Events concerned : World Air Games Parachuting Championships
Results::
http://www.fai.org/wag/wag2001/news_ipc.asp
Jury Meeting 1
23 June 2001
The Jury convened at 20:30.
The following individuals attended the 2001 IPC meeting in San Diego, USA, were present in Granada, Spain, before the start of competition, and were duly appointed to serve on the Jury for the World Parachuting Championships in Precision Style & Accuracy Landing, Formation Skydiving, Canopy Formation, Freestyle, Skysurfing, and Freeflying.
IPC President : BJ Worth
Australia : Graeme Windsor
China : Li Rong Rong
France . Jean Dermine
Germany : Dieter Engel
Netherlands : Ronald Overdijk
Norway : Pål Bergan
Poland : Lidia Kosk
Portugal : Carlos Marques
Russia : Leonty Sukovatsin
Ukraine : Igor Torlo
UK : John Hitchen
USA : Larry Bagley
As the senior IPC Officer, BJ Worth was named Jury President.
The FAI Controller for Judging, Brenda Reid, reported to the Jury that the required infrastructure for judging was in place and operational.
Chief Judge for Style and Accuracy, Serge Bayou, informed the Jury that approved-Judge Mr. Silvio di Tecca from Italy was not on site, and would not be attending the WAG II. He also reported that Mr. Mohamed Khamis, UAE, was on site, and was fully qualified to serve on the Panel of Judges, and requested that Mr. Khamis be approved to sit on the Panel of Judges. The Jury approved this request.
CJ-SA Serge Bayou requested that Jose Queiroz, Brazil, be approved to sit on the Panel of Judges, due to the shortage of support personnel from the Organizer. Mr. Queiroz is on the list of approved Judges for 2001. The Jury approved this request.
Serge Bayou reported that all technical equipment, personnel, and operations for judging the World Parachuting Championships in Precision Style and Landing Accuracy were in place.
Chief Judge for Formation Skydiving, Elisabet Pettersson, reported that all technical equipment, personnel, and operations for judging the World Parachuting Championships in Formation Skydiving were in place.
Chief Judge for Freestyle, Skysurfing, and Freefly, Igor van Aperen, reported that all technical equipment, personnel, and operations for judging the World Parachuting Championships in Freestyle, Skysurfing, and Freefly were in place.
Chief Judge for Canopy Formation, Roger Flinn, reported that all technical equipment, personnel, and operations for judging the World Parachuting Championships in Canopy Formation were in place.
Exi Hoenle, FAI Controller, reported that all personnel and systems required by the FAI Sporting Code and IPC Competition Rules are in place to start the competition in all events.
The Jury unanimously agreed that all IPC parachuting events for the World Air Games II were ready to begin.
The Jury agreed to approve the late registration of Miss Adela Gavozdea, from Romania, to compete in the Female Accuracy event.
Exi Hoenle, FAI Controller, expressed concerns about the credentials of the athletes from Russia. None of the athletes in the Russian Delegation possessed valid FAI Sporting Licenses for 2001. After much discussion, Mr. Hoenle had a telephone discussion with FAI Secretary General Max Bishop, who explained that, at the direction of FAI President Weinreich, he had sent an email message to WAG LEOM Jose Luis Bahon, confirming that all of the Russian athletes in Granada had been approved to compete in the parachuting events of the WAG II. Mr. Bahon reported that it was possible that such a message came from the FAI Secretary General, because he was too busy organizing the WAG IPC Championships to read approximately 200 email messages that were currently on his Internet server. Mr. Hoenle and the Jury agreed that all of the Russian athletes were qualified to compete in the WAG II events.
The Jury recessed at 12:15.
The Jury reconvened at 11:00, on Sunday 24 June.
A letter signed by Mr. Bishop and Russian NAC President Mr. Volk was faxed to the Jury, confirming that the Russian athletes in Granada were approved to compete in the parachuting events of the WAG II.
