13.1.1 ANDS and GFAC Report

ANDS Report (Air Traffic, Navigation, Display Systems) and GFAC Report

The chairman of the ANDS Committee, Mr Bernald Smith, had some reflections on the GARMIN COTS presentation, and promised that ANDS would continue to look at COTS. He then asked the plenum to reconsider to join EUROCAE, a European Standardisation Committee, with the aim to have more influence on the development of aviation equipment for gliders.

Mr Ian Strachan, chairman of the GFAC Committee, gave a presentation where he showed the difference between GPS altitude and pressure altitude logs. GFAC has seen examples where the GPS altitude makes considerable jumps, and the GFAC members consider pressure altitude as more accurate. Dead reckoning is a problem as well; some COTS products continue tracking based on a state vector when they do not receive GPS signals.

Mr Strachan also raised a different issue; Flight Recorder Manufacturers were obliged to provide MS Windows based downloading programs by 1st July 2004. Some have not done this. It was agreed to prolong the deadline with 12 months to 1st July 2005 without consequences for the manufacturers.

Mr Ross Macintyre asked how GFAC can be sure that the altitude overshoots shown in the presentation not are undershoots by pressure altitude.

Mr Strachan answered that the nature of the plots clearly showed that the GPS altitude was wrong.

Annual Election of GFAC members

Rolf Buelter and Hans Trautenberg were both re-elected unanimously as members of GFAC for three years.

13.1.2 Sporting Code Section 3, Annex B

Changes to Sporting Code Section 3 Gliding, Annex B, Technical Requirements for Equipment used in Validation of Flights

Mr Smith presented the changes proposed to Annex B:

• Declarations for two seaters (SC3, Annex B, Para 4.2.1). To allow for two seaters, in Sub-para (b) (pilot name) change "Pilot" to "Pilot, or for two seaters Pilot In Command and other pilot, crew or passenger".

This was unanimously approved as a Year 1 proposal.

• Use of Waypoint Lists in Pre-flight Declarations (SC3, Annex B, Para 4.2.1) Where waypoints are identified in the declaration by abbreviations or codes rather than by exact WGS84 lat/long or by exact geographical points, the key to the abbreviation or code must (1) include the exact WGS84 lat/long or be the exact geographical point against each abbreviation or code used in the declaration, (2) be attached to the claim (3) must be shown to have existed before the flight concerned.

This was unanimously approved as a Year 1 proposal.

13.1.3 Sporting Code Section3, General Section and Annex C

Changes to Sporting Code Section3 Gliding, General Section and Annex C, Official Observer and Pilot Guide

Mr Ross Macintyre presented the proposed changes.

• Diamond award (SC3, GS, Para 2.1.3) add at the end "NACs should maintain a register of these badges and on notification by the NAC, FAI will enter the names of pilots attaining the 3 diamonds award in an international register"
• Badges and Diplomas for flights of 750 kilometres and more (SC3, GS, Para 2.1.4) change to read: "These are a family of badges that are achieved on completing a distance flight of 750 kilometres or more, in increments of 250 kilometres (ie. 750 km, 1000 km, 1250 km, 1500 km, etc.). One badge is awarded per flight for the incremental distance immediately less than the distance flown. NACs should maintain a register of these badges and on notification by the NAC, FAI will award a special Diploma for flights of 1000 km and more."
• This amendment is an optional extra following on from the above, the current illustration would still be valid, but altering as suggested below would give a picture of the new 750km badge in 2.2. The change required would be to simply place "750" on the badge illustration in place of the "1000" that currently shows.

The changes proposed by Mr. Macintyre were all unanimously approved and will enter into force from 31 October 2005

• Two proposals were brought forward by the Netherlands to remove the requirement that turn points should be separated by at least 10 kilometres. The Dutch delegate Mr. Robin Maarschalkerweerd presented the proposal and the argumentation.
  
  Sporting Code Annex A Commission members were not in favour of the proposal, as they did not see the change as an advantage to the gliding movement.
  
  Mr Terry Cubley, Australia, supported the proposal in order to simplify things, and did not see any problem with it.
  
  Mr Tor Johannessen stated that we have had this rule for many years, should we really change the rules just because one pilot misunderstands the rule?
  
  Mr Spreckley said that he had difficulties understanding the proposed text.
  
  Mr. Henderson concluded the debate and asked the delegates to vote.
  
  The first proposal concerning badge flights was lost, 6 votes for, 23 against.
  
  The second proposal concerning record flights was lost, 2 votes for, 23 against.

• A proposal to re-instate the two seater class was received from Germany. Mr Reich outlined the proposal before the debate started.
  
  Mr Linke asked if Germany wanted to have WGCs in the two seater class?
  
  Mr Macintyre wanted to know if it was going to be a separate record class?
  
  The IGC president replied that this had nothing to do with records, but if the class was defined, IGC could sanction competitions in the class.
  
