Cross Country magazine will be reporting from inside the CIVL Plenary on 20 and 21 February. This page will be updated throughout the day. Refresh your browser to keep up to date.

7.30 pm: Martin Scheel, Swiss delegate and Swiss paragliding team leader talks about how CIVL are going to approach managing competition paragliders in Cat 1 competitions. Martin will chair the working group on all this, and much of what was proposed by the paragliding subcommittee and then adopted by CIVL, stems from his ideas.

2.20pm

The CIVL plenary meeting has closed.

To sum up the big decisions:

The paraglider will NOT be redefined, as requested by the PMA, so carbon technology stays in. (Technically, ‘The definition of paraglider will not be qualified with respect to ‘rigid structures”.)

CIVL will create their own guidelines for Open class paraglider behaviour and manufacturers will have to provide video evidence that their wings conform. How this is policed is undecided.

Prototype hang gliders are banned from FAI cat 1 events from 1 September 2010

Helmets: EN966 helmets, the only ones certified for airsports, will be mandatory in CAT 1 events

Certified harnesses must be used in CAT 1 events from 1 May 2011

2012 PG Europeans awarded to St Andre in France

2012 HG World Championships awarded to Turkey

Tracking devices can be worn by competitors in the next PG Euros [edit 22 Feb: to clarify this point, the rules have been amended so that tracking devices can be used in HG and PG comps - previously there was a chance that if someone made a protest, the rules would deem them as an 'external aid' which was not allowed.]

2pm: Final bits of business, ending with closing remarks and a date for the next Plenary – it will be in Lausanne, Switzerland on 26-27 February. Closing remarks: “We have had a very productive four days. Thank you for your cooperation.” And the meeting is closed.

1.50 pm: We interviewed John Aldridge earlier this morning before he became new president of CIVL. He discusses the new rule on excluding prototype hang gliders in Cat 1 competitions, the carbon debate in paragliders, safety and how CIVL works.

1.40 pm: One ripple of excitement in the nominations was when Chris Calvo Burns declined the nomination to be chairman of the paragliding subcommittee – a post he has held for two years – with the words “I am not able to accept the nomination”. That prompted a ‘what do you mean?’ question from the floor. The new president, John Aldridge, explained to the meeting that the UK national association – the BHPA – is unhappy with Calvo being chair of the PG subcommittee while being involved in organising the 2011 PG Worlds in Piedrahita, Spain, and the 2012 Euros in St Andre, France. That conflict of interest means he can’t take the chair, but he can stay involved in the committee.

Robert Aarts from Finland agreed to take on the chair of the paragliding subcommittee.

Here is John Aldridge discussing why Calvo has been asked to step down as chairman of the CIVL paragliding subcommittee.

12.45 pm: The meeting has now moved on to nominating and appointing people to the CIVL Bureau and the chairs of the various subcommittees. Top of the list is CIVL president. The current president, Flip Koetsier, is stepping down after five years in the post.

There are five nominations for president. Four decline the nomination. One, John Aldridge, vice president and UK delegate, accepts the nomination.

He is therefore declared the new president of CIVL.

John Aldridge is a retired army officer and started hang gliding in 1984. He has run hang gliding competitions in the UK since 1995 and serves on the UK’s BHPA executive. He was elected vice president of CIVL in 2002.

The position of president in CIVL is voluntary. We asked the Bureau who was paid and the Secretary, Louise Joselyn (who some will know from competitions held in Laragne, France) said: “The only person in CIVL who is paid is the comps coordinator. Normally the NAC/federation [the national airsports association] picks up the costs of delegates and volunteers, but in some cases delegates end up paying their own costs. CIVL does cover the costs of the president (and in this case, the secretary).”

The Slovenian delegate, the young Igor Erzen, is one who told us he had covered his own costs to be here, and only half-expected to get them back from his national association. Others, like Denmark’s are well funded – national sport associations in Denmark are funded by a tax on gambling, according to Danish attendee Rasmus Rohlff.

12.30 pm: The Pepe Lopes medal next. The Pepe Lopes medal is for ‘outstanding contribution to sportsmanship’:

…was established in February 1993 in memory of Pedro Paulo “Pepe” Lopes of Brazil who was the World Hang Gliding Champion in 1981. His energy and good humour played a big part in developing Brazil as an important centre for international competitions. He died during a hang gliding competition in Japan in 1991. The Medal may be awarded annually, on recommendation by the FAI Hang Gliding Commission, for outstanding contributions to sportsmanship or international understanding in the sport of hang gliding.

There no nominations this year, and thus no one receives the award. Previous awardees are here.

12.30 pm: The discussion has moved on to internal CIVL business and the annual accounts.

The accounts are online here – download ‘agenda pack 4′.

Headlines:

The big picture:
CIVL finished the year with a small excess of income over expenditure, at €4,296, increasing CIVL’s current bank balance to €146,171. However, not all the expenditure for the year has been paid out. Liabilities include late expense claims for CIVL officials. Judging training expenses not yet deducted and Cat 1 championship refund on sanction fee not yet made, amounting to approx €5,500. Note also, that income for the year includes team entry fees and bid fees held as a deposit on future Cat 1 Sanction Fees.

