Minutes of Meeting Held at Manilla, 14th March 1998

Present (for all or part of meeting): Ian Ladyman, Andrew Horchner, Fred Gungl, Chris Frost, Mike McManaway (NZ), Mark Watts (UK), Mark Plenderleith, Gerry Gerus, Heike Hamann, Carolyn Lansdell (CH), Andrew Kemp, Peter Bowyer, JJ Bastion, David Mills, Brian Webb, Gavin Hanlon, Stewart Dennis, Karl Texler, Gary Stevenson, James Thompson, Kevin Gingell-Kent, David Humphrey, Christy Bishop, Sharyn Gingell-Kent 

Technical Delegate

Discussion

• Technical delegate be present at every paragliding competition to act as advisor, councillor, to assist competition director
• Role: observe competition rules are met, same mistakes not made over and over again, that the competitions are consistent
• Payment? Organizer to get funding to the tune of $1000?
• Discussion about whether they should be able to fly or not
• Possibility that the technical delegate could also be the launch marshall
• Discussion that they need some authority to enforce rules etc

Outcome

• Proposal be put to the next Competitions Committee Meeting (CCM) that a technical delegate (TD) be present at every paragliding competition. Their role will be to assist the competition organizer on technical matters, be a reference regarding the rules, ensure all competitions follow the rules and meet required service levels. (Role description to be written prior to CCM.) The TD will be able to fly in the competition, and will not be required to pay the competition entry fee. This would form the payment to the TD - the larger the competition, the greater the input probably required from the TD and the greater the "payment". The TD will be a competitions committee member or a proxy nominated by them. The decision of the TD may be subject to the normal protest procedures.

New Category in Competitions

Discussion

• Proposal be put to the next CCM to incorporate a ‘class competition’ into competitions. Pilots entering this category need to fly a certified DHV 2 wing or lower or an Afnor rated standard wing. If there is a conflict in ratings, both the AFNOR and DHV ratings of the wing must meet the requirements.
• The purpose of this category is to encourage up and coming competition pilots to fly a safer wing in competitions, rather than move onto high performance wings too quickly, and to offer more seasoned pilots the chance to compete on a more stable wing.
• Prizes will be awarded to the top three pilots in this category. (Addendum from Heike: a prize should also be awarded to the top female and top masters competitor in this category)
• Pilots in this category will be identified in the general results (therefore no extra set of scores wil be required).

Outcome

• A proposal be put to the CCM to incorporate the above category in competitions.

Post-Competition Budget

Discussion

• Competitors would like to see the budget associated with competitions.
• They are happy for competition organizers to make a profit - this is not a measure to control this - hopefully if people see competitions as a way to make a profit, more will be willing to run a competition.

Outcome

• Proposal be put to the next CCM to require all competition directors to make available to competitors (on request) a post competition budget.

Retrieves

Discussion

• Discussion regarding the possibility of including retrieves as part of competitions. It was generally agreed to leave it as was. One reason given was that competition organized retrieves take a long time.
• Instead it was suggested that someone may be interested in setting up a retrieve service as a commercial activity.

Outcome

• No change to current system.

 Number of Competitions

Discussion

• The optimum number of ‘major’ competitions was discussed. The overall consensus was that the paragliding competition community was only large enough to support 3 at the moment. If the future, when more states want to run State Titles with a high sanction, the high sanction competitions could be rotated around the states. At that stage paragliding competition numbers may have increased, enabling more ‘major’ competitions to be held, or moving to a system similar to that used in hang gliding.
• The possibility of having a high sanction competition run over a number of weekends was discussed, but it was agreed that it would be difficult to make this financially viable. Supplementing the current 3 major competitions with a cross-country league was also discussed.

Outcome

• To maintain the current level of 3 major competitions a year for the next season.

Competition Sanctions

Discussion

• The possibility of having all 3 ‘major’ competitions at one sanction and one service level was discussed (with one of these competitions called the Nationals). The pros were that a round flown in one major competition should have the same value as a round flown in another competition. The main reason against having one sanction level was that it was felt one competition should still be the focus point for pilots, especially if they were not able to attend all 3 major competitions.
• A discussion was also held regarding having turnpoint requirements for these major competitions, to give pilots who will be representing the country the opportunity to practise this skill.