Several members of the Jury expressed their serious concern about difficulties in the dissemination of official information by the Organizers. There was concern that these difficulties could result in some athletes missing their call to jump. It was suggested that the Organizers appoint one person to be designated as the person responsible for disseminating official information to the delegations. Mr. Hoenle agreed to work with the Organizers to try to resolve this difficulty.
A member of the Jury expressed concern about the lack of adequate packing areas for the athletes. There was concern that this difficulty could result in athletes not being packed in time for their next call to jump. The Jury President agreed to try to find a solution to this problem.
A member of the Jury expressed concern that the results of the competition were not being “posted” as required by the Sporting Code. Mr. Hoenle agreed to work with the Organizers to resolve this difficulty.
The Jury Meeting was adjourned at 12:15.
BJ Worth
Jury President
Jury Meeting 2
26 June 2001
The Jury convened at 13:00 to consider three similar protests in Men’s Accuracy, and two similar protests in 8-way Formation Skydiving.
The first protest was submitted by the Team Manager from Croatia at 10:30, accompanied by USD 50, and referencing the Competition Rules for Style and Accuracy, paragraph 5.1.7 (5). After some discussion, the Jury determined that this was within the maximum two-hour time limit from the time the Competitors and Team Manager learned of the circumstances relevant to the Protest. By means of this Protest, the Team Manager requested that competition jumps for Round 1 of Men’s Accuracy be re-started due to the use of a defective AMD system during Round 1.
The IPC Controller for Judging (Ms. Brenda Reid), Chief Judge Serge Bayou, and Event Judge (Rudy Thys) all addressed the Jury. All three stated that they believed the AMD system has not been defective during Round 1. They all stated that when the AMD displayed a score, the score was correct. They agreed, however, that on several occasions the AMD did not display a score, due to an apparent electronic interference, or other undetermined electronic abnormality.
The President of the Jury informed the Team Manager of the Croatian Team about the opinions of the IPC Controller for Judging, Chief Judge, and Event Judge. Addressing the Jury, the Team Manager explained that due to the numerous occasions when no score was displayed by the AMD system during Round 1, this was clear evidence that this system was defective. By secret ballot, the Jury voted to deny the Protest.
The second protest was submitted by the Team Manager from Macedonia at 11:00, accompanied by USD 50, and referencing the Competition Rules for Style and Accuracy, paragraph 5.1.7 (5). After some discussion, the Jury determined that this was within the maximum two-hour time limit from the time the Competitors and Team Manager learned of the circumstances relevant to the Protest. By means of this Protest, the Team Manager requested that competition jumps for Round 1 of Men’s Accuracy be re-started due to the use of a defective AMD system during Round 1.
The President of the Jury informed the Team Manager of the Macedonian Team about the opinions of the IPC Controller for Judging, Chief Judge, and Event Judge. The Team Manager withdrew this Protest.
The third protest was submitted by the Team Manager from Switzerland at 12:40, accompanied by USD 50, and referencing the Competition Rules for Style and Accuracy, paragraph 5.1.7 (5) and Sporting Code Sec. 5, paragraph 6.9.1 (4). After some discussion, the Jury determined that this was within the maximum two-hour time limit from the time the Competitors and Team Manager learned of the circumstances relevant to the Protest. By means of this Protest, the Team Manager requested that competition jumps for Round 1 of Men’s Accuracy be re-started due to the use of a defective AMD system during Round 1.
The President of the Jury informed the Team Manager of the Swiss Team about the opinions of the IPC Controller for Judging, Chief Judge, and Event Judge. Addressing the Jury, the Swiss Team Manager explained that due to the numerous occasions when no score was displayed by the AMD system during Round 1, this was clear evidence that this system was defective. By secret ballot, the Jury voted to deny the Protest.