Where’s that from? A large chunk comes from comp fees:

Income from PG events continues to represent approaching 60% of sanction fee income. But growth in sanction fee income is now coming from HG and Accuracy disciplines.

Income from Category 2 events continues to grow year on year, and this year [2009] (Continental championships year), represents 81% of sanction fee income and 60% of CIVL total income.

11.40 am:

The final part of the Dutch proposal – about media – did not get a majority, so failed. Following that, and as expected, the Swiss proposal – the whole carbon debate – was then taken off the table by Swiss delegate Martin Scheel.

11 am:

The Netherlands Proposal is to ban prototype hang gliders in Cat 1 comps. The delegate stands to make his case, which is grounded in safety. He talks about the sprog measurements from last year’s World Championships, where some hang glider pilots turned up with sprog settings way over the top (makes you go faster, decreases stability). The delegate says he is “not worried about the Gerolfs and the Manfreds – they know what they are doing”. He is worried about the ones “who don’t know what they are doing”.

He argues that it will not stop development, because protos will still be able to fly at Cat 2 events – “about 100 events a year”. And development will happen there.

The argument rings bells with what is happening in paragliding just now. The current rule states:

‘Prototype gliders are only allowed with a manufacturer’s statement that the pilot is approved to fly this glider … a statement from the manufacturer must be produced confirming that the glider is airworthy and specifying the sprog settings at which this confirmation is valid.’

The proposal is to change it to:

‘Prototype gliders are not allowed in Cat 1 cross country events.’

A delegate stands to argue that the implication of such a change is that Cat 1 hang gliding will do what paragliding has just rejected ie go Serial class.

A second delegate stands to argue that is not the case. That the proposal says uncertified gliders will be allowed. And that is just what the PG subcommittee has decided to do in PG comps. A third delegate agrees.

The written proposal argues that the number of protos has increased since pilots have had to sign airworthiness waivers. “It became a manner of getting away with any changes made.” The proposal argues that manufacturers are not happy with this development. “It makes them more vulnerable to liability issues.”

If accepted it will be effective from May 1 this year. [11.20 am: This was reviewed and changed to September 1.]

The debate goes back and forwards across the floor, each delegate making their point.

The proposal goes to a vote.

In favour of approving the Dutch proposal: 23

Against: 5

Abstentions: 3

Result: “It passed”

10 am:

Bob Drury writes

Last night we went to the FAI/CIVL dinner and got a chance to talk directly to the delegates, and in particular the PG subcommittee, about the decision they took to turn down the PMA’s request to redefine the paraglider. Martin Scheel, the Swiss delegate, long time Swiss team leader and member of the subcommittee, revealed much more about what went on in the subcommittee meetings that took place on Thursday and Friday.

“We don’t feel there is a need to redefine the paraglider at this moment in time,” Martin told us. “It will need to be redefined at some time, but for the moment we are happy with it. We also do not want to restrict any of the developments that may come from the introduction of these new materials.”

Instead, manufacturers are to be asked to provide evidence that their paragliders are able to safely perform certain ‘basic’ manoeuvres. Those manoeuvres are at present undefined. How that evidence will be judged as to ascertain a wing’s security is also still unclear.

In order for the system to work CIVL will have to write their own set of certification standards, similar to that of EN or LTF, to be carried out on video by the manufactures’ test pilots, in order to judge a paraglider’s eligibility in FAI competitions. Who will judge these gliders’ eligibility is the obvious question and one that hasn’t been answered yet.

Calvo admits that CIVL will have to make these decisions itself, although paying for outside expertise is very much an option.

Martin Scheel however, thinks that the system could be self-regulating with manufactures making the video evidence of their wing’s behaviour freely available to pilots online. “If there are accidents on a certain wing the public will soon know about it and their reputation will be damaged.”

Asking the public to decide what they feel is an unacceptable level of safety for a wing and waiting until accidents prove it to be so could be seen to be putting too much responsibility on the pilot and manufacturer – something that is surely at the very root of the problem CIVL have been asked to address. However, Martin is adamant that this is still a positive step forward and “better than where we were”.

It seems there is little support for Serial Class amongst the subcommittee – they want to keep top-end performance wings alive at the highest level, but implement boundaries to increase safety. They simply think the current definition of Serial Class, EN D and below, is too restrictive. Instead, a new competition class of paraglider is their end goal.

If the proposed system doesn’t create a safer competitive environment though, Martin is clear that the subommittee would not hesitate to look at Serial Class again.

In the meantime Martin, who “worked for Swing as a designer and test pilot for ten years” and the PG subcommittee’s working group will be looking hard at how best to limit design. Restricting aspect ratio or total line length, both aimed at tackling the cravat problem modern two and three line wings suffer from, are being looked at.

