Oz Report and CIVL

Wow, John tears me a new asshole on the CIVL web site!

I can't believe my good fortune. John Aldridge has taken up the challenge and responded to my CIVL-bashing article with his own Davis-bashing article. I am so honored to be attacked in the primary article on the CIVL web site. I'll have to see if I can keep this up.

The article is linked to above and here: http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/node/363. Go ahead and check it out.

Now for a few clarifications. First, to John's article in the Oz Report http://www.ozreport.com/blog.php?1141770904. Last weekend, I sent the article out to Paul and Lauren and to John Aldridge and Paula Howitt with CIVL and to Jim Zeiset the USHGA CIVL Representative for them to review for accuracy, any comments that they wanted to make, and to let CIVL prepare a rebuttal. I had originally planned to publish the article at the end of this week, but given some later actions by CIVL (asking Paul and Lauren for the FAUX meet competition rules), I decided to go ahead and publish it in my blog on Monday and in the next Oz Report issue on Tuesday morning. I would have liked to have given CIVL a bit more time, but frankly I didn't know the meaning of their actions (now I do). I suspected at the time that they were trying to come up with another reason to invalidate the meet. I was proven correct.

It is my understanding that Paul and Lauren had been asked by the Flytec meet organizer, Steve Kroop, to help with the only US hang gliding meet that was CIVL sanctioned in 2005, and therefore could not participate in the meet. They flew in all the other national level meets in the US in 2005 (none of which were CIVL sanctioned). This would explain why he and Lauren weren't able to fly in the only meet that would qualify them for the Worlds.

I provided their competition history and showed in the previous article that they were SUBSTANTIVELY qualified (they would be safe and competitive) to fly in the Worlds. John has not disagreed.

I don't know what the Gross National Product of the US has to do with whether pilots are qualified to fly in the Worlds. Paul and Lauren are not responsible for USHGA policy but CIVL, because it is vindictive and wants to teach the US and the USHGA a lesson, chose to make a case of it, and Paul and Lauren suffered because CIVL hates USHGA policy.

The CIVL Sporting code would certainly have allowed Paul to fly in the Worlds if the CIVL Bureau chose to see it that way. They had no reason to believe that he wasn't safe. He was not flying in Class 1 but in Class 5. It's right there in the rules and the CIVL Bureau could have easily said, go for it. But, in their vindictiveness they chose not to.

Lauren was disqualified basically because CIVL did not feel that she had enough competition experience. At least that what I get from their explanations. It is the judgment of the people who know her that she would be a safe and competitive competitor at the Women's Worlds. I think that we know better than the CIVL Bureau in Europe. But then, CIVL hates the USHGA, so if a women pilot, who everyone thought was a shoe in, doesn't get an exception, well, that does send a message, now doesn't it?

Now, as to the validity of the qualifying meet which CIVL encouraged us (well Paul and Lauren) to hold. I have already argued and made my point that there were enough competitors in the meet to meet the criteria laid out in the CIVL Sporting Code. John doesn't bother to make an argument against that as there were sixteen pilots entered in the meet which is one more than the criteria in the CIVL Sporting Code. John even foregoes the word competitor and refers to them as pilots. Well, they were all indeed pilots.

It is my understanding that there were two valid tasks flown on the last day. I have seen from Lauren a detailed description of the meet and that's what appears to be the case to me. In my detailed discussions with Paul there was never an issue of whether not enough tasks were flown. If this is not true, then CIVL has a good leg to stand on. John unfortunately doesn't lay out any evidence for his case here so I can't examine its validity.

Perhaps this is why Paula asked for a copy of the competition rules after CIVL had invalidated the meet and after they had received from me the copy of my article. Perhaps they were now going back and looking for another reason to invalidate the meet after they saw that their case was weak re the number of pilots. I'll just bet that they came up with this after the fact. Nice going John!

As I'm good enough to let CIVL know that this article is coming out and solicit their input, corrections, comments, and rebuttal, and they take it as an opportunity to prepare their case by emailing Lauren, getting a copy of the rules, and going over it with a fine tooth comb to see if, now that they need another reason to invalidate the meet, they can find one. Gee, I wish I always had a second chance like that.