A Protest was submitted by the Team Manager of Russia, on behalf of Russia’s 8-way Formation Skydiving Team (# 809), at 06:25, accompanied with USD 50, and referencing SC Sec 5, paragraph 5.2.5 and Competition Rules for Formation Skydiving, paragraphs 4.4.2, and 4.4.1. The Jury determined that the Protest was submitted within the maximum two-hour time limit. By means of this Protest, the Russian Team asked that they be allowed to make their Round 3 jump, even though they missed their call for this jump. Addressing the Jury, the Team Manager explained that the Russian Team missed their call due to the poor quality of the public address system used to give the calls, and the confusing wording used by the person giving the calls.
The Meet Director addressed the Jury and explained that after the completion of Round 2, a call was made which stated that 8-way was stopped and the "vertical" events would start. He also reported that when the call was made for Round 3 of 8-way, he did not see the Russian team, so he walked around the team area to look for the Russian Team members - and did not find them. As the jump aircraft was departing, the Meet Director observed the Russian Team driving up to the Boarding Area.
The Team Manager requested that American Team member Alan Metni be able to speak on behalf of the Russian Team, to give further evidence of the inadequate PA system. The Jury did not object. Mr. Metni reported that the US Team did not hear the call for Round 3 either, and that the only way they knew that they were called for Round 3 was that a member of the US delegation was standing in the Boarding Area and heard the call from there - and that he used a private radio to alert the US team members about this call. Mr. Metni asked the Jury to consider the fact that the Russian Team was not given fair knowledge of the call for Round 3, due to the ineffective PA system, and asked the Jury consider the need for fair sportsmanship in their decision.
The FAI Controller addressed the Jury, stating that there was no violation of SC Sec. 5 paragraph 5.2.5, nor grounds for a rejump, with reference to the Competition Rules. By secret ballot, the Jury voted in favor of the Protest.
A Protest was submitted by the Team Manager of Brazil, on behalf of Brazil’s 8-way Formation Skydiving Team, at 08:30, accompanied with USD 50, and referencing SC Sec 5, paragraph 5.2.5, and Competition Rules for Formation Skydiving, paragraphs 4.4.2, and 4.4.1. The Jury determined that the Protest was submitted within the maximum two-hour time limit. By means of this Protest, the Brazilian Team asked that they be allowed to make their Round 3 jump, even though they missed their call for this jump. Addressing the Jury, the Team Manager explained that the Brazilian Team missed their call due to the poor quality of the public address system used to give the calls, and the confusing wording used by the person giving the calls.
The FAI Controller addressed the Jury, stating that there was no violation of SC5 paragraph 5.2.5, nor grounds for a rejump, with reference to the Competition Rules.
By secret ballot, the Jury voted in favor of the Protest.
BJ Worth
Jury President
Jury Meeting 3
The Jury convened at 13:00 on 26 June 2001, to consider a Protest from the United Arab Emirates’ Style and Accuracy Team.
A protest was submitted by the Team Manager of the UAE Style and Accuracy Team, at 10:10, accompanied by USD 50, and referencing SC5, Para 5.2.5 and 4.7.2 (2). The Jury determined that the Protest was submitted within the maximum two-hour time limit. Addressing the Jury, the UAE Head of Delegation made the following explanation:
The UAE Team members are in the UAE Armed Forces. The UAE Team was ordered by the Head of Delegation’s immediate Commander that no UAE Team members may make any competition jumps until receiving a new authorization to jump from the UAE Army General Command. On behalf of the Head of Delegation, the UAE Team Coach requested to the Meet Director that the jump order for the UAE Team be pushed to the end of Round 1, to give the greatest chance for the UAE Team to resolve this difficulty. The Meet Director refused to change the jump order. The UAE team did not board the aircraft when called for their Round 1 jump.
Before the end of Round 1, authorization was received from the UAE Army General Command for the UAE Team to jump, so the Head of Delegation tried to submit a request in writing to the Meet Director, to allow the UAE Team to jump before the close of Round 1. The Meet Director refused to accept this letter, and promised the Head of Delegation that before the end of Round 1, he would ask the opinions of the Team Managers, and then make his decision based on their response. When the Meet Director did not ask the Team Managers for their opinion on this issue, and the UAE Team was not called to jump in Round 1, the Head of Delegation presented the letter (described above) to the Meet Director. A copy of this letter is attached to this Protest.