Nothing will happen immediately. There will be no changes for the European Championships in Abtenau, Austria at the end of May, but manufacturers will have to provide video evidence that their wings pass the ‘basic’ manoeuvres for events in 2011.

9.55 am: A proposal from Germany to raise the team size of women’s hang gliding comps to six, from four, is discussed. German HG pilot and world champ Corinna Schwiegershausen argued for it previously in an “eloquent” submission at the HG subcommittee. Heather Mull, the Australian meet director, is for it too. Some are against it, arguing it will mean too many medals… The vote goes FOR teams of six.

9.45 am: Looking ahead to the day, what’s coming up? Various different proposals from eight countries are ahead. The country representative – the delegate – makes the proposal, then there is discussion – very calm, hands raised to make their point – and then a decision is made: vote on it, or do something else with it as procedure dictates.

One of the highlights will include whether to exclude prototype hang gliders from Cat 1 comps (Euros, Worlds and Continental championships).

9.15 am: Good morning from the CIVL Plenary. The Plenary has started as it left off, with voting starting almost immediately on the agenda points. All three championship bids proposed at the end of yesterday’s session have been voted through. The HG Euros 2012 will be in Turkey. The PG Euros 2012 will be at St Andre les Alpes, France.

The meeting started with a plea for more involvement with / awareness raising of the new Continental records. Kamira Pereira’s 300km+ PG flight in Quixada at the end of last year has been ratified as a Continental women’s record, but Dustin Martin got a namecheck for not having his recent World Record HG flight submitted for ratification as a Continental record (World Record, yes). Continental records are a newish initiative – the idea being pilots can chase records without having to fly half way round the world to get to a record-breaking spot.

• Got news? Send it to us at news@xcmag.com. Fair use applies to this article: if you reproduce it online, please credit correctly and link to www.xcmag.com or the original article. No reproduction in print. Copyright remains with Cross Country magazine. Thanks!

Subscribe to the world’s favourite hang gliding and paragliding magazine

Home

Cross Country magazine will be reporting from inside the CIVL Plenary on 20 and 21 February. This page will be updated throughout the day. Refresh your browser to keep up to date.

6 pm

The session has closed. Restart tomorrow at 9 am.

5.15 pm

The meeting has moved on to bids for future competitions. Prospective host countries have up to 20 minutes to promote their site and organisation to CIVL. Macedonia has just completed its bid for the European Paragliding Accuracy Championships 2012 and Turkey is currently presenting its bid for the European Hang Gliding Championships in 2012.
France will later bid for the European Paragliding Championships 2012 to be held in St Andre.

4.45 pm

Dennis Pagen is one of the oldest hands in the sport – he’s been flying since the early 1970s, and has written, broadcast and lectured on hang gliding around the world. He is also the chairman of the CIVL hang gliding subcommittee. We caught up with him at lunchtime, where he talked about the discussions going on in the hang gliding comp world here in Lausanne. Points of note include discussions about allowing prototype hang gliders in Cat 1 comps, or not, supporting open distance comps – increasingly popular, he said – and a proposal to allow points for altitude in the case of a stopped task. And of course sprogs. (Apologies for one or two abrupt edits – we dropped a transition.)

4.15pm

The plenary has agreed that EN966 helmets will be compulsory at FAI CAT 1 events – that’s just the Worlds, the Europeans and the other continental championships too. CAT 2 events will be encouraged to do the same, but EN966 helmets will not be mandatory equipment. A working group has been set up to compare other EN standards which are appropriate for our sports.

3.30pm

Despite successfully negotiating their way through some very tricky subjects the plenary are stuck on helmet certification. Some want compulsory EN966 helmets which is the EN standard for air sports, others want snowboarding, skiing and other helmets too. Remember this will only affect you in FAI events, back home you can still wear your old tin pot. Another working group is brewing on the horizon. We’ll give you the heads up when the plenary moves on…

3pm
The Software working group has recommended that pilots in the next European Championships all wear live tracking devices. At the last World championships the Italian team sparked controversy when it was revealed that they were using the devices. Other teams worried that the team leader could relay information, particularly a pilot’s position in the task relative to others, which could be advantageous.

They are also recommending a new stopped task rule that will take into account a pilots altitude at the time the task is stopped. Given recent evidence that GPS altitude is unreliable as a means of measuring altitude – see XC Mag 123 – this may be a contentious point, although the working group are adamant that they are accurate enough. The HG sub committee’s report has been approved by vote. Implementation of it will be decided by vote later on.

Dennis Pagen, who chaired the HG sub committee, speaks at length about the proposed stop task rule in a video interview that we are uploading right now…

2pm: Part two of the interview with Calvo Burns, who is the chairman of the paragliding subcommittee here at CIVL. He discusses helmets and the EN966 rule, and harnesses.

12.50pm: Part one of the interview with Chris ‘Calvo’ Burns on carbon in paragliding competitions, and comp gliders. Part two will follow shortly.

12.35: Apologies, UK’s Chris ‘Calvo’ Burns just told us that a further vote will take place this afternoon before HG prototypes are banned from CAT 1 comps. Like we said, its a complicated process going on here.

