Pasaulio cempionato org. pareigybes ir CIVL komisaro ivertinimas

CIVL SANCTIONED MEET STEWARD’S REPORT

The purpose of this report is to inform the CIVL Competition Committee of the successes and problems occurring in CIVL sanctioned meets. From such reports, ideas for improving rules, organisations and the fairness of meets will develop. This report is in no way intended to be used as criticism of a given meet, but simply is one source of information useful for raising the standards of competition.

A. Steward Name: Riikka Vilkuna (SWE) & Louise Joselyn (UK)
B. Competition Title: 4th FAI World Paragliding Accuracy Championships
C. Location: Lake Galves, Trakai, Lithuania
D. Dates: 9th to 18th February, 2007

I – ORGANISATION:
1. Overall organization

Organising NAC NAC Lithuania & Lithuanian Hang Gliding and Paragliding Sport Association
Competition director Violeta Grigoraitiene
Safety director Jevgeni Blocha
Chief judge Andy Cowley (UK)

Overall organisation was generally very good.
Registration ran smoothly with only a few problems. All pilots had FAI Licences, though it was noticed that different NACs issue licences for varying periods of time and it is not always clear when they expire. Not all teams brought proof of towing experience as had been specified. But the organisers were prepared to assess pilots on the training day.
Timings of briefings and communications were generally good. See below. Decision making was generally good.

The weather for the competition week was quite good, temperatures varied between –3 C and –18 C. At the first briefing it was agreed that there would be a temperature limit of –15 C. Below –15 C the competition would wait for the temperature to rise. Wind speed was well within the limit, generally from 0 m/s to 3 m/s, except for one day when winds were on limits (7m/s) and the organisers, with input from the safety committee decided to cancel the day.

2. Quantity of officials
The organisers had recruited a very high number of enthusiastic volunteers in organising team.

3. Experience of officials
Key people were very experienced, particularly Meet Director, winch operators, winch technicians, start marshalls, safety director and Chief Judge. Deputy Meet Director was expert on a number of important issues, but was not ideal as an ‘all-round organiser’ to answer all questions and make appropriate strategic or logistical decisions. Knowledge of rules not 100%.

4. Suitability of meetings and briefings
Mostly very good. Some concern on whether everyone had good enough English to understand, but in principle it is the teams’ responsibility to have adequate language skills. There was some confusion at times on timings.

5. Suitability of weather information
Very good initially, the organiser provided both written and verbal reports. Later relied on verbal reports, which were reliable.

6. Suitability of facilities
HQ hotel was of very high standard, though new and some staff lacking experience or training. Briefing/conference room was of good size. There was a separate room provided for officials and two computers for pilot use with internet/wifi. It would have been good to have more office stationery & equipment, particularly printer & photocopier. The only printer ceased working halfway through the competition and organisers had to use the Hotel office facilities.

During competition days, temporary office located on lakeside, with computer, printer etc. If we were to have used the reserve site, there were few facilities, though equipment would have been moved from main site.

No warm up facilities provided (as recommended in Steward’s report from pre-event) for Judges. Hot tea & coffee was freely available all day, with thermos mugs provided for all competitors and officials. Hot food was also freely available every lunchtime.

Portaloos were provided, and there were also several cafes in easy reach/view of competition site. Rubbish bags had to be requested to be placed at other areas (launch & target) initially. No recycling. Also, event sponsor, Red Bull was handing out free cans, but made no effort to collect empties or provide collection point for recycling. This is a point to remember when making sponsorship contracts in the future.

7. Transportation
Large bus was provided for pilots and this arrangement worked very well. A car was provided for FAI officials.

8. Information dissemination (announcements, schedules and decisions)
Info boards were provided in strategic locations in hotel and on flying site. Filing trays provided for each team for info on scores, schedules etc. Late changes of timings etc were not always communicated effectively – especially as some teams were staying off site. Team leader mobile numbers were taken for SMSs, but never used.

On the days when launch point was some distance from target, organisers had to be reminded that pilots required information from target on conditions, and feedback from wind dummies.

