilots think of the possibility of cheating.
Producing documentary evidence is as easy as ticking the pilot's number on the marshal's sheet upon sealing, and ticking a second time upon fuel seal checking. This is not an extra work if seals are checked!
A task without such document has the risk of being cancelled, something the director doesn't want.
If this document exists and a pilot is not checked, he risks a 100% penalty, so pilots will actively want to be checked.
So at a cost of two ticks per pilot, everyone will do his best to follow the spirit of the rules.
Proposal 24 ACCEPTED DENIED
From Richard Meredith-Hardy GBR Delegate.
S10 An 3 1.12.2 FUELLING
Fuel will be measured by weight or volume but will be consistent for any given refuelling session. Measured fuel quantities include oil where it is mixed with petrol.
Fuel will be measured by weight or volume but will be consistent for any given refuelling session. Measured fuel quantities include oil where it is mixed with petrol. Fuel measured by volume shall be within ± 10°c of the ambient temperature.
At WPC 2007 a certain team tried to use specially chilled fuel to get 'more volume' when it was measured. This proposal effectively prevents such action.
Proposal 25 ACCEPTED DENIED
In principle PL classes, in current practice only PL1 class.
S10 An 3 3.3.3 TAKE-OFF
A PF must be foot launched for all tasks.
PL1 or PL2 launch is considered valid only if the pilot (crew) remains seated in his (their) aircraft when last part of the canopy leaves the ground, and pilot’s legs do not carry any load.
Recently PL1 class is entered by pilots of very light trikes, who are able to launch their aircrafts using PF1 techniques. In stronger wind condition, this ability gives pilots of these trikes a significant advantage over pilots of heavier trikes who are not able to use that launch technique.
PL1 class was initially thought as class for landplane paramotors. While there is nothing wrong in recent trend of PF1 pilots entering PL1 class with their foot launch paramotors equipped with very light wheels construction, it is unfair that they use their take-off advantage over original heavy trikes pilots.
Proposal 26 ACCEPTED DENIED
S 10 An 3, 3.3.3 TAKE-OFF
All take-offs, unless otherwise briefed, must be effected entirely within the landing deck, except for emergency provisions given at briefing. Failure to comply will result in a penalty of 20% of the pilot's score.
Before departure a pilot and/or his PF may be inspected at any time for contravention of any regulations. It is the duty of competitors to assist marshals as much as possible in assisting and expediting any inspection.
Except in specified tasks, an aborted take-off does not in principle attract any penalty, however the pilot must comply with any instruction from the marshals to expedite a re-launch or the pilot risks being relegated to the end of the queue.
Proposal 27a new text
Proposal 27b new text
If the pilot does not make a clean take-off in the first attempt, he will receive a 5% penalty of the pilot's score, if he fails a second time, 10% penalty, and a third or more, 15% penalty.
No pilot will get more than 20% take-off penalty after adding take-off attempt penalties plus out of deck penalty.
Except in specified tasks, an aborted take-off where the canopy doesn't completely leave the ground, does not in principle attract any penalty, however the pilot must comply with any instruction from the marshals to expedite a re-launch or the pilot risks being relegated to the end of the queue.
Most pilots think take-off should always count for task scoring.
Part A enforces taking off within the deck in all tasks.
Part B takes into account the number of take-off attempts as a way to measure pilot's proficiency by establishing a 5% penalty for every unsuccessful take-off attempt. The concept of "clean take-off" is used, so only those attempts where the canopy completely leaves the ground are taken into account.
Only the first three attempts are penalised, and there is a 20% maximum take-off penalty, so if the pilot took off at the third attempt (10% penalty) and then ran out of the deck (20% penalty) he will be given a 20% take-off penalty.