12.30: We just got a copy of the minutes of the PG sub committee’s meeting of the last two days. Returning to the Swiss proposal and the subject of ‘redefining the paraglider’ the minutes read.

“The SC felt almost unanimously that creating a new Class of paraglider at this time was not the route they would recommend and moved on to discuss the need for changing the definition. The meeting was divided on the need to qualify the definition. There was a lot of discussion as to why the definition needed qualifying, such as performance gap, safety, a line needed to be drawn so that future developments would not include more and more inflexible components. Some members of the SC felt it was important to give a clear direction to future development. The proposer indicated that he would also be happy with a modification to his proposal to a 10cm bending radius.

The discussion was suspended by a majority vote in order to discuss the Improving Paraglider Safety in Category 1 Competitions On resumption of this topic the Swiss proposal was withdrawn by the proposer and the discussion closed.”

The  SC discussed improving the safety standards of paragliders in Cat 1 competitions and felt unanimously that there had to be a change to the current situation.  The discussion covered a range of options including certified-only gliders (En D),  homologated open class gliders, gliders homologated to  a subset of specifications (aspect ratio and minimum line lengths, glider weight) and the idea of self certification by manufacturers. In addition ideas discussed included a separate serial class Cat 1 event or multi class Cat 1 events. But these were rejected by most members of the SC. The SC was generally in favour of not continuing to allow pilots to fly prototypes that had only load test documentation. The SC favoured the creation of a WG that would work with manufacturers to produce safer Open Class Paragliders

Going further into the minutes, the following motions were made by the group;

That from 2012 Category 1 competitions  should be restricted to paragliders certified to EN D or lower.

Proposed Finland Second USA   Vote: 5 in favour, 12 against , 1 abstention Motion failed

The following statement and motion was recommended to the Plenary by the Sub Committee:

“CIVL is fully aware that the introduction of new materials and new technology into paraglider design does not necessarily constitute a compromise in safety. On the contrary, we have seen many instances in which such innovations have actually made our sport safer.  With this in mind, it is not this Commission’s wish to limit the development of such innovation.  At the same time, however, with reference to FAI Category 1 events, it is this Commission’s responsibility to ensure that all participating paragliders actually adhere to or exhibit a demonstrable level of safety.  With this in mind we present the following proposal:

To address the issue of prototype and open class paragliders being eligible to fly in Cat 1 events.

1.a

In order for an otherwise non-certified paraglider to be allowed to take part in Category 1 events, as an initial interim solution, we propose introducing a form of ‘self-certification’ in which manufacturers will be required to publish documentation and a video of the paraglider wherein its various flight characteristics have been demonstrated as a result of a series of manoeuvers.

To this end, establish a working group that will determine what would have to be documented and displayed as well as the parameters under which it would be produced.

1.b

As a long term solution, we propose the eventual introduction of a new standard (eventually EN), wherein, only paragliders meeting the requirements delineated within this standard would be allowed to take part in Category 1 events.  To this end, establish a working group that would study this issue and determine the requirements such a paraglider would have to fulfill as well as the feasibility and means by which such a new standard could be introduced.

2.

The working group will also study the possibility of introduction of limitations such as aspect ratio, weight of the paragliders, minimum line length or other options.

12.15: Dennis Pagen (US) has summed up the joint HG and PG sub committee’s proposals. They include:
Banning of prototypes in CAT 1 HG comps
Widening the type of tasks
The use of tracking devices
Amendments to the penalty system in comps

It’s a long process but it looks like the vote has been to accept the proposal and notably to ban protoypes from CAT 1 HG comps, something that will undoubtedly affect manufacturers hoping to test their developments in these events. We’ll catch up with Dennis Pagen once this session ends and confirm this.

12.01pm

The vote has gone in favour of approving the PG Sub committee’s proposal. Only the UK’s John Aldridge and Germany’s Klaus Tanzler
voted against it.

12.00 noon

PG Sub committee chairman Chris ‘Calvo” Burns points out that CIVL will be deciding what passes and fails the certification for comp wings, not the manufacturers or a testing body. How this will be done has not been revealed. The UK remains fast in its views saying it believes this is the wrong direction for the sport. Voting on the Swiss proposal will take place very soon.

11.45 am

The plenary are discussing the PG sub committee’s recommendation for manufactures’ to self certify comp wings in CAT 1 events.

UK has stated it will not vote in favour of any type of self certification. Germany says it will give it a year but if there isn’t a marked improvement in safety it will push for serial class. The USA’s Dennis Pagen thinks any form of certification is better than nothing.

11.30am: We have just interviewed Chris ‘Calvo’ Burns, the chairman of the CIVL paragliding subcommittee. He explained the PMA proposal has indeed been rejected, and that carbon technology will be allowed in competition – providing the gliders meet certain standards. The video of the interview is being uploaded and should be online here in half an hour. He also discusses helmets, harnesses, and the whole issue of safety in general.