By means of this Protest, the Head of Delegation asked the Jury to allow the UAE Team to make their Round 1 jumps. The Meet Director confirmed the explanation of the UAE Head of Delegation, except that he denied promising to ask the Team Managers for their opinions prior to making his decision about allowing the UAE Team to make their Round 1 jumps. The Jury President reported that the Head of Delegation told him of the described promise immediately after the Meet Director made this statement to the Head of Delegation, and reported that the Meet Director had made this promise directly to him (Jury President) as well.
The Head of Delegation referred to SC Section 5, 4.7.2 (2), explaining that the situation concerning the UAE Team is not included in the Sporting Code or the Competition Rules, and that the Jury should use this paragraph to resolve this Protest, and allow the UAE Team members to make their Round 1 jumps.
By secret ballot, the Jury voted to deny this Protest.
BJ Worth
Jury President
Jury Meeting 4
The Jury convened at 18:00 on 26 June 2001, to consider a Protest from the Russian Men’s Accuracy Team.
The Team Manager of the Russian Style and Accuracy Team submitted a Protest at 11:40, accompanied by USD 50, and referencing the Style and Accuracy Competition Rules 5.1.7 (5). The Jury determined that the Protest was submitted within the maximum two-hour time limit.
On behalf of the Competitors in Men’s Accuracy, Russia’s Team Manager addressed the Jury, explaining the following: In Round 2 of the Men’s Accuracy Event, the team jumping immediately in front of the Russian Team (Switzerland) received rejumps due to the AMD not displaying scores. No change was made to the AMD before the Russian Team landed. Immediately after the Russian Team landed, the AMD was changed before the next team (USA) approached the target. The Russian Team had no confidence that the AMD was operating correctly and displaying the correct score during their team’s jump. A Rejump was requested for the Russian Men’s Team.
The IPC Controller for Judging (Ms. Brenda Reid), Chief Judge Serge Bayou, and Event Judge (Rudy Thys) all stated that they believed the AMD system has not been defective during Round 2. They all stated that when the AMD displayed a score, the score was correct. They agreed, however, that on several occasions the AMD did not display a score, due to an apparent electronic interference, or other undetermined electronic abnormality.
By secret ballot, the Jury voted to deny the Protest.
BJ Worth
Jury President
Jury Meeting 5
The Jury convened at 10:30 on 28 June 2001, to consider a Protest from Croatian Accuracy Team (Female). Due to the fact that Women’s Accuracy was currently taking place, the Jury adjourned and moved to the Accuracy Landing area (Alpha Area), and reconvened to hear the Protest.
The Protest was submitted by Female Competitor # 271 (Helena Janson) from the Czech Republic at 10:30, accompanied by USD 50, and referencing the Style and Accuracy Competition Rules, paragraph 5.1.7 (4). The Jury determined that the Protest was submitted within the maximum two-hour time limit.
The Competitor provided the following explanation to the Jury: Since there were only two female competitors from Croatia in the Accuracy Event, she was jumping in a "mixed team". On her jump in Round 2, Ms. Janson exited 4th, but after opening she was soon on the same level as the competitor who jumped 3rd. To avoid a conflict, Ms. Janson spiraled her parachute down approximately 300 m, until she was well below the other competitor. By this time she was relatively close to the target, and did not have enough time to regain her concentration before making her final approach. She requested a rejump for Round 2.
The Event Judge reported that Ms. Janson did spiral down to avoid a canopy-to-canopy conflict, but that this maneuvering occurred at a relatively high altitude, and that she had ample time to set up a normal approach on the target. The Event Judge reported that there was 50 seconds between the landing of the competitor ahead of Ms. Janson, and another 50 seconds after Ms. Janson landed before the next competitors landed.