Proposal 27a ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 27b ACCEPTED DENIED
from José Luis Esteban, ESP alternate delegate
Annex 4 structure:
Annex 4, Part 1. Applies to All classes
Annex 4, Part 2. Tasks for classes AL1, AL2, WL1, and WL2 (Classic classes)
FLIGHT PLANNING, NAVIGATION TASKS
FUEL ECONOMY, SPEED RANGE & DURATION TASKS
Annex 4, Part 3. Tasks for classes PF1, PL1 and PL2
[no explicit subsections]
New S10 Annex 4 structure:
Annex 4, Part 1. [same content]
Annex 4, Part 2. Task catalogue
Include all navigation tasks from the previous microlight and paramotor catalogue:
2A1, 2A2, 2A3, 2A4, 2A5, 2A6, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10, 2A11, 2A12, 2A13, 3A1, 3A2, 3A3, 3A4(*)
Economy, speed and noise tasks
Include all economy, speed and noise tasks from the previous microlight and paramotor catalogue
2B1, 2B2, 2B3, 2B4, 2B5, 2B6, 2B7, 3B1, 3B2, 3B3, 3B4 (*), 3B5, 3N1, 3N2
Microlight specific tasks
Include all microlight precision tasks
2C1, 2C2, 2C3, 2C4, 2C5, 2C6, 2C7, 2C8, 2C9,
Paramotor specific tasks
Include all paramotor precision and ground tasks
3C1, 3C2, 3C3, 3C4, 3C5, 3C6, 3C7, 3C8, 3C9, 3C10
Tasks marked with (*) include microlight and paramotor specific characteristics, and will be adapted to the specific competition in the local regulations.
It has been a common practice to design tasks inspired in the microlight catalogue for the paramotor competitions and vice versa. This new structure reflects that practice.
Some editorial work is needed to delete redundant tasks and to avoid mention to specific classes in some task definitions.
Proposal 28 ACCEPTED DENIED
Addition of three tasks into the task catalogue.
Curve Navigation with Time Estimation
Precisely fly the course defined by an arbitrary line drawn on the map, with time estimations and a time limit.
See task A described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf
Fly a circuit at a constant speed in each straight leg, estimating arrival times to known turn points.
See task B described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf
Proposal 29c new text
Contract Navigation with Time Controls
Fly a course between a combination of declared turn points, flying over some of them at a specified time.
See task C described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf
The three tasks have been used in recent international championships. They are easy to prepare and to marshal, and their track analysis can be automated if the task definition is not modified.
Proposal 29a ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 29b ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 29c ACCEPTED DENIED
Common description for navigation tasks.
14a: Microlights, 14b: Paramotors.
Navigation tasks in S10 Annex 4, Part 2: 2A1, 2A2 2A3, 2A4, 2A5, 2A6, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10, 2A11, 2A12
Proposal 30a new text
Replace these navigation tasks in annex 4 part 2 with tasks D & E described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf
Task D: Fusion of tasks 2A3, 2A6 and 2A12 in a single task description: Navigation over a known circuit.
Task E: Fusion of tasks 2A1, 2A2, 2A4, 2A5, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10 and 2A11 in a single task description: Navigation with unknown legs.
Proposal 30b new text
If proposal 28 is NOT accepted, then with reference to the tasks described in the attachment Proposed Task Sheets.pdf
- Task D replaces 2A3, 2A6 and 2A12
- Task E replaces 2A1, 2A2, 2A4, 2A5, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10 and 2A11
- Include task D
- Include task E
There are 12 task descriptions in the task catalogue which are very similar to each other. The only distinctive element is the existence or unknown legs in the circuit. The rest of the differences are simply the geometry of the circuit.
This may lead to two interpretations:
The tasks must be designed exactly as written on the catalogue; the competition director can't use even a slightly different one.
It is a fact that most navigation tasks are usually inspired in those in the catalogue, so this interpretation is not correct.
The tasks descriptions are guidelines or examples of possible navigation tasks.
In this case we have twelve descriptions and their specific details are hidden among many redundant paragraphs. If this second interpretation is correct, so much redundancy is unnecessary.
There are some other problems in current descriptions:
There is no scoring formula present in any of them.
There has been a big fuss about changing the scoring formula in a task during a recent championship. Can we simply delete the scoring formulas from the tasks to solve the problem? I don't think so. There should be at least a generic formula allowing for some variability if necessary.
Some penalties are interchanged:
Photo or marker misplaced on map > 2mm but < 5mm: No photo/marker score
Photo or marker misplaced on map > 5mm: Penalty 50% of photo/marker score
There is no mention to hidden gates at all.
Physically placing markers or taking photos, marking their positions on the map, manually evaluating the mark positions on the map is an extremely inefficient procedure compared to using GNSS and hidden gates. So hidden gates must be considered as a possible method to evaluate navigation tasks!!!
Makes an abstraction from the twelve navigation tasks into two. Previous descriptions are listed as examples, preserving their excellent drawings.
Corrects minor errors (wrong penalties and forgotten hidden gates).