10.30am: Lausanne is very calm this morning. The CIVL Plenary is underway, with welcome speeches done and dusted, and the voting starting. Delegates break for coffee in a few minutes, and we’ll try and get an overview of the main issues from some of the people involved. After that we’ll be blogging live as voting continues throughout the day.

• Got news? Send it to us at news@xcmag.com. Fair use applies to this article: if you reproduce it online, please credit correctly and link to www.xcmag.com or the original article. No reproduction in print. Copyright remains with Cross Country magazine. Thanks!

Subscribe to the world’s favourite hang gliding and paragliding magazine and get the latest top-level analysis on the CIVL Plenary, the Carbon Debate, plus what it means for pilots around the world, in the next issue: out early March 2010.

Home

Cross Country magazine will be reporting from inside the CIVL Plenary on 20 and 21 February

9.30pm: Nothing official from CIVL, but this is what ThomasB has reported from today’s session. Bear in mind all this still has to be voted on over Saturday and Sunday.

Unanimously accepted:

We will build a working group formed of CIVL members, manufacturers and experts.

We want self-certification of every manufacturer for the basic maneuvers the working group defines.

We well leave everything as it if for the Euros 2010.

We want to have the new rules in effect for the Worlds 2011.

We want some basic limitations for paragliders like minimum linelength per aspect ratio and maximum glider weight for the Euros 2012.

And further points discussed and/or voted on:

Definition of a paraglider …> leave it as it is.

Serial Class gliders only from 2012 on in Cat. 1: 12/5 against

Split Team and Individual Worldchampionships: Together (one for split)

Is livetracking inappropriate help for pilots and teams and should be banned? No

Separate Worlds for the women: Wait for reactions from the Women’s Open.

Review of the bid from St. Andre for the Euros 2012: OK

Brazil was not ready for a review because they were not approved by their NAC.

Change the allocation of pilots to 1+1 from 3+1. In fact is does not make any difference at the moment (simulated with the Worlds 2009) but saves us from exceeding 150 when more nations participate: 12/4 in favour

What can we conclude from this? We’re not 100% sure. The most important point seems to be that the PMA’s proposal to change the definition of a paraglider – the whole flexible/rigid debate about carbon – may have been voted out. This is at least what we deduce from ThomasB’s very short post: “Definition of a paraglider …> leave it as it is.” What does this mean? It seems to refer to the Swiss Proposal, which reads in full:

In S7B Ch 1.5.1.1 Definition of Class 3 [paraglider]:
Add the sentence: The term ‘no primary rigid structure’ is defined, for competition purposes only, as the ability of all components to be bent around a radius of 1 cm by 180°. (NB: This is a proposed amendment solely to the existing S7B qualification of the FAI definition. The FAI definition remains unchanged.)
Explanation: The current rule is not precise enough. The current situation is unfair for manufacturers and pilots. Important: Switzerland is strongly against the introduction of a second class of paraglider.

ThomasB’s post could be interpreted as the PMA’s ‘Swiss Proposal’ being rejected. (Again, this is only what the paragliding subcommittee recommends – voting on this happens Saturday and Sunday.) It could of course mean it’s still under discussion. (What does ‘…>’ mean, is what we want to work out.)

Secondly, Open class gliders in competition will stay. The subcommittee voted against the idea of excluding Open class gliders 12 to five.

Thirdly, we don’t quite understand this: “We want self-certification of every manufacturer for the basic maneuvers the working group defines.”

Presumably this is in response to the debate around Open class gliders in competition. We think it means that manufacturers will have to “self certify” – ie declare – that their Open class gliders in comps are safe in the basic SIV situations – Stall, Spin, Asymetric Collapse etc. But will video evidence be needed, or will it just be a case of the manufacturer saying, “Yes, it’s OK”? We’ll need to clarify this – and the consequences of a manufacturer ‘bending’ this rule – as it feels like an important point.

It also seems that CIVL will – if voted through – form a working group to discuss the ‘boundaries’ of Open class. So uncertified wings will be allowed in World Championships, and CIVL appears to have stepped back from the full-blown Serial route, but they are going to think about putting certain (sensible?) demands in place on all wings. It appears to be a middle way basically, between leaving the Open class entirely open and clamping down totally by requiring everyone to compete on a Serial class glider.

So, we need to clarify exactly what has happened – ThomasB’s post is brief – and we need to clarify whether this is a step in the right direction, or something else. We don’t have a view on that, but we’re keen to find out – we’ll be in Lausanne Saturday and speaking to the people involved (plus all the other debates surrounding hang gliding, tracking, GPS and altitude etc).

At the moment we’re in Chamonix, watching the snow.

10.30am: An update from the Facebook Spy, on her blog, about yesterday. They did indeed discuss pilot numbers and quality at Cat 1 competitions.

She writes:

Number of pilots in Cat.1 events. Another controversial debate hinging around whether the FAI wants to include all eligible nations in Cat.1 events or whether following on from a decision by the Olympic committee that only satisfactorily qualified competitors should be allowed to compete.