By secret ballot, the Jury voted to deny the Protest.
BJ Worth
Jury President
Jury Meeting 6
The Jury convened at 15:00 on 28 June 2001, to consider a Protest by the Russian Team in 4-way Formation Skydiving (Female).
The Team Manager of the Russian Team (# 308) submitted a Protest at 19:57, accompanied by USD 50, and referencing the Competition Rules (FS 4-way), paragraph 4.8.1. The Jury determined that the Protest was submitted within the maximum two-hour time limit.
The Team Manager provided the following explanation to the Jury: On jump run for their Round 5 jump, the aircraft was flying directly into the sun. When the videographer was positioning himself for exit, he could not find a way to block the sun from his view. Upon exit, the sun temporarily blinded the videographer, so he backed away from where he thought the team was, to ensure that he did not interfere with the team. A few seconds later, he saw the team, which was relatively far away and on level. This resulted in inferior quality of the video evidence for judging the team’s performance, and the team received an NJ. The Team Manager requested that the Russian Team receive a rejump for Round 5.
The Chief Judge reported to the Jury that when viewing the video evidence for the jump in question, the team and the sun were both visible on the screen from the exit onwards, and that there was no indication of abnormal head turns, or other unusual movements by the videographer. The Chief Judge did confirm that the videographer was on the same level as the team for the first part of the jump.
By secret ballot, the Jury voted to deny the Protest.
BJ Worth
Jury President
Jury Meeting 7
The Jury convened at 11:00 on 30 June, 2001, to consider a protest in Men’s Accuracy.
The Protest was submitted on behalf of Competitor # 11 in Men’s Accuracy by the Team Manager from the Czech Republic at 10:30, accompanied by USD 50, and referencing the Style and Accuracy Competition Rules, paragraph 5.1.7 (5). The Jury determined that the Protest was submitted within the maximum two-hour time limit.
By means of this Protest, the Team Manager requested that competitor # 11 be granted a rejump for his Round 6 jump due to the AMD not functioning correctly. The Czech competitor received a 16cm score, and insisted that his first point of contact was near the center of the AMD. The Team Manager stated that the "back-foot" pad was lying unevenly, and that portions of it extended vertically above the AMD.
The IPC Controller for Judging (Ms. Brenda Reid), Chief Judge Serge Bayou, and Event Judge (Rudy Thys) all stated that they believed the AMD system has not been defective during the Accuracy compeititon. They all stated that when the AMD displayed a score, the score was correct. They agreed, however, that on several occasions the AMD did not display a score, due to an apparent electronic interference, or other undetermined electronic abnormality.
By secret ballot, the Jury voted to deny the Protest.
BJ Worth
Jury President
Jury Meeting 8
30 June 2001
The Jury convened at 10:30 to confirm the results for Freestyle, Skysurfing, and Freefly.
Chief Judge for Freestyle, Skysurfing, and Freefly, Igor van Aperen, reported that all competition performances had been evaluated, scored and posted according to the Competition Rules, FAI Sporting Code General Section, and SC Section 5. He was confident that there were no errors with the final results as published. By unanimous agreement, the Jury declared that the results of the World Parachuting Championships and World Air Games in Freestyle, Skysurfing, and Freefly were accurate and official.
Chief Judge for Canopy Formation, Roger Flinn, reported that all competition performances had been evaluated, scored and posted according to the Competition Rules, FAI Sporting Code General Section, and SC Section 5. He was confident that there were no errors with the final results as published. By unanimous agreement, the Jury declared that the results of the World Parachuting Championships and World Air Games in Canopy Formation were accurate and official.
The Jury adjourned while the other events continued, and reconvened at 16:45.
Chief Judge for Formation Skydiving, Elisabet Pettersson, reported that all competition performances had been evaluated, scored and posted according to the Competition Rules, FAI Sporting Code General Section, and SC Section 5. She was confident that there were no errors with the final results as published. By unanimous agreement, the Jury declared that the results of the World Parachuting Championships and World Air Games in Formation Skydiving were accurate and official.
