Wills Wing
Flytec

Oz Report

topic: Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

119 articles, page:  1 

Dalby Big Air Photos

Wed, Apr 6 2022, 7:51:44 pm MDT

Zupy

Dalby Big Air 2022|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

Link here on Facebook.

Discuss "Dalby Big Air Photos" at the Oz Report forum   link»   »

Peak Pictures from Forbes

January 11, 2020, 8:35:29 pm EST

Peak Pictures from Forbes

Zuppy

Facebook|photo

Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo

Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo

https://www.facebook.com/PeakPicturesMichaelZupanc/photos/a.1207261399469885/1207261779469847/?type=3&theater

Discuss "Peak Pictures from Forbes" at the Oz Report forum   link»

2020 Forbes Flatlands »

Sat, Jan 11 2020, 9:29:13 am EST

Day 8 results

Øyvind Ellefsen|Attila Bertok|Facebook|Forbes Flatlands 2020|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo|Rohan Taylor|Trent Brown

Live Tracking: https://lt.flymaster.net/bs.php?grp=3171

http://www.forbesflatlands.com/results/results-2020

Task 4:

# Name Glider Time Total
1 Rohan Taylor Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 01:11:05 945
2 Josh Woods Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 01:14:09 870
3 Trent Brown Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 01:15:02 857
4 Attila Bertok Moyes RX 5 Pro 01:15:46 846
4 Jonas Lobitz Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 01:15:44 846
6 Olav Opsanger Moyes RX 4 Pro 01:15:52 845
7 Vic Hare Ww T3 144 01:16:46 832
8 Jonny Durand Moyes RX 4 Pro 01:16:52 831
9 Oyvind Ellefsen Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 01:23:21 757
10 Filippo Oppici Ww T3 144 01:26:09 729

Final:

# Name Glider Total
1 Attila Bertok Moyes RX 5 Pro 3501
2 Josh Woods Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 3355
3 Jonny Durand Moyes RX 4 Pro 3215
4 Trent Brown Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 3071
4 Filippo Oppici Ww T3 144 3071
6 Olav Opsanger Moyes RX 4 Pro 2975
7 Jonas Lobitz Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 2915
8 Vic Hare Ww T3 144 2716
9 Oyvind Ellefsen Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 2604
10 Yasuhiro Noma Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 2471

Discuss "2020 Forbes Flatlands" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

How Zupy Got His Cloud Picture

December 19, 2019, 5:50:22 pm EST

How Zupy Got His Cloud Picture

In a sailplane (the easy way)

sailplane|Sam Benson

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|sailplane|Sam Benson

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|sailplane|Sam Benson

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-19/riding-waves-of-clouds-to-get-the-perfect-photo/11806012

"We flew 100 miles away from Burketown riding the wave and then turned around and flew part the way back still on the wave," Mr Zupanc told ABC Radio Brisbane's Rebecca Levingston.

Although rare, the clouds are consistently seen across the Burketown area from September to November, with several normally forming during this period.

"The visual spectacle is awesome as you take off at dawn and it's amazing to see this dark wall looming on the horizon towards you in the darkness of the early morning," Mr Zupanc said.

"It's such a unique phenomenon and the Burketown area is the only place in the world where they can be predicted and where they happen regularly.

Thanks to Sam Benson.

Discuss "How Zupy Got His Cloud Picture" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Morning Glory Photo

Fri, Nov 8 2019, 8:31:47 am PST

Michael Zupanc

calendar|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|weather

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/that-s-the-story-morning-glory-how-cloud-surfing-snapper-took-shot-20191106-p537we.html

A photographer cloud-surfing in a glider has captured an incredible image of "morning glory cloud" over north-west Queensland.

Michael Zupanc's shot is so good he earned himself a spot in the Bureau of Meteorology's official 2020 calendar and his picture, On Cloud Nine, will feature for the month of June.

The picture was taken in September 2018, but after months of open entries and judging, it was unveiled on Wednesday as one of 13 images selected for the national weather calendar.

The phenomenon consistently occurs above Burketown, an isolated town and locality in far north-western Queensland and 660 kilometres west of Cairns.