I’m not sure of the details of the Olympic committee discussions but seemingly the Olympics are no longer open to ALL nations if a minimum standard is not reached. Anyway an analysis of the recent Serbian Europeans and Mejico Worlds showed no correlation between accidents and low ranked pilots. Following discussion around that, WPRS ranking seemed not to be a good way of restricting entry.

The local organisers [of comps] will continue to define the maximum numbers (up to 150) and minimum standards to enter an event in the Local regulations which must be approved by the Plenary.

However a motion was made for an amendment to section 7 as follows: “Pilots must have flown ‘x’ number of flights over ‘y’ kilometers in an FAI sanctioned paraglding competition with a minimum of ‘z’ competitors.

The aim is to ensure that ‘reasonable quality’ events are used in the selection procedure of pilots who don’t automatically qualify on the basis of ranking, since pilot numbers are perceived to determine that a pilot has the ability to fly in gaggles.

9.30am, Friday 19 February: A bit more news filtered through from yesterday’s discussions. Our contact reveals: “There was a good presentation from the DSX people on Safly, for tracking devices. This topic will get discussed further tomorrow [Friday] morning in the Software working group.

“Is it a viable technology or still a ‘gadget’ – it will need some larger scale testing – probably to find an answer, though is being looked at seriously by other commissions (ie sailplanes).”

And on the hang gliding side: “Manfred Ruhmer is here – interested in the defining prototype discussion and sprog settings.”

They concluded: “Lots still up in the air, so difficult to pin down any real conclusions. … The big topic debates will start tomorrow [Friday] for PG and HG.”

One of other contacts said: “There has been a lot of talking. But Today is THE biggy!”

So yesterday was just a warm up, and today we get to the meat on the bone.

Interestingly, we spoke to Russell Ogden – one of the pilots who flew the carbon-loaded BBHPP in the Superfinal – yesterday.

The whole Serial class debate came up. He’s not against it – in fact in many ways he’d welcome it, he said. Otherwise the fear is high-level competition becomes an ever-more elite group of pilots racing increasingly-elite gliders. “I lost seven contact lenses flying at the Superfinal!” he said. That’s wide-eyed flying for you.

The Cross Country team is in the south of France, and heading to Lausanne this afternoon / evening. We’ll keep this page updated here until we head off, and then be back on in the evening.

Meanwhile, keep up to date on happenings in the Plenary subcommittees:

On Facebook Subcommittee Spy

On PGforum Subcommittee Spy

A PG Forum discussion on the Serial class debate

Post below if you know anyone else blogging from inside the Plenary.

• Got news? Send it to us at news@xcmag.com. Fair use applies to this article: if you reproduce it online, please credit correctly and link to www.xcmag.com or the original article. No reproduction in print. Copyright remains with Cross Country magazine. Thanks!

Subscribe to the world’s favourite hang gliding and paragliding magazine

Home

Cross Country magazine will be reporting from inside the CIVL Plenary on Saturday and Sunday 20 and 21 February 2010.

18 February, 7.30 pm (post liable to update and change): The CIVL Plenary voting kicks off on Saturday 20 February and lasts for two days. Delegates from 30 countries are already in Lausanne, Switzerland, divided up into various subcommittees, discussing the finer points of their discipline’s agenda.

The annual meeting is not an over-arching discussion on ‘The Future of Paragliding and Hang gliding’. It is only about FAI competition paragliding and hang gliding.

That’s important, of course, as it can affect the direction development of gliders goes in, but it’s not the be-all and end-all. Decisions made here have impact, but they will not necessarily define how many pilots will enjoy the sport.

With that said, the hot topic and the one that has caught the attention of paraglider pilots around the world is the carbon debate – should it be allowed in competition?

The other hot topic is the discussion of safety in paragliding comps. Just over a year ago there was a heated discussion (read, The Cold Hard Truth, by Mark Hayman, which articulated what many felt at the time) involving CIVL about the safety of paragliding competitions – the World Championships saw one tragic death and many (too many, some argued) reserve deployments. Something must be done, said many.

That ‘something’ might just be the exclusion of Open class paragliders in FAI competition. The world’s FAI/CIVL comp pilots might all be on Serial class paragliders this time next year.

Certainly, anecdotally many members of CIVL – who in the main have a long involvement in the sport – consider paragliding to have an ‘issue’ that needs addressed when it comes to safety. We’ll wait and see.

Already though we can glean some of what is going on in the subcommittees. Word on Facebook, updated by a pilot inside the meeting, is that the paragliding subcommittee, chaired by Chris ‘Calvo’ Burns, has agreed that pilots should wear a helmet certified to EN966 standard for Category 1 competitions (eg, World Championships).

EN966 is a specification “for helmets for airborne sports”. That means no snowboard helmets or climbing helmets.

This is no big surprise. The Plenary is being asked to ratify the helmet issue as a decision already taken by the CIVL Bureau (see point 8ii in the agenda below, for the really keen) before anyone came to the table.