Outcome

• A vote was held and it was narrowly decided to have the Nationals with a higher sanction than the other two ‘major’ competitions which should have the same sanction, each year.
• Dave and Heike were to consider how to incorporate a requirement to have turnpoints into these 3 ‘major’ competitions.

Topographical Maps

Discussion

• Request was made to have topo maps for the areas in which tasks are set at launch.

Outcome

• Proposal will be put to the CCM to make it a requirement for these maps on launch.

 

Overseas Pilots in Competitions

Discussion

• The effect of having varying numbers of Overseas pilots on the scores received by Australian pilots was discussed. For example, two pilots may fly equally well relative to each other on different tasks. However the score received by the second pilot will vary for both tasks depending on the number of overseas competitors that have landed between the two Australians.

Outcome

• To rescore the Nationals, the Flatties and the Manilla Open by taking out the overseas pilots and understand the effect this has on the scores. If the results of this analysis indicate that it will be fairer and more consistent to score the Australian pilots separately for purposes of the Australian ladder, put this forward as a proposal to the CCM.

Team Selection

Discussion

• It was felt that the challengeable positions in a team should be applied for by the pilots eligible for filling this position. Currently the positions are filled by the next people on the ladder, unless someone else challenges them for the position. It was felt that this challenging of position could create ill-feeling.

Outcome

• To put a proposal to the CCM to reword the Competitions Manual to reflect this change.

Competition Dates - Timing

Discussion

• The timing of the three ‘major’ competitions was discussed - some felt this year the three were too close to one another. It was pointed out that this was done to attract overseas competitors to attend the competitions.

Outcome

• The timing of the competitions ultimately depends on when the best weather is expected for that site, and so is largely up to the competition organizers.

 

Retrospectively Changing GAP Parameters

Discussion

• A discussion about the rescoring of the first round of the Paragliding Nationals to correct a mistake made in the GAP parameters took place.

Outcome

• To put a proposal to the CCM to include in the Competitions Manual the following statement: "The GAP parameters can not be changed retrospectively".

Competition Based versus Round Based National Ladder

Discussion

• A summary of the discussion held earlier this season regarding competition based or round based National Ladder points was held. Also, if a round based system was to be used, whether each round would be scored using GAP or a placing system similar to that used in the PWC. It was made clear that each competition would still be a competition in its own right, with winners awarded prizes.
• Arguments for round based:
  • Encourages racing, by being able to drop rounds where you’ve raced yourself into the ground
  • Increases safety - pilots can choose to not fly a round without it necessarily impacting their National Ladder.
  • In effect this is what happens to a team at the World Championships - the best half of the teams scores are used.
• Arguments for competition based:
  • ???
• Arguments for GAP score:
  • System currently used and used at the World Championships
  • Day validity is taken care of.
• Arguments for placing points score:
  • Simpler system.

Outcome

• A vote was held to understand what the general feeling was regarding a round based National Ladder system. The overwhelming majority was in favour of this.
• A second vote was held regarding the type of scoring system to be used. The overwhelming response was to continue to use GAP.
• The details of the proposal, such the impact of competition sanctions on each round, how many rounds should be counted and how to incorporate the other competitions (other than the 3 ‘major’ competitions) will be left for the Competition Committee representatives, David and Heike, to decide.
• A proposal regarding a round based National Ladder system will be put to the next CCM.

 

Problems with GAP

• It was decided not to discuss this topic during the meeting, but for individuals who have concerns with particular elements of GAP to discuss their concerns with David or Heike.

Heike Hamann, 26/3/98

PS. I would like to thank Christy Bishop for suggesting we hold this meeting. Thankyou to all who attended - I think a lot of good ideas were put forward and important discussions held. Dave and I will now do the best we can to represent your views at the Comps Committee Meeting, which at this stage will be held on the 18th and 19th of April.