9. Pilot assistance
Excellent – helpful staff speaking good English, providing good liaison with accommodation, transport and local facilities.

10. Retrieval
Not strictly necessary on lake, but snowmobiles with sledge trailers and scooters used to transport pilots between launch and target as required.

11. Launch control for fair access and efficiency
Excellent systems to ensure pilots were ready to fly on one of four lanes (two winches) and in correct flight order. Good attention to safety at all times.

12. Opening and closing ceremonies including presentation of Jury and Steward

Opening ceremony was held in large area of hotel. Local VIPs made lengthy speeches; FAI flag was raised and anthem played. Louise Joselyn made short welcome/thank you speech on behalf of FAI. National Teams with flags were well organised for photo opportunities etc. Local dancers provided colour. Excellent entertainment, food etc was offered through the evening. The organisers even had a novel idea for team draw for flight order.
Closing ceremony: Located in very impressive Trakai castle. But organization left something to be desired. National Teams were allocated places along the sides of the hall, but locals & organisers filled the space in the center, preventing the teams from seeing proceedings. There were some VIP speeches which had to be translated. FAI officials including visiting CIVL President, were introduced and thanked. Medal and Diploma presentations were good, though crowding at the front prevented some team followers from taking photos. Buffet food provided, good and plentiful, as well as pageantry, fire dancing, musical entertainment and fireworks.

13. Other social events
St. Valentines day party at HQ hotel. National teams each presented some song, poetry or dance item.

16th of February is Lithuania’s independence day and it was reserved for an independence day fiesta “Pagauk veja” (“Catch the wind”). This was a competition rest day. The day was filled with plenty of activities on the lake, and pilots were allowed to join in with PG flights, parachute drops etc. In the evening there was a party at a local Palace for all pilots and organisers with buffet dinner and tour included.

Other evenings, HQ hotel also provided evening entertainment (music, disco etc).

14. Total number of scheduled days and number of rounds achieved
8 scheduled days plus reserve day. One day was not flyable and there was one rest day. Maximum 12 rounds were achieved plus practice round on first competition day. Training day was organized prior/during registration.

15. Media liaison
Seemed excellent with national and international tv cameras on site several days. Competition director and some pilots often being interviewed by press. Other newspaper and magazine journalists and photographers on site most days. Competition website posted reports after each flying day. However this lapsed towards the end, despite the reports being available, which was a shame after many people abroad had just gotten used to checking the latest news from the competition. Reports also appeared on CIVL website.

16. Facilities provided for FAI officials e.g. standards of food, accommodation, transport, incidental expenses etc.
Rooms at HQ hotel were good, with wifi/internet access throughout. Food at hotel OK, though hotel often finished serving early and did not always have full menu choice. Official car provided to give some independence – much appreciated. Officials had same access to all tea, coffee, soup, food facilities provided on competition site for pilots.

17. Other organisational comments
At times the Competition Director was taking on too much and she was also very easy to approach. She could have delegated more. As mentioned, her deputy was very good in some areas, but was felt not ideal to take over as CD. Luckily the situation only arose once for a short period.

One major and unfortunate issue was a viral flu-like illness that swept through the area. Many pilots and organisers suffered. It affected some worse than others, with high temperatures and fevers, developing to coughs and chest infections. Medical advice was obtained, but little could be done. It is a consideration to bear in mind for winter competitions. The hotels extremely effective air conditioning may have contributed to the problem.

Judging team: Not enough effort made early enough before the competition to ensure a full and qualified Judging team, with reserves for rotation during the day. This has been a problem in many competitions in the past as well. This is the responsibility of organiser in conjunction with Chief Judge but it seems that there is a need to clarify the issue.

Scoring systems: A local scoring system had been developed. It was efficient but did not allow any changes.