Defines a generic scoring system including the following concepts:
Spatial precision (hidden gates or marks on maps)
Temporal precision (error in time gates) - Optional
Speed - Optional.
Proposal 30a ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 30b ACCEPTED DENIED
PL1 & PL2.
S10 An 4 3.C1. PRECISION TAKE-OFF AND LANDING
S10 An4 3.C5 PRECISION TAKE-OFF AND LANDING
The pilot is permitted four takeoff attempts, climbs to 500ft overhead the target, cuts the engine before passing through a gate and tries to make a first touch as near as possible to the centre of a target consisting of:
o A series of concentric circles for PF1 and PF2 classes
o A series of 5m wide parallel strips for PL1 and PL2 classes
An 4 3.C5 PRECISION TAKE-OFF AND LANDING
To make a clean take off at the first attempt in the deck, and subsequently land as near as possible to a point target which is:
o A point for PF1 and PF2 classes
o A 5 m long line marked on the ground perpendicularly to the wind direction.
The value of x, in metres will be given at briefing but may be between 10 and 25 metres depending on the meteorological conditions. This outer circle zone should be marked by cones or some other visual indication in the form of
o A circle for PF1 and PF2 classes,
o Two 5m long lines parallel to the target.
During the precision landing task of the last World Championships in China some PL1 trikes made an excellent landing in the centre point, however pilots didn't score maximum 250 points, because they were pointing the centre with their bodies rather than with one of their trike wheels (rear left or right).
PL1 and PL2 trikes touch the ground with the rear wheel first. Because rear wheels are located on an axis and aside of the pilot body, pilots need to choose one of the wheels to touch the ground first, and then make the trike land on that side by unbalancing the aircraft. This kind of landing increases the risk of dangerous landing and is unnatural for trikes.
Introducing linear targets rather then point targets for PL classes, would allow trike pilots to land on their natural way. Also this change will keep pilots from attaching fake additional central wheel mounted on the axis – exclusively for the benefit of precision landing tasks.
Proposal 31 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10, Scoring formulas in S10 Annex 4:
3.C2. PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME
3.C7. PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME (‘Clover leaf slalom’)
3.C8. PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME (‘Japanese slalom’)
3.C9 PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME (‘Chinese slalom’)
Each pilot's rank R is calculated using Q (best pilot: R = 1)
Pilot score = 500 * Q / Qmax + 500 * 0.8^(R-1)
Sp = The pilot's elapsed time between striking first and last targets
R = Pilot's rank using Q
Proposal 32a new text
Replace existing scoring in all 4 tasks with:
Ps = 500 – 30 * (T – Tpmin) Minimum Ps is zero
Proposal 32b new text
If the pilot strikes all the targets properly:
P = 1000 – 30 * (T – Tpmin)
During last CIMA meeting a ranking-based scoring system was introduced. But during last WPC2007 in China, some team leaders complained that in case the best 10 pilots were within the same second, they would receive scores ranging from 500 to 67 points from the second term in the formula.
Most teams agreed on an alternative scoring system which changes the second term in the formula and uses a calculation based on the absolute time difference between each pilot and the first one.
Proposal A: For each second difference, the pilot gets 30 points less.
Proposal B follows the skiing practice: If the pilot flies the circuit properly, striking all the targets, he gets time points, otherwise, he scores zero.
Proposal 32a ACCEPTED DENIED
Proposal 32b ACCEPTED DENIED
Fast-slow or Slow-fast.
S10 Annex 4: 3.C3. FAST / SLOW SPEED
To fly a course as fast as possible and then a course as slow as possible.
S10 Annex 4: 3.C10 FAST / SLOW SPEED (variant)
To fly a course as fast as possible and then a course as slow as possible. (or vice versa)
Note that this proposal also requires some editorial changes to the text in both tasks to clearly reflect the principle that the two legs can be flown in an order specified by the championship director.
Slow then fast, or fast then slow? This is a long-running argument.
From a championship director's perspective, slow then fast is better because there is less risk of congestion between the two courses caused by marshals letting people through the first course too quickly. The net result is that the whole task can probably be completed faster and more reliably.
From a competitors perspective, fast then slow is better because it is easier and quicker to put the aircraft into a 'slow' configuration between the two courses than to put it in 'fast' configuration.
The 2006 CIMA plenary addressed the competitors' problem by approving an amendment to these two tasks requiring a minimum distance between the two courses. For operational reasons at WPC 2007 it was much better to run the task slow then fast, and it was.
