Any news from IGC?

Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?

In article , PapaIndia
writes

Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?

The new IGC bureau (Executive Committee) is already on the IGC web
pages:

President: Robert G. HENDERSON (New Zealand)

1st Vice-President Eric MOZER (USA)

Vice-Presidents

Richard (Dick) BRADLEY (South Africa)
Vladimir FOLTIN (Slovak Republic)
Axel REICH (Germany)
Brian SPRECKLEY (UK)
Roland STUCK (France)

Secretary: Peter ERIKSEN (Denmark)

-------------------

Sporting Code

A resolution to ban night flying for gliding record flights was
defeated. The present rule remains that says that night flying is OK as
part of IGC flight performances as long as the law of the land for night
flying is followed.

A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for free flights as
well as pre-declared, was defeated.

A proposal to withdraw the World Class from 2007 as an official IGC
class was defeated. However, it was also pointed out that it was
essential that enough entries were put forward for future World
Championships for the World Class (PW-5 single design class),
particularly after the event scheduled in New Zealand has to be
cancelled due to lack of entries.

Notice was given that the use of cameras for turn point validation might
disappear sometime in the future. No definite date was put forward but
the intention was to warn pilots in good time that at some future date,
GPS recording might be the only validation system within IGC. Comments
and discussion were invited.

-------------------

Awards

The Lilienthal Medal went to Prof Piero Morelli (Italy), a long-term
member of the OSTIV Sailplane Development Panel.

The Pirat Gehrigher Diploma was awarded to Prof Peter Ryder (Germany, ex
IGC President) and Tapio Savolainen (Finland).

-------------------

GPS matters

Proposals from Austria, Canada and Sweden were either defeated or
withdrawn after discussion. Austria wanted the GR1000 recorder kept at
World Record level, Sweden wanted changes in recorder level to be only
decided by the Plenary rather than by GFAC and the Bureau, and Canada
wanted Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) recorders allowed for IGC flight
performances as well as the current IGC-approved ones.

Some amendments to Annex B to the Sporting Code were agreed as a result
of experiences in 2003 (wording is in the published agenda). A Bureau
draft on the implementation of changes of level for older recorders was
accepted in principle and the detailed wording is being finalised by the
Bureau at this time. These amendments will be published well before the
implementation date which as usual for the Gliding Sporting Code, is 1
October.

-------------------

Much more detail will be in the published minutes which are being drawn
up at this moment.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

In article ,
Ian Strachan wrote:


GPS matters

Proposals from Austria, Canada and Sweden were either defeated or
withdrawn after discussion. snip Canada
wanted Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) recorders allowed for IGC flight
performances as well as the current IGC-approved ones.


I've heard that CIVL approved COTS GPS for world record claims at their
Plenary. Until now CIVL has said that they would accept anything that
the IGC would accept. Would the FAI really give IGC GNSS based claims
for 'soaring' records the same status as CIVL COTS GPS based claims?

What does the IGC know about COTS GPS that CIVL and the Canadians don't?

Ken

Ian

Our proposal re recorder said

"There shall be evidence that flight records generated from a recorder
of the type in question have actually been manipulated or falsified for
a record claim. This evidence shall be presented to the IGC Meeting who
will decide if the recorder shall be downgraded or not."

Our delegates report that our proposal was not defeated. On the
contrary, they say that it was decided that in the future GFAC shall
suggest changes on recorder level to the Plenary meeting and then
Plenary meeting decides.

I am really looking forward to read the minutes!

Furthermore, the decision to fly two Worlds every even year, one in 15m,
18m and open and the other in standard, club and world class was a real
bad decision. I am convinced that in the future this will result in only
the richest countries can afford to send pilots to WGC. I think that in
the future we will see a lot of German World Champions!

Unfortunately international competition flying is going one way and the
rest of gliding (99%) is going in another direction. It is pity because
gliding as a sport would benefit from a strong competition scene
alongside the club flying.

Robert

Ian Strachan wrote:
In article , PapaIndia
writes

Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?


The new IGC bureau (Executive Committee) is already on the IGC web pages:

President: Robert G. HENDERSON (New Zealand)

1st Vice-President Eric MOZER (USA)

Vice-Presidents

Richard (Dick) BRADLEY (South Africa)
Vladimir FOLTIN (Slovak Republic)
Axel REICH (Germany)
Brian SPRECKLEY (UK)
Roland STUCK (France)

Secretary: Peter ERIKSEN (Denmark)

-------------------

Sporting Code

A resolution to ban night flying for gliding record flights was
defeated. The present rule remains that says that night flying is OK as
part of IGC flight performances as long as the law of the land for night
flying is followed.

A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for free flights as
well as pre-declared, was defeated.