  The German delegate agreed to the statement of the president.
  
  Mr Waldemar Ratajczak, Poland, was of the opinion that a two seater class is also a good idea from a Public Relations point of view.
  
  The French delegate asked the meeting to act carefully, stating that we have to consider this closely. We should not accept this, but ask the committee to look at the class structure as a whole.
  
  Mr Spreckley supported the French viewpoint.
  
  The Spanish delegate, Mr Angel Casado asked why 20 meters had been chosen as wing span.
  The German delegate replied that 20 meter is the existing German two seater class.
  
  Mr Spreckley suggested the proposal be taken off the table and given to the Champion Management Group for further development.
  
  Mr Terry Cubley said that the proposal was in line with the general development of the glider fleet, so we should go for this.
  
  The IGC president summarised the debate, and asked the delegates to vote. The proposal was accepted as a Year 1 proposal, 21 votes for, 8 against.

13.1.4 World Record Review Panel (WRRP)

The chairman of the World Record Review Panel (WRRP) Mr. Brian Spreckley referred to the report sent out before the meeting, and went directly to the Year 1 proposals for changes to the Sporting Code.

• SC 3, GS, Para 3.3: For all World Record (WR) flights where there is a requirement for a flight declaration, only electronic declarations shall be accepted.
  
  The proposal was unanimously approved.

• To include in SC3 at appropriate places, a requirement for all personnel involved in verification and homologation, except the pilot and Official Observer (OO), to clearly be independent of the claimant and the flight other than the contact required by this code to collect data and information for verification purposes.
  
  Mr Terry Cubley was worried about the consequences this would have on e.g. the gliding federations working with records.
  
  A long debate took place, where one of the arguments for the proposal was that this was only when dealing with World Records.
  
  The proposal was approved with one vote against.

• SC3, GS, Para 5: a) Before acting in their capacity as an OO for the verification or recording of any aspect of a WR claim the OO must be specifically approved for this role by his NAC. Previous satisfactory performance of overseeing flights that qualify for FAI badges or national records and experience of verification of flight information recorded by IGC approved Flight Recorder is expected.
  
  b) Before acting as an OO for a WR attempt originating outside his or her own country, the OO must obtain written authorization from both (1) the OO’s NAC and (2) the NAC in the country where the flight originates.
  
  Proposal a) was approved with one vote against.
  
  Proposal b) was approved unanimously.

• SC3, GS, Para 4 and possibly 3: For World record attempts any FR used to record the flight of a glider with a Means of Propulsion (MoP) must have an approved system that records the use of the MoP automatically without any action by the pilot. This MoP recording system must not be capable of being turned off or require the FR to have a special type of mounting within the cockpit.
  
  It was noted that the words: "before the flight" should be added to the original proposal.
  
  The proposal was then unanimously adopted.

• SC3, GS, Para 4.6.4 and 3.2.1: a) When a FR file from a WR attempt is transferred in the presence of an approved OO, he should be required to keep an additional copy of the file as a back up and make it available to the FAI or verifying NAC if requested to do so.
  
  or
  
  b. The OO’s copy of the FR file for a WR attempt must be sent to the FAI with notification of intention to claim a WR within seven days of completion of the record attempt.
  Compared to the proposal sent out to the delegates before the meeting, the WRRP had made a small adjustment to part b) to read as above.
  
  Proposal a) was unanimously adopted.
  
  Proposal b) was unanimously adopted.

• The following actions will be applied to any pilot or OO proven to have falsified information or cheated in any manner to obtain the award of a WR.
  
  a) Permanent loss of sporting license.
  
  b) Permanent expulsion from any NAC and thus prohibition against any future participation/recognition for badges, competition and/or records as pilot or official.
  
  With either of the alternatives marked c1) and c2).
  
  c1) Withdrawal of any achievement of records/badges/competition prior to the date of the cheating, subsequent to the time of adoption of this proviso.
  
  c2) Withdrawal of any previous achievement of records/badges/competition.
  
  Mr Leiniki, the Finnish delegate, raised concern about the actual wording, and found that we should be careful with the word “permanent”. It was also a question whether preceding records could be touched.
  
  The Finnish comments were accepted by the meeting, and the WRRP was asked to take this into consideration when developing the Year 2 proposal.
  
  The proposal was adopted with 1 vote against.

13.1.5 Sporting Code 3D, Annex A

Mr Axel Reich, chairman of the Annex A Group referred to the report sent out before the meeting, and mentioned that the workload for the group was rather high, in particular because many of the members of the group had additional tasks. He was looking for volunteers to join the group.

The following Year 1 changes to SC Annex A were proposed by the IGC Bureau:

• SC3, Annex A, Para 4.2.1 a: Revised MTOM Open Class. The Maximum Take-Off Mass (MTOM) in the Open Class will be limited to 850 kg for all gliders/ motorgliders/ Single-/ Double Seaters, starting from 1 October 2007.
  