Paul and Lauren will be competing in the US Nationals at the Florida Ridge and the Flytec Meet in April. They have the opportunity to qualify unambiguously for the Worlds by placing in the top 2/3rd's of the either of these meets. But, let's say that Lauren doesn't quite make it, after all many women don't quite make that cut off and that's why CIVL has a special exception for women competitors. Then Lauren would have to go back to the CIVL Bureau, the one's that I have hopefully just hang out to dry, and beg for an exception. Not only that, she has to ask them before the Flytec meet, because she needs to apply for an exception one month in advance of the Worlds. So she won't even know how well she is going to do at the Flytec Meet, before she applies for an exception.

You might think that Lauren fears retaliation by CIVL for the trouble that I've caused. After all, I feel that CIVL has already punished these two US pilots for USHGA actions, so why not just continue in that vain. Put every meet under the microscope so to speak. Find some little flaw and hold it up to a spot light and make sure that this is the reason that Paul and Lauren unfortunately can't be allowed to fly in the Worlds.

So who is to blame? John wants to blame the USHGA Competition Committee and/or the US meet organizers for not bending over for CIVL and mandating CIVL sanctioning for their meets. As the USHGA Competition Committee Chairman I have continued a policy that predates me of not requiring that meet organizers get CIVL sanctioning for their meets. Why doesn't the USHGA require meet organizers to sanction their meets as CIVL Category 2 meets:

1) CIVL Category 2 sanctioned meets require that pilots have FAI Sporting Licenses. This is a barrier to competition attendance and we want to put as few barriers in the way of attending competitions as possible. FAI Sporting Licenses must be purchased from the NAA at $35. IN the US, unlike in other countries, competition pilots must obtain their FAI Sporting Licenses on their own and pay for them separately. The USHGA does not wish to burden the general USHGA membership with subsidizing a small minority of pilots to pay for their FAI Sporting Licenses.

2) CIVL requires meet organizers to pay them the price of one entrant to the meet. This adds to the fee that pilots would have to pay to enter the competition. Again another barrier to competition. The USHGA is trying to encourage competition and encourage new meet organizers. CIVL appears to be trying to kill hang gliding.

3) We would rather that the USHGA and the meet organizers be in charge of their meets and keep CIVL out of it. CIVL has many rules which we do not find appropriate. If CIVL wants to run our meets, well then they should come over here and run them and not require us to kowtow to their every whim.

4) The only benefit for CIVL sanctioning is that pilots get listed on the WPRS world ranking system. 95% of our competition pilots could care less. Therefore they would be required to pay for something that is no benefit to them. BTW, even if our meets are CIVL sanctioned we are not requiring that pilot have FAI Sporting Licenses because we get around CIVL (quite upfront and legally, and discussed with CIVL) by running concurrent meets, one CIVL sanctioned, and one not, but score everyone together).

5) Some of us in the USHGA are very unhappy that we have to pay $10,000 a year for NAA membership (which makes our connection with CIVL) for nothing in return. It is blackmail. We don't appreciate being blackmailed. This does not make for a good relationship.

6) We are not happy that our USHGA CIVL representatives appear to turn into CIVL clones and forget whose interests they are supposed to represent.

The USHGA policy, as per the last USHGA BOD meeting, and at Jim Zeiset's (USHGA CIVL Representative) request, is to encourage (but not require) meet organizers to obtain CIVL sanctioning. I, in my official capacity as USHGA Competition Committee Chairman, have done just that. I basically took a document that Lauren Tjaden wrote about how they got CIVL sanctioning and sent it to all the meet organizers. It would appear that we might get all the hang gliding and all the paragliding meets (nine US meets) CIVL sanctioned in 2006. You would think that CIVL would be jumping up and down for joy as opposed to trying to screw us further.

I personally have not changed my position on CIVL sanctioning. While I believe that for me personally it is a benefit for me to have all the meets CIVL sanctioned, it is not a benefit to the general USHGA membership nor to the vast majority of US competition pilots, and frankly my job as USHGA Competition Committee Chairman is to look out for their interests, not mine.

There will no doubt be a discussion at the fall USHGA BOD and Competition Committee meeting regarding whether the USHGA should continue to encourage CIVL sanctioning of US meets and whether it should be made mandatory for USHGA sanctioning. I doubt that we will do either, but that is not up for me to decide.

So, no, John, you've got it wrong about how I stand with respect to CIVL sanctioning as both chairman of the competition committee and as editor and publisher of the Oz Report. In both capacities I continue to argue for what is the greater good for the greatest number.

As for your article at the CIVL web site, I take that on in the next article. Thanks for opening up this discussion and making the inner workings of CIVL and the USHGA more transparent.

Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
http://ozreport.com/worldrecordholder.php http://ozreport.com/location.php Quest Air, Groveland, FL, USA