18. Recommendations for organisational improvements for future events
• Ensure appointed Deputy Competition Director is suitably qualified to take on all decision making aspects of the organisation, taking advice from team as necessary.
• More attention to needs of pilots, judges and organisers during a winter competition – allowing for breaks to warm up, coping with illness etc.
• Webcam was set up during the week observing the target. Concerns raised about possibility of filming an accident live. Suggested there should be a delay and someone responsible full time for controlling it.
• Provisional results were uploaded immediately to the event website. Needed more emphasis that these were provisional. Also, outside observers had more visibility of results than the competing pilots and teamleaders. Ideal opportunity to provide live feed on large display to spectator area.
• The responsibility of organizing a full judging team (and getting a commitment from the judges) should be clarified. A deadline for publishing the judging team might be an idea.

II – RULES: Comment on rule issues,
1. Adequacy of local regulations
OK. One or two minor discrepancies noticed. Copies were provided to every pilot and team leader. Plus they had been available for at least four months on the website.
2. Addendums or changes
One Addendum made on last day to speed up confirmation of final results.
3. Changes important to Section 7, Annex 9 that you think will improve fairness or effectiveness
Reflights – clarify how long a round can remain open (ie after hospital trip by potentially injured pilot or accompanying team member)
Fitness to fly – may need reviewing for emphasis of Team Leader responsibility, especially in case where the team leader and the organizer disagree.
Relocating the target on large area, such as airfield or ice. Discussion last year recommended retaining the current rule that target should not be moved within a round. It might be worth reviewing this point again with the consideration of deciding whether to start a new round towards the end of the day.

4. Fair application of local regulations
They were applied fairly. However, key points were emphasised at initial briefing, and had to be repeated in briefings most days, as it was clear some pilots had either not read them or not fully understood them.

In one case a pilot changed gliders in between competition rounds. According to Section 7 there should be a good reason for doing this. The pilot had not dried her glider and had gotten a permission to change gliders. It was felt that the reason for permission to change gliders was (in principle) very light. Equipment is pilot’s responsibility.

5. Use of Section 7 and General Section (how and why)
• Reference to the Rules were made on a number of occasions to pilots and organizers, mostly to give information and to discuss the rules in general
• The Judging Code – process for accepting (or not) of scores
• Timings for provisional results, complaints & protests etc.
• Structure and formation of Safey Committee.
• Discrepancy noted between Section 7 and General Section on Diplomas – 4th to 10th or 1st to 10th places?

6. Your need to provide rule interpretations (how and why)
• How to prepare a well structured protest – advice to pilot & Team Leader.
• Judging procedure and use of video evidence – to Judges & Team leaders
• Reasons for reflight and when they are not awarded – to pilots
• Reiteration/clarification of points made in initial briefing – to pilots & Team leaders

Recommendations for Rule Changes or Revisions:
Video evidence: some procedures should be set up, probably in Local Regulations on how, when, if Judges should accept video evidence taken by pilots to review Judging decisions. There was a major issue on Day 3, when a high profile complaint was made by a group of team leaders against a Judging decision on one pilot. Against the advice of the Stewards, the Competition Director allowed the video evidence to be viewed by the judges with the team leader who had written the complaint before consultation with the Judging team. The Judging Team then viewed the video and reversed its decision. Technically, the video evidence should only have been produced for a subsequent protest, and viewed by the Jury. This violation of procedures could have resulted in a subsequent counter-complaint by the pilot in question. The whole complaint procedure should be kept low key and neutral.

Subsequent informal discussion between organisers, judges and pilots agreed on some guidelines. A number of further, relatively minor rule amendments have been noted for discussion during the year.

An issue of loudly cheering countrymen/team members at the target may become an issue in the future. Technically it could lead to a reflight if the pilot claims he/she has been distracted. On the other hand it could be used tactically. In some cases the team members may also be giving advice to the pilot.

Note made by LJ to add recommendations on handling video evidence at the target. Video evidence should be discussed in the future. It is too early to make rules, but some guideline might be a good idea.

More specifics may be needed on penalties for dangerous flying on tow and over target.

Add a deadline for finalising the judging team.

7. Target set-up and operation
Generally very efficient – joint effort of organising team and Chief Judge. Some concerns about slipperiness of surface. Wind socks and wind speed recording device all met recommended specification now in the rules.