Chief Judge for Style and Accuracy, Serge Bayou, reported that the minimum number of rounds in Style and Accuracy had been completed, but that it was not possible to complete the full competition in these events. He reported that all competition performances had been evaluated, scored and posted according to the Competition Rules, FAI Sporting Code General Section, and SC Section 5. He was confident that there were no errors with the final results as published. By unanimous agreement, the Jury declared that the results of the World Parachuting Championships and World Air Games in Freefall Style and Precision Accuracy were accurate and official.
BJ Worth
Jury President
Jury Meeting 9
The Jury convened at 09:00, on 1 July 2001, to conclude its duties for the IPC Events of the World Air Games II. The Jury President reported that the IPC Jury had two very important decisions to make.
The first decision related to the FAI Sporting Code Section 5, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.1.1 (2-3). The text of this paragraph is presented below:
4.1.1 (2). Once selected, the Organiser and the IPC must jointly sign a performance contract, which shall set out the rights and obligations of the Organiser. The contract shall contain, but is not limited to, the following items:
- The program of the competition
- A commitment not to increase the stated entry fees
- A commitment to provide suitable transportation between the site of the competition and appropriate points (e.g. major cities, airports etc.)
- A commitment to follow the IPC Guide to the organisation of World Championships, Continental Championships and World Cups, the Sporting Code and the Competition Rules.
- An agreement to pay the Sanction fee as per 4.1.3. to the IPC.
- An agreement that the aggregate entry fee of one nation shall be deposited directly by that nation with the IPC Treasurer, to be paid to the Organiser upon agreement by the IPC Jury or the IPC Plenary Meeting that all contractual commitments have been satisfactorily completed. The IPC has the right to withhold the sanction fee from this amount. The Bureau shall decide which nation shall deposit its entry fee with the IPC Treasurer.
(3). After approval, the program for the competition, which is included in the contract, may not be changed without further approval from the IPC or Jury.
FAI Controller Exi Hoenle reported to the Jury that the amount of the IPC sanction fees had been agreed between himself and the WAG II Organizers. He also reported that the IPC Events of the World Air Games II were not conducted in full compliance with the Competition Rules, FAI Sporting Code General Section, and SC Section 5. His official report will designate the deviations from these obligations by the Organizer.
The members of the Jury concluded that, in addition to not adhering to the FAI and IPC regulations - the NAC support (from ECO), the event preparation, the organization, the communication, the publicity, and the conduct of the IPC events during the WAG II were at a very low, less-than-basic level.
The Jury decided that it could not fully determine the reasons for the gross inadequacies and lack of adherence to the FAI and IPC regulations encountered during the conduct of these parachuting events, and agreed that the IPC will have a much clearer understanding of this situation once the final after-action reports are submitted by the Meet Director, the FAI Controller, the Chief Pilot, the WAG Managing Director, the Organizer, etc. To further this understanding, the Jury agreed that it is likely that the IPC will submit a request to WAG II ECO for a clarification of these matters.
The Jury agreed that the US Delegation’s Entry Fees (less the IPC Sanction Fees) are to be retained by the IPC until such time that a clear understanding can be determined as to why the WAG II IPC events were not conducted in compliance with the Competition Rules, FAI Sporting Code General Section, and SC Section 5. Once the IPC can make this determination, it will decide whether or not to return any or all of the remaining funds being held. This IPC decision will take place no later than the IPC Plenary Meeting in 2002.
The second decision related to the agreement between the IPC and the WAG II Organizer, by which the IPC agreed to allow the Organizer to raise the Entry Fees for all participants of the IPC Events from 750 to 850 Euros. The terms of this agreement were first agreed to by the IPC Delegates and the WAG II Organizers at the 2001 IPC Plenary Meeting. A formal written agreement reflecting these terms was prepared and signed by both parties in March 2001. The principle terms of this agreement are presented below:
IPC and ECO agree to the following:
IPC and ECO wish to ensure the successful conduct of the parachuting events to be included in the Second World Air Games, to take place in June, 2001, in Spain.