A proposal to withdraw the World Class from 2007 as an official IGC
class was defeated. However, it was also pointed out that it was
essential that enough entries were put forward for future World
Championships for the World Class (PW-5 single design class),
particularly after the event scheduled in New Zealand has to be
cancelled due to lack of entries.

Notice was given that the use of cameras for turn point validation might
disappear sometime in the future. No definite date was put forward but
the intention was to warn pilots in good time that at some future date,
GPS recording might be the only validation system within IGC. Comments
and discussion were invited.

-------------------

Awards

The Lilienthal Medal went to Prof Piero Morelli (Italy), a long-term
member of the OSTIV Sailplane Development Panel.

The Pirat Gehrigher Diploma was awarded to Prof Peter Ryder (Germany, ex
IGC President) and Tapio Savolainen (Finland).

-------------------

GPS matters

Proposals from Austria, Canada and Sweden were either defeated or
withdrawn after discussion. Austria wanted the GR1000 recorder kept at
World Record level, Sweden wanted changes in recorder level to be only
decided by the Plenary rather than by GFAC and the Bureau, and Canada
wanted Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) recorders allowed for IGC flight
performances as well as the current IGC-approved ones.

Some amendments to Annex B to the Sporting Code were agreed as a result
of experiences in 2003 (wording is in the published agenda). A Bureau
draft on the implementation of changes of level for older recorders was
accepted in principle and the detailed wording is being finalised by the
Bureau at this time. These amendments will be published well before the
implementation date which as usual for the Gliding Sporting Code, is 1
October.

-------------------

Much more detail will be in the published minutes which are being drawn
up at this moment.

In article , Robert Danewid
writes

snip

Our delegates report that our proposal was not defeated.

Well, it was not accepted by the Plenary!

The principle that was accepted came from the IGC Bureau. Definitive
wording is being prepared by the Bureau because the Plenary allowed them
to tidy up the loose ends of wording. The revised wording will go in
Annex B to the code in due course. When the wording is agreed I have no
doubt that it will be announced so that people will know what is to
happen.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:

snip-
A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
free flights as
well as pre-declared, was defeated.

Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
being discriminated against.
The award of badges should be made on performance,
not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
logger.

X-no-archive: yes
In article , Don Johnstone
writes
At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:

snip-
A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
free flights as
well as pre-declared, was defeated.

Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
being discriminated against.
The award of badges should be made on performance,
not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
logger.

Check your facts Don, declarations made after take-off are invalid.

Sporting Code section 3:

4.2.2 Declaration validity
a. The last declaration made before takeoff is the only one valid for
the flight, but a concurrently flown and different competition task is
allowed.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

I stand corrected. My original query still stands.
Where cameras and smoky barographs were used I can
see the sense of a 'declaration'. With GPS do we really
need it, surely the criteria should be the distance
flown and this can now be positively verified with
a data logger. Why complicate something so simple?
A 300k or 500k downwind dash ie free distance is ok
so why not a triangle

At 11:48 05 March 2004, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
X-no-archive: yes
In article , Don Johnstone
writes
At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:

snip-
A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
free flights as
well as pre-declared, was defeated.

Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
being discriminated against.
The award of badges should be made on performance,
not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
logger.

Check your facts Don, declarations made after take-off
are invalid.

Sporting Code section 3:

4.2.2 Declaration validity
a. The last declaration made before takeoff is the
only one valid for
the flight, but a concurrently flown and different
competition task is
allowed.

Tim Newport-Peace

'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

I think that there is quite a difference between flying a declared task and
a free distance one. Declarations imply some degree of weather interpreting
, task area selection and planning. Free distance - get under a stonking
street and keep going! The difference is subtle but its there!

Not sure if this is pertinent but free distance tasks are not acceptable for
badge flights

Ian



"Don Johnstone" wrote in
message ...
I stand corrected. My original query still stands.
Where cameras and smoky barographs were used I can
see the sense of a 'declaration'. With GPS do we really
need it, surely the criteria should be the distance
flown and this can now be positively verified with
a data logger. Why complicate something so simple?
A 300k or 500k downwind dash ie free distance is ok
so why not a triangle

At 11:48 05 March 2004, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
X-no-archive: yes
In article , Don Johnstone
writes
At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:

snip-
A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
free flights as
well as pre-declared, was defeated.

Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
being discriminated against.
The award of badges should be made on performance,
not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
logger.

Check your facts Don, declarations made after take-off
are invalid.

Sporting Code section 3:

4.2.2 Declaration validity
a. The last declaration made before takeoff is the
only one valid for
the flight, but a concurrently flown and different
competition task is
allowed.

Tim Newport-Peace

'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'

Not on my Colibri, you can't. It stops the flight, starts another. Hard to
prove a takeoff when there isn't any.

In article , Don Johnstone
wrote:
At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:

snip-
A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
free flights as
well as pre-declared, was defeated.

Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
being discriminated against.
The award of badges should be made on performance,
not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
logger.