PILOT’S MEETING - 8th March 1999

Manilla

Attendees: Dave Mills, Heike Hamann, Fred Gungl, Ian Ladyman, Stewart Dennis, JJ Bastion, Brian Webb, Karl Texler, Gavin Hanlon, Pete Bowyer, Enda Murphy, Godfrey Wenness, Andrew Kemp, Ivan Asimov, Patrick Roser, Renee, Bill Roberts, Craig Martinson, Krista Texler, James.

1. Competition attendance options

There are 2 options:

• only allow entries for the full comp
• allow limited entry to a subset of the days available (but all days booked and paid for prior to the first scheduled day of competition)

Points of view raised were:

• Allowing limited entry may reduce overall entries
• Allowing limited entry is unlikely to reduce current full week attendance but may increase overall attendance because a lot of people unwilling to take a week off may attend for weekends
• Karl wanted the choice left to the organiser
• Andy stated that many of the running costs are fixed and the extra people will not add to costs and will therefore add to the organisers profit
• Stewart stated that his survey found that fun was the main motivator. So attendance will increase.
• Andy wanted a daily rate required
• Free flyers would be more likely to enter for the days they were there.

Ian made the motion that it be in the rules that the option of limited attendance be available. Most in favour.

Only Ivan wanted it enforced.

1. Competition committee members be waived entry fees of competitions.

Opinions raised were:

• Brian was concerned that one comp may have several free participants and another none. That is unfair on the organiser with several attending.
• Ian was concerned that many others also volunteer lots of time and they have no facility for reward. He suggested that a small fee of all participants be added to all comp entries. Then this fund pays the comp committee entries and the remainder be available for team or similar.
• It will encourage CC members to compete which will improve their work.

Motion that committee members be waived entry fees. Almost all in favour.

Options for funding are:

• HGFA funded
• Entry fee (extra levee) fund
• National ladder (to get on the ladder) funded
• A levee be added to the HGFA membership for CC
• A once off fee for the season plus a small levee for each entry in each comp

The following options were proposed:

Option 1: that all Australian competitors (who wish to be on the ladder) pay $X, plus each comp entry gets charged $Y.

Option 2: $X per pilot per comp flat rate.

Option 3: $X for any person who competes at any comp.

Option 4: $X for any Australian person who competes at any comp.

Option 5: Part 2 and 4

Option1 1

Option2 Most

Option 2 suggested.

1. Technical delegates at competitions (someone who enforces the rules).

   Now that CC members are assisted they will fulfil the role.

2. Annual fee for competing

   Voted out.

3. Standard class definition

   Currently DHV 2. European countries are currently leaning towards 2-3. FAI and CIVL still deliberating.

   Comp entry forms to include a declaration of class and lists both canopy and harness and speed system.

   Agreed to keep DHV 2 as standard. If FAI propose a definite standard then we follow their ruling, if not we introduce an extra class being 2-3.

   Proposed no change until FAI introduce a ruling. If FAI make a ruling prior to June 30 1999 then we adopt the FAI system for next season. If not then FAI system not adopted till 2000/2001 season. Most in favour.

4. Election of safety committee advisory to director

   Voted in favour.

5. Timing of first briefing

   As determined and published by director.

6. Manual – outlines, forms etc.

• Entry
• Landing
•  

1. Task cancellation

   Task cancelled if pilot would place themselves in unavoidable danger if they continues to fly the task.. Or alternative considered by CC at next meeting.

2. National register.

   Too much work. Voted against.

3. Photos vs GPS.

   Most happy to allow GPS equal precedence on verification to film. Voted in.

   Some wanted beer can removed. They wanted the visual to be absolute.

   Hilltop turn points can be problematic. Suggested they are not used.

   Organisers are allowed to charge a flat fee and extra for all films and processing.

4. Round by round

Mission statement.

Varience between comps:

• Number of pilots
• Quality of pilots
• Spread of pilots

New Zealanders give each day 1000 or 0 points for winner but then apply a day quality based on four parameters before adding to national ladder. The four parameters are:

• Number of top ten pilots attending
• Number of pilots attending
• Distance flow by the top ten of the day
• Percentage in goal

Proposals are:

• Days more than a cut-off get elongated to 1000 and days less get dropped
• Comp days get re-scored using only the previous season’s top 15, 30 or some other number pilots and scores from the standard scoring get elongated (or shrunk) accordingly.

Meeting adjourned till next suitable day.