ECO requested that the IPC approve the increase in Entry Fees of the WAG parachuting events, from 750 to 850 Euros for all participants.
IPC approved this increase in Entry Fees as requested by ECO, according to the terms and conditions mutually agreed to by IPC and ECO during the 2001 IPC Plenary meeting.
The estimated total number of participants for the WAG 2 parachuting events is 1100 persons.
The total increase in entry fees is estimated to be 110,000 Euros (100 x 1100 participants)
The total Sanction Fees to be paid by ECO to IPC is estimated to be 30,000 Euros (US$ 25 x 1100 x 1.1)
The Entry Fees for all members of the Delegation from the United States of America will be deposited into the FAI’s IPC account. All other Entry Fees will be sent directly to ECO.
A "Guarantor for the Organizer" will place 110.000 Euros in an escrow account with the FAI’s bank in Lausanne, to serve as the Performance Bond stipulated in Item 7, of the Minutes for the 2001 IPC Plenary meeting.
At its final meeting on or about 1 July 2001, the IPC Jury will determine whether ECO has met the obligations contained in this Agreement. The IPC Jury will use common sense and act prudently when determining if ECO has fulfilled its obligations contained in this agreement.
If the IPC Jury decides that ECO has met all of its obligations, all of the funds for the Performance Bond contained in the escrow account are to be returned to the "Guarantor for the Organizer".
If the IPC Jury decides that ECO has not met all of its obligations contained in this Agreement, the IPC Jury will decide how much, if any, of the Performance Bond should be paid to the IPC. If any portion of the Performance Bond is to be paid to the IPC, these monies will be deducted from the Performance Bond and all remaining monies will be returned to the "Guarantor for the Organizer".
The full amount of the IPC Sanction Fees will be retained by the IPC. Any additional funds deposited into the IPC account from the US Delegation’s entry fees will be submitted to ECO upon the conclusion of the WAG 2 parachuting events.
ECO agrees to the following:
During the conduct of the WAG 2 parachuting events, ECO shall observe and enforce all provisions contained in the FAI Statutes, By-Laws, Sporting Codes (General Section and Section 5), IPC Competition Rules and such other regulations approved by the FAI or IPC, which are in force at the time.
Twin Otter type aircraft will be used for the following events: 8-way Formation Skydiving, Men’s and Women’s Freestyle, Men’s and Women’s Skysurfing, Freeflying, All Canopy Formation events. CASA C-212 type aircraft will be used for the following events: 4-way Formation Skydiving, Freefall Style events (side door exit), Accuracy Landing events.
ECO indemnifies FAI and IPC and their members, servants and/or agents against all costs (including legal costs), claims, damages and expenses made against, incurred or paid by FAI, IPC and/or their members, servants or agents in respect of any claims whatsoever as a result of or arising out of any breach or default by the ECO with respect to its obligations under this Agreement.
Although the members of the Jury concluded that the NAC support (from ECO), the event preparation, the organization, the communication, the publicity, and the conduct of the IPC events of the WAG II were at a very low level, and were not conducted according to the FAI and IPC rules and regulations, they also concluded that the World Air Games staff, security personnel, pilots, and air base representatives for the IPC events in Armilla were exceptionally hard-working, diligent, and patient in performing their tasks - considering the marginal conditions under which they were obliged to work.
In consideration of the tremendous commitment made by the "Guarantor for the Organizer", as well as the considerable effort above and beyond the call of duty by the WAG staff, security personnel, pilots, and air base representatives in Armilla, the Jury unanimously decided to release the entire 110,000 Euros of the Performance Bond to the "Guarantor for the Organizer".
By unanimous agreement, the Jury declared that the duties of the Jury were concluded.
The Jury adjourned at 10:00.
BJ Worth
IPC President