8. Timing regulation
Some delays some days to start operations due to various issues including poor preparation in one case, technical problems and poor logistics. It would have been easy to delay bus departure if ground crew knew there would be a delay, to avoid pilots waiting on the ice unnecessarily. However, once under way, the very effective and efficient winching system meant that launch had to be slowed at times to avoid pilots arriving at the target too swiftly one after another.

9. Scoring systems (use and application)
Organising team had devised own computerised scoring system which was excellent at delivering provisional results very quickly, and also simultaneously on the website. Initially some errors as results communicated by radio, conflicted with results written down by scorer and signed for (agreed) by pilot. Also, the system was inflexible and could not be modified. They could not create a Womens ranking, for example. Nor could they print specific cuts of the database, such as pilot and glider type etc. Further work will need to be done to send in final results to FAI for WPRS.

10. Protests handling and resolution
One protest during final round. It was handled effectively and the protest was not upheld. NB. The appointed Jury President, Roman Pogacar (SLO) had to leave before the last flying day. A new Jury President was appointed: Flip Koetsier (NED).

11. Other rule comments
III – SAFETY:
1. General meet safety
Overall very good. Briefings were repeated every day on issues such as turn direction on the winch. Winch coaching was also provided to help some pilots launch in the very cold, still conditions. Warnings were also made daily to team leader, with the promise of penalties for dangerous flying on target approach. The safety committee met several times during the week to discuss winching and other safety matters.

2. Occurrence of accidents
Day 1 One pilot stalled on target approach, falling heavily from about 15m. He was taken to hospital and suffered a broken arm, fractured coccyx and whiplash. He was discharged immediately and returned to the hotel.
Day 2 – two pilots stalled on launch, neither was injured though they fell heavily. The Safety Committee met with winching personnel. It was concluded to be predominantly poor launch techniques in difficult (cold, heavy air) conditions. The launch marshall noted that some types of glider (ie Sport 2) and older gliders had more trouble launching in these conditions. There was some concern that winchman actions could also have contributed, but this was not conclusive.
Day 5 – female pilot stalled on target approach and hit the ground hard, her helmet flew off. She was taken to hospital and x-rayed. No injuries, just bruised and shaken.

3. Availability of medical personnel
There was a doctor on site on every flying day. She did not speak much English. This was not a problem as there was always people available (launch and target) to translate. Serious concerns were voiced about
• how the incidents were managed: No-one appeared to be in charge of delegating responsibilities ie keeping public, press and pilots away, closing the target, stopping launch, calling for further assistance etc.
• ignorance of how to act with potential back injuries, organisers and medical staff seemed keen to move and bodily lift injured pilot, first onto a sledge, then onto the stretcher when the ambulance arrived. Even paramedics were seen not to follow established practice followed in other countries concerning back injuries. The question of varying medical cultures is a difficult one.

4. Use of safety officer
Generally very effective. He was always available and observing operations on launch, at the winches and at the target. His English was ok, but sometimes reticent to practice, getting others to translate. He met with safety committee on several occasions and listened to their input.

5. Launch safety
Generally very good, and problems identified were tackled through briefings and coaching. See above.

6. Pilot skill relating to safety (launch, flight, landing)
The field was mixed.
Launch: Some very experienced tow launch pilots, and others, notably from Slovenia, Serbia and Macedonia had little tow/winch experience, which showed.

Flight/target approach: Some very experienced who understand ‘searching for stall’ etc and some much less experienced and in a competitive environment pushed themselves further than was prudent. Most young and less experienced pilots were cautious. Pilots were warned daily that stalling in to the target was considered to be dangerous flying and penalties would be applied. A stricter policy from the judging team from the very first round could have helped.

7. Suggestions for future safety enhancements
Enforce on Team Leaders their responsibility for safety relative to experience and also ‘fitness to fly’.
Review rules on mandating use of back protection in harnesses – some pilots still use lightweight or training harnesses with no back protection at all. Luckily all pilots that had problems in this competition (stall all take-off or landing) had good back protection.

Look at helmet style (pointy helmets and landing on back)
Winter conditions – pilots were getting cold and tired on some long days