Discuss "Morning Glory Photo" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

2019 Dalby Big Air »

April 13, 2019, 8:18:11 EDT

2019 Dalby Big Air

Day 6 and final Results:

Andrey Solomykin|Dalby Big Air 2019|Evgeniya "Zhenya" Laritskaya|Facebook|Rohan Taylor|Steve Blenkinsop|Trent Brown|weather

Andrey Solomykin|Dalby Big Air 2019|Evgeniya "Zhenya" Laritskaya|Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Rohan Taylor|Steve Blenkinsop|Trent Brown|weather

Andrey Solomykin|Dalby Big Air 2019|Evgeniya "Zhenya" Laritskaya|Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Rohan Taylor|Steve Blenkinsop|Trent Brown|weather

http://williamolive.com/comps/dalby/index.html

Task 6:

# Name Glider Time Total
1 Matthew Barlow Moyes RX 5 Pro 03:28:24 992
2 Glen Mcfarlane WW T2C 144 03:35:04 908
3 Trent Brown Moyes RX 3.5 03:38:47 876
4 Rohan Taylor Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 03:34:51 859
5 Adam Stevens Aeros Combat 12.7 03:55:28 838
6 Steve Blenkinsop Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 03:54:53 834
7 Sam Prest Moyes RX 3.5 04:01:21 776
8 Craig Taylor Moyes RX 3.5 04:13:20 770
9 Brodrick Osborne Moyes RS 4 04:05:45 760
10 Neale Halsall Moyes RX 4 Pro 04:23:36 731

Task 7:

# Name Glider Time Total
1 Rohan Taylor Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 01:32:42 939
2 Trent Brown Moyes RX 3.5 01:29:06 908
3 Guy Hubbard Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 01:36:25 905
4 Adam Stevens Aeros Combat 12.7 01:37:25 883
5 Rick Martin Moyes RX 3.5 01:37:27 873
6 Steve Docherty Moyes RX 4 Pro 01:37:35 871
7 Steve Blenkinsop Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 01:37:42 862
8 Sam Prest Moyes RX 3.5 01:38:15 854
9 Howard Jones Moyes RX 3.5 01:37:40 851
10 Mikhail Karmazin Moyes RX 3.5 01:38:26 839

Final Results:

# Name Glider Total
1 Steve Blenkinsop Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 6127
2 Rohan Taylor Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 5780
3 Adam Stevens Aeros Combat 12.7 5772
4 Sam Prest Moyes RX 3.5 5160
5 Matthew Barlow Moyes RX 5 Pro 5111
6 Craig Taylor Moyes RX 3.5 5101
7 Glen Mcfarlane WW T2C 144 4909
8 Steve Docherty Moyes RX 4 Pro 4810
9 Guy Hubbard Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 4664
10 Nils Vesk Moyes RX 3.5 4428

Andrey Solomykin again won the day and all days and was the overall winner in Sport Class.

Evgeniya Laritskaya writes:

Dalby Big Air, day 6. Groundhog Day, as our task committee called it. Sport class had the same task as their previous one - 51 kilometer to Brigalow, almost perfectly in line with the wind. Open class flew the same direction as before but much further - 217 kilometers this time.

The weather was truly fantastic - just look at the photo of the clouds from my retrieve drive. The cloudbase was around 2100 meters MSL and the clouds were easily reachable. The wind was pushing pilots pretty strong (~25 km/h) along the course, but it didn’t affect their take off safety. Thermals were 2-3 m/s on average, but I heard reports of 5-6 m/s even.

Looks like the sport class pilots undercalled their task: many of them had already made goal by 1 pm! They could have flown a much longer task! But at least there were so many happy faces at goal!

Andrey and Hugh (first and second place in the current sport class scoring) were mostly flying together. Their results are very close again, but Andrey managed to be one minute faster. Peter Garrone was first at the goal field and earned the most leading points, but was three minutes slower than Hugh! Four more kingposted guys made goal and Richard Hughes landed in the adjacent field and ended up one kilometer short.

Eleven open class pilots made this long task, and Guy Hubbard was only 180 meters short! Matthew Barlow won the task (for the second time at this comp. Look at their speeds, by the way: nearly 60 km/h. I could see on their Spot trackers page that they were flying really fast today. It was hard to keep up down on the road.

Sport class podium:

Open class podium:

Discuss "2019 Dalby Big Air" at the Oz Report forum   link»

2019 Dalby Big Air »

April 10, 2019, 9:34:45 pm EDT

2019 Dalby Big Air

Launch potatoes

(Zupy|Dalby Big Air 2019|Evgeniya "Zhenya" Laritskaya|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo|Rohan Taylor|weather|Zupanc)

Evgeniya Laritskaya writes:

Dalby Big Air, day 4. An even harder day than yesterday. It started with a pretty strong inversion, so pilots were playing “launch potatoes” and waiting for the weather to improve for quite some time. Open class had a 106 km long Big Dipper shaped task with five turnpoints; sport class had a 51 kilometer straight line task; both tasks to the north-west.