  This weight limit will than remain unchanged until at least 1 October 2017 and will be reconsidered at the 2015 plenary meeting.
  
  Prof. Loek Boerman explained why it was reasonable to go for this now. Existing Open Class gliders were designed about twenty years ago for 750 Kg. With engine, some of them now had a MTOW of about 800 kg, although 850 kg is permitted. A general 850 kg limit and new aerodynamics would open up for the design of a new generation Open Class gliders.
  
  The proposal was approved, 25 delegates voted for the proposal, 3 against.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 4.2.1 b: Changes in the configuration and wingspan of Open Class Gliders shall be allowed during the competition.
  
  The proposal was approved, 27 delegates voted for, 3 against.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 1.4.5: National Aero Clubs will pay sanction fees to IGC on a per entry basis for all Category 1 and 2 events sanctioned by IGC.
• SC 3, Annex A, Para 1.4.6: The travel and living expenses for the International Officials at a Category 1 or 2 IGC sanctioned event (Jury, Referee and Stewards) are the responsibility of IGC and paid by the sanction fees.
• SC 3, Annex A, Para 1.4.6.a: All International Officials for IGC sanctioned Category 1 and 2 events will be selected by the IGC Championship Management Committee.

The three proposals above were unanimously approved by the meeting.
The following Year 1 proposals were raised by the Annex A Committee:

• New 4 year Moratorium for changes to Annex A shall be set after 2006. The period for which the rules are valid shall be mentioned on the first page of the rules.
  
  This was unanimously approved.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 6 and Para 8.3 and 8.4: Deletion of Speed Tasks Pilot Selected.
  
  This was unanimously approved.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 6 and Para 8.3 and 8.4: Deletion of Distance Task Pilot Selected.
  
  This was unanimously approved .

• SC3, Annex A, Para 6.3.4 a and 6.3.2.a: The Areas in Area Tasks shall be set so that they do not overlap.
  
  This was unanimously approved.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 6.2 and Para 8: The optional penalty (proportional to the distance of the outlanding position to the goal) which may be given to non finishers in Speed Tasks shall be deleted.
  
  This was unanimously approved.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 6.3 and 8: The minimum finish altitude for Distance Tasks shall be deleted.
  
  This was approved with 3 votes against.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 6.2.2 and 8: For speed tasks, all pilots having flown a distance equal to the minimum distance covered by visiting all assigned areas in the right sequence shall receive the same distance points.
  
  Mr Roland Stuck explained that the problem is that pilot that flies very long distances in AAT could reduce the number of points given to the winner of the task.
  
  The proposal was approved with 2 votes against.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 8: The Kilometre Scoring System shall be deleted.
  
  This was approved unanimously.

A proposal to delete the maximum number of entries of 120 and a proposal to strictly apply the limit of 50 per class where ruled out of order because these matters had been dealt with in 2004.

The following Year 2 proposals were raised by the Annex A group:

• SC3, Annex A, Para 8.1b, 8.5 and 8.7: The Simplified Scoring System is added to Annex A as new Para 8.7 applicable only for Standard Racing Tasks and Area Speed Tasks.
  
  The proposal was approved with 1 vote against, and will become effective from 31st October 2005.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 8.2.4, New Appendix D: The IGC Handicap List shall be used during all FAI Category 1 Gliding Events. The list should be added as new Appendix D to SC3, Annex A and become valid from 1 April 2005.
  
  The proposal was withdrawn by the Annex A group as the proposal was not considered sufficiently mature. The proposal will be put forward again in 2006.
  
  It was suggested that the Annex A group expand the IGC list to include more types.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 8.9: Changes to List of Standard Penalties. (Airspace infringements)
  
  A long debate took place concerning the severity of penalties and possible ways to avoid airspace infringements during competitions.
  
  All voted against the proposal, but it was agreed to task the Annex A group to review the list of penalties and provide examples of airspace procedures that would make the effect of the penalties more reasonable.

Proposal for changes to Sporting Code Annex A from Germany.

• SC3, Annex A, Para 1.2.3: The total duration of Category 1 events inclusive Official Training and Ceremonies shall be limited to 14 days.
  
  This is a Year 1 proposal, and will as such apply for competitions awarded from 2007, i.e. competitions from 2009, if adopted.
  
  Many delegates were in favour of the proposal, but felt that the Annex A group should have the freedom to further elaborate the proposal. It was agreed that the 3 words "to 14 days" be deleted before the proposal was voted on.
  
  The proposal was adopted as Year 1 proposal with 6 votes against.

• SC3, Annex 1, Para 1.2.3: FAI Category 1 Events have to be separated by a minimum period of 10 days.
  
  During the debate it was agreed that the exact number of days should be analysed by the Annex A group. "10" replaced by "X" days to be defined during the coming year.
  
  The proposal was adopted with 1 vote against.