The meeting was asked to consider whether or not they agreed with: “The decision to: ‘Introduce a rule mandating that from 1 January 2010, pilots competing in Category 1 events wear a helmet approved to EN966.’”

They did, according to Austria’s ThomasB on pgforum.com, taking a good couple of hours to discuss it. According to Thomas the subcommittee, “decided not to be smarter than the people that make the norms and leave EN996 only”.

Despite seeming a very sane move it is however, a little controversial. Many will point to other EN (European Norms) for other types of helmets and say they are just as good – or even better. So, as ThomasB pointed out, it won’t have been a straightforward discussion.

The same Facebooker (it’s reported on pgforum.com too) also reported that discussions over harnesses have resulted in a proposal that from 2011 all harnesses (in FAI competition remember) are to be EN1651 and LTF09 certified. What does that mean? A certain amount of back protection in your racing harness, basically.

Interestingly, this came from a proposal from the PMA – the same Paraglider Manufacturers Association that proposed the ‘ban’ on carbon (plus other non semi-flexible materials) and faced a lot of flak for it.

Intriguingly, what was not ‘revealed’ on either Facebook or any forums – so far as we know, feel free to post below if you know different or email assistanteditor@xcmag.com – was the results, if any, of the next few ‘hard’ discussions. We can only presume that they did not take place today, and will be discussed later.

Either way, the next items up for discussion in the PG subcommittee are important, and could have a big impact on comp flying. They are:

- Improving Paraglider Safety in Category 1 Competitions: whether or not to restrict competitions to Serial class only and exclude Open class gliders, or somewhere in between.

- Part Two of the Swiss Proposal (Part One is the ‘carbon issue’ and will be discussed separately) – whether to set up a working group to set restrictions on construction acceptable for gliders in competitions, or setting new homologation for comp class gliders.

- The number of competitors allowed at Category 1 events and the level of qualifications required. (This includes how to quantify experience in gaggle flying, according to the subcommittee agenda. Go on, try and do that. A prize for the best answer posted below…)

All yet to be discussed and revealed, along with much more, and then to be voted on at the weekend.

Cross Country will be there, reporting from inside the conference hall as the votes go through on both days.

In the meantime, here is a look at the two-day agenda for the whole meeting.

Annual Meeting of the FAI Hang Gliding & Paragliding Commission, Hotel Movenpick, Lausanne, Switzerland, 20 and 21 February 2010

1 Opening of the meeting

2. Roll call, apologies and proxies: number of votes

3. Declaration of conflicts of Interest, according to FAI Code of Ethics (Annex 2)

4. Approval of the Agenda

5. Approval of the minutes of the last Plenary meeting

6. Report of the CIVL President

7. Report of the FAI Secretary General

8. The Plenary is asked to ratify the following decisions taken by the Bureau in accordance with IRs 4.3 and 4.4 (CIVL Internal Regulations)
i) Approval of minor changes (name, personnel, dates) to the 2nd FAI Asian PG Championship, and to allow the entry fee to be increased by expressing it in local currency.
ii) Introduction of a rule mandating that from 1 January 2010, pilots competing in Category 1 events wear a helmet approved to EN966.
iii) To upload PG competition results with task dropping using the full number of tasks flown, until the PG SSC determines an alternative solution.
iv) Approval of the Local Regulations for the 2010 FAI European Paragliding Championships in Abtenau, Austria.
v) Approval of the Local Regulations for the 2010 FAI Asian PG Championships in Nishiawa, Japan.
vi) Approval of the Local Regulations for the 2010 FAI HG Womens Worlds, Classes 2&5, Tegelberg, Germany.
vii) Approval of the Local Regulations for the 2010 FAI European HG Championships, Ager, Spain. See Annex 22 or here for all approved Local Regulations.
viii) Bureau decision in October 2009 to split the approval of Cat 1 Entry Requirements from the approval of Local Regulations in order to publish entry information as early as possible.
vix) Other Bureau decisions taken at the Bureau Meeting, October 2009. Minutes available.

9. Review of the 2009 Championships. Reports from:
- FAI World HG Championships, Laragne, France – John Aldridge
- FAI World Paragliding Accuracy Championship, Croatia – Violeta Grigoraiteine
- FAI World Air Games, Avigliana, Italy – Dennis Pagen

10. Report and Proposals Safety & Training Subcommittee – Leonard Grigorescu

11. Report and Proposals of HG Subcommittee (including Pitch Stability & Sprog Measurements WGs) – Dennis Pagen & Koos de Keijzer