This proposal allows the championship director to choose for operational reasons whether the order should be Slow then Fast, or Fast then Slow, it makes no difference to the competitor.
Proposal 33 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 An 4 3.C3. FAST / SLOW SPEED
For each leg, the clock starts the moment the pilot passes the first gate and stops the moment he passes the second.
If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the first leg: VP1 = zero and EP = zero
If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the second leg: VP2 = zero and EP = zero
If the pilot zigzags or if the body of the pilot overflies a side of the course or exceeds 2m above ground: Score zero.
An 4 3.C10 FAST / SLOW SPEED (variant)
· For each leg, the clock starts the moment the pilot passes the first gate and stops the moment he passes the second.
· If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the first leg: VP1 = zero and EP = zero
· If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during the second leg: VP2 = zero and EP = zero
· If the pilot or any part of his paramotor touches the ground during his transition from the first to the second leg, or within 10 seconds after finishing the second leg, penalty 50% is applied to pilot's EP result.
· If the pilot zigzags or if the body of the pilot overflies a side of the course or exceeds 2m above ground: Score zero.
· The maximum time allowed for a pilot to complete each leg of the course is 5 minutes.
S10 An 4 3.C10 FAST / SLOW SPEED (variant)
· A valid strike on any stick is one where the pilot or any part of the aircraft has been clearly observed to touch it.
· For each leg, the clock starts the moment the pilot kicks the first stick and stops the moment he kicks the fourth stick.
· The pilot may have 3 attempts at kicking the first stick on each run.
· If the pilot misses the second or third stick then he is considered ‘too high’, penalty 50% leg score for each stick missed.
During the flight on slow course of SLOW/FAST task (variant) of the last World championship in China, one of the pilots flew too high, and stalled the wing to be able to strike the fourth stick. Pilot did strike the stick but didn't manage to sustain the flight, and fell in the stall just behind the stick. Immediately after that he took off again and flew away to the fast course of the task.
Championship director and international jury considered that flight valid, stating that there is no explicit rule in Section 10, that clearly forbids such a technique. The above amendment clarifies that matter.
There are at least two strong reasons for not allowing landing or touching the ground between the courses of slow-fast task:
1) Landing between courses might give an additional time for the pilot to reconfigure paramotor from slow to fast trimming. This is not a desirable advantage in this task. A penalty 50% for EP result seems to be a fair way to encourage pilots to fly the whole task non-stop.
2) Stalling a wing just before the last stick of slow course, might be perceived by pilots as an effective method to get better result, obviously increasing possibility of dangerous accidents.
Proposal 34 ACCEPTED DENIED
S10 An 4 3.C7. PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME (‘Clover leaf slalom’)
4 pylons 2m in height are laid out at the corners of a 75M 70.71M square. A fifth target is set at the centre of the square.
The drawing of the grid should be amended to reflect the intention of this proposal.
Distance of 70,71 m is a diagonal of 50 m sided square (which constitutes a grid for Japanese slalom). This slight modification of the Clover leaf slalom grid from 75 m to 70.71 m will make transition between Japanese and Clover leaf slaloms very easy. This in turn will lead to considerable simplification of every day training activities, pre-competition training, and competition organisation.
Additional benefit of having standardized slalom grid is the ease to incorporate different distances for mono and tandem classes (suggested in next amendments proposals).
Proposal 35 ACCEPTED DENIED
PL2 & PF2
S10 An 4 3.C8. PRECISION CIRCUIT IN THE SHORTEST TIME (‘Japanese slalom’)
4 pylons 2m in height are laid out on a 50m x 50m grid.
4 pylons 2m in height are laid out:
· At the corners of a 75M square for PF1 and PL1 classes,
· At the corners of a 100 m square for PF2 and PL2 classes.
A fifth target is set at the centre of the square.
· On a 50 m x 50 m grid for PF1 and PL1 classes,
· On a 70,71 m x 70,71 m grid for PF2 and PL2 classes.
50 m grid slaloms seem to be too small for some double seater aircrafts. These aircraft have to carry much higher loads, therefore some of them use bigger wings and/or stronger engines. The manoeuvreability of a 45 sq.m. (or more) wing can be too poor to fit in a 50 m grid slalom. Smaller tandem wings equipped with strong (thus fast) engines may also be in trouble to execute 50 m grid slaloms.