12. Report and Proposals of PG Subcommittee (including PG Safety WG) – Chris Burns

13. Report and Proposals of combined HG/PG Subcommittee meeting

14. Report and Proposals PG Accuracy Subcommittee –Jurij Vertacnik

15. Report and Proposals Aerobatics Subcommittee – Dennis Pagen & Iris Vogt

16. Report and Proposals Records & Badges Subcommittee – Richard Westgate

17. Report and Proposals Software Working Group (including Altitude Limits WG) – Agust Gudmundsson

18. Report and Proposals Sporting Code Subcommittee – John Aldridge

19. Report from Cat 1 Preparation & performance Measures Working Group – John Aldridge

20. Jury & Steward selection & coordination issues, including report from Jury& Steward Selection Working Group

21. Presentations of bids (to be made Saturday afternoon):
- FAI European HG Championship 2012: Turkey See Annex 24
- FAI European PG Championship 2012: France. See Annex 21 or Download the bid documents
- FAI European PG Accuracy Championship 2012: FYR Macedonia See Annex 10
- FAI Pan American PG Championships 2012: Brazil See Annex 23 further photos available
NB. FAI Asian PG Championships 2012 – Intention to bid received from China

22. Award of the 2012 FAI Championships (to be made Sunday morning)

23. Bureau Proposals: Changes and Amendments to Internal Regulations. See Annex 11

24. US Proposals:
i) Discussion: In light of the cancellation of the Aerobatics Worlds, Omegna, to explore CIVL policies to facilitate smaller Cat 1 Events & how to avoid cancellation in the future.
ii) Set up separate system of Cat2 and Cat 1 Open Distance competitions

25. France Proposals: See Annex 12
i) Task Advisory Committee wording change – S7A
ii) GAP parameters to be discussed & announced at 1st TL briefing – S7A
iii) Change of max ballast to 20kg – S7A
iv) Change to stopped task scoring – S7A

26. Germany Proposals: See Annex 13
i) Women’s HG class 1 – 2 to score for team
ii) Women’s HG class 1 – stopped task scored after 1h
iii) Women’s HG class 1 – team size to be increased to 6

27. Australia Proposals: See Annex 14
i) Establish new HG Safety WG
ii) Revise set up and operation of CIVL WGs
iii) 2year transition for safe settings for small gliders
iv) Review of change of representation rule

28. Netherlands Proposals: See Annex 15
i) Backdate implementation of reduced field for Sport Class validity
ii) Banning prototypes from HG Cat 1s
iii) Extending qualification criteria for HG comps

29. Switzerland Proposals: See Annex 16
i) Re-qualifying S7B definition of Class 3 paraglider [The Carbon Debate]
ii) Setting up WG for PG construction limitations, or, establish homologation
procedures for competition class gliders

30. Slovakia Proposal: See Annex 17
Change of definition of Class 1 Hang glider

31. Spain Proposals: See Annex 18
i) Development of alternative types of task
ii) FAI to monitor airspace issues

32. Continental Records – Update – John Aldridge

33. Bureau Proposal: Revisiting the CIVL Long Term Plan – CIVL President

34. Financial Report 2009 – Louise Joselyn See Annexes 19 & 20 (To be published 22 January)

35. Budget 2010 – Louise Joselyn (Draft to be published 22 January)

36. Discharge of Bureau responsibility for 2009 decisions 2010 CIVL Plenary Meeting 5

37. Awards – Pepe Lopes Medal and FAI Hang Gliding Diploma (see FAI By-Laws 12.10.1 and12.10.2)

38. Nominations and elections of the CIVL Bureau

39. Nominations and elections of the chairs of the SSCs

40. Bids for organising the next Plenary meeting

41. Dates and venue of the next Plenary meeting

42. President’s closing remarks

• Got news? Send it to us at news@xcmag.com. Fair use applies to this article: if you reproduce it online, please credit correctly and link to www.xcmag.com or the original article. No reproduction in print. Copyright remains with Cross Country magazine. Thanks!

Subscribe to the world’s favourite hang gliding and paragliding magazine

Home

Scott Mason is standing firm in the face of a sustained local media campaign against his parahawking centre in Pokhara, Nepal.

According to a news report in the London Evening Standard on 17 February, the centre faces closure.

The Evening Standard reported: ‘The Nepalese government has announced that the Himalayan Raptor Rescue Centre in Pokhara is to be closed following allegations that it was illegally holding endangered birds and that the parahawking amounted to cruelty.’

However, Scott corrected the news report via his Facebook site, saying: “Please note, we are not ‘grounded’ as reported in the Evening Standard. We are still going strong and will deal with any problems that come our way through the correct channels.

“The best way to keep supporting us and vulture conservation is to continue to fly with us, that way we can raise more money to save the vultures.”

Parahawking in Nepal

Scott’s centre has been subject to a month-long campaign by a Nepalese newspaper to shut down Scott’s operation. The ‘Mason Must Go!’ campaign claimed Scott was illegally holding endangered species in his rescue centre.

However, Bird Conservation Nepal, a local conservation group, has backed Scott. Chief executive Hum Guring said: “The work of the Himalayan Raptor Centre is much appreciated and is also an important source of income for sustaining the rescue works and to support vulture conservation in Nepal.”

Scott has operated in Nepal for a decade and has given tandem parahawking flights to hundreds of tourists. Alongside the tandem operation he runs a rescue centre for vultures and birds of prey.

Know more? Post below

• Got news? Send it to us at news@xcmag.com.

Subscribe to the world’s favourite hang gliding and paragliding magazine

Home