If the grid for PL2 and PF2 class slaloms will be wider, tandem pilots will compete heaving equal chances regardless a size of the wing or the thrust of the engine. Smaller grid forces some competitors to fly at a reduced speed, what is not a goal of that task in which the best result comes with the shortest time.
Although any grid over 70 m seems to be sufficient for double seater classes, a standard grid of 70.71 m has advantage of simplifying everyday training activity, pre-competition training on site, and in some circumstances can simplify organisation of the championships. A distance of 70,71 m is a diagonal length of a square with 50 m side. Reconfiguration of the slaloms for different classes, and switching between different kind of slaloms will be relatively easy, especially if the site is equipped with two standard grids oriented 45 degrees to each other.
Proposal 36 ACCEPTED DENIED
From Richard Meredith-Hardy, CIMA FRAC chairman
4.9.4.1 The default ‘short’ file name presented to the operator should be as follows: 000T00V0.IGC Where:
- Characters 1 – 3 are the pilot’s competition number, with leading zeros as necessary. (e.g. number 4 must be 004, this way all files will sort correctly in alphanumeric order.)
- Character 4 is fixed as T (for Task)
- Characters 5 & 6 are the task number, with leading zeros as necessary.
- Character 7 is fixed as V (for Version)
- Character 8 is the version number of the file, (ie this will be 1 the first time the file is created in the directory, but it will be 2 if the same data is transferred from the FR a second time. This makes it difficult for the operator to overwrite existing data.)
- Characters 9 to 12: fixed as .IGC This file suffix is the IGC standard and allows the file to be readily opened in many different flight analysis programs.
4.9.4.2 The preferred ‘long’ file name presented to the operator must be as above but include the pilot’s name: 000T00V0_PILOT_NAME.IGC
- The pilot name must be separated from the first 8 characters of the ‘short format’ name with the underscore ‘_’ character and all spaces in the pilot name must be replaced with the underscore ‘_’ character.- Pilot name must be in upper case characters A-Z, a-z and 0-9 only (ascii 65-90, 97-122 and 48-57). Accented characters etc. must be replaced with their nearest match from within this selection.
4.9.4.1 The file name presented to the operator should be as follows:
001T01V1R1_PILOT_name.IGC
- Characters 1 – 3 are the pilot’s competition number, with leading zeros as necessary. (e.g. number 4 must be 004, this way all files will sort correctly by competition number in alphanumeric order.)
- Character 9 is fixed as R (for Recorder). Note that for full backwards compatibility, analysis programs should appreciate that an underscore ‘_’ (ascii 95) may appear in this position.
- Character 10 is a number 1 to 9 indicating the status of the FR as declared by the pilot; 1 = Primary, 2 = first secondary, 3 = second secondary, Etc. Note that for full backwards compatibility, analysis programs should appreciate that if any other character appears in this position then the status of the FR is unknown.
- Character 11 is an underscore ‘_’ (ascii 95).
- Characters 12 to n is the pilot's name where n may not be more than 150. Pilot name must be in characters A-Z, a-z and 0-9 only (ascii 65-90, 97-122 and 48-57), accented characters etc. must be replaced with their nearest match from within this selection. All spaces in the pilot name must be replaced with the underscore ‘_’ (ascii 95).
- Characters n to n+4 are fixed as .IGC This file suffix is the IGC standard and allows the file to be readily opened in many different flight analysis programs.
Existing 4.9.4.2 is deleted.
Now that pilots are frequently using secondary FR's in championships it is desirable to include the distinction between primaries and secondaries in each saved FR track file name. In practice this has been done for some years by championship organizers to their own protocol, this proposal simply formalizes an amended file naming protocol in Annex 6 so that it can be exploited by flight analysis programs (eg by being able to open a primary track by default).
This proposed protocol is designed to be backwards compatible with existing FR download software. By definition it extends the mandatory file name beyond the original dos 8.3 'short' file format which for our purposes is now considered obsolete anyway.
This proposal therefore deletes the concept of a mandatory 'short' file name and a 'desirable' long file name and makes the 'long' file name mandatory with the added inclusion of a clause indicating FR status.
Note that although in practice pilot names are unlikely to be anything like as long as 138 characters, the total maximum length is set at 150 (rather than 255) to ensure compatibility with ISO 9960 which is used by many CD Rom mastering systems.
Proposal 37 ACCEPTED DENIED