“Kingposted” pilots reported flying over a blue hole area with the thermals all broken between 2300 and 2500 meters. “Topless” pilots reported their furthest leg being under a shaded area with very light thermals and they all experienced cross winds. All this together allowed only five open class pilots to make goal, and the first one was Craig Taylor on his RX3.5. Sport goal was again made by Andrey and Hugh on Geckos, and Andrey was only five minutes faster. Andrey, Hugh and Alastair (currently scored third) are flying together for the last couple days and enjoying it very much.

Special mentions for Peter Garrone who after storming the course with an earlier start landed just 550m short of the goal radius! Keep it up Peter.

Huge thanks to Michael Zupanc for taking me up in the trike, so I could take a few aerial photos of our “launch potatoes."

Michael Karmazin was testing a new instrument prototype, which measures electricity in the air to spot thermals better.

2019 Dalby Big Air »

April 9, 2019, 8:25:31 EDT

2019 Dalby Big Air

Togetherness

Dalby Big Air 2019|Facebook|photo|Steve Blenkinsop

Dalby Big Air 2019|Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo|Steve Blenkinsop

Dalby Big Air 2019|Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo|Steve Blenkinsop

On Day 3, With Steve Blenkinsop and Steve Docherty in Dalby, Queensland.

Discuss "2019 Dalby Big Air" at the Oz Report forum   link»

2018 Canungra Classic »

October 25, 2018, 9:44:52 MDT

2018 Canungra Classic

Results from day 6

Attila Bertok|Canungra Classic 2018|Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo|Rohan Taylor|Steve Blenkinsop|Trent Brown

http://xc.highcloud.net/task_overview.html?comPk=249&tasPk=1104

Task 6:

Point Type Size Dist Description
LBEECH start 400 0 BEECHMONT LAUNCH
LBEECH speed 5000 5 BEECHMONT LAUNCH
15PALE waypoint 1000 47.1 PALEN CREEK GOAL
13RATH goal 2000 59.4 RATHDOWNEY GOAL
# Pilot Glider Time Tot
1 Jon Durand moyes Rx 4 Pro 1:21:25 997
2 Rohan Taylor Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 1:26:54 914
3 ollver chitty Moyes RX 5 pro 1:27:52 906
4 Trent Brown moyes Rx 3.5 pro 1:30:38 875
5 Harrison Rowntree Moyes RX3.5 pro 1:40:13 804
6 attila bertok moyes Rx 5 Pro 1:51:00 769
7 Rory Duncan Moyes RX 3 pro 1:53:34 752
8 Steve Blenkinsop Moyes RX 3.5 pro 2:03:20 703
9 Guy Hubbard Moyes RX3.5 pro 1:56:23 689
10 Steven Crosby Moyes RX 5 2:04:44 603
11 Josh Woods moyes Rx 3.5 pro 2:14:09 549
12 Richard Martin moyes Rx 3.5 pro 2:45:08 502

Cumulative:

# Name Glider Total
1 ollver chitty Moyes RX 5 pro 4658
2 Jon Durand Moyes rx 4 pro 4564
3 attila bertok Moyes RX 5 pro 4358
4 Harrison Rowntree Moyes RX 3.5 pro 4152
5 Rohan Taylor Moyes RX 3.5 Pro 4030
6 Steve Blenkinsop Moyes RX 3.5 3793
7 Rory Duncan Moyes RX 3 pro 3701
8 Josh Woods Moyes RX 3.5 pro 3295
9 Trent Brown Moyes RX 3.5 pro 3037
10 Guy Hubbard Moyes RX 3.5 pro 2990

Discuss "2018 Canungra Classic" at the Oz Report forum   link»

2018 Canungra Classic »

October 20, 2018, 3:31:05 pm MDT

2018 Canungra Classic

It starts

Canungra Classic 2018|Facebook

Canungra Classic 2018|Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

https://www.facebook.com/MikeZupy/posts/719442378417969

Discuss "2018 Canungra Classic" at the Oz Report forum   link»

The 55th Anniversary

August 23, 2018, 8:16:23 MDT

The 55th Anniversary

Of the first flight of a modern hang glider

CIVL

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

Mike Zupanc writes:

There is an "official event" planned for the 55 years of hang gliding.

There was a significant event featuring John Dickensen, in Grafton, for the 50th anniversary, so this one is (presumably) to finish off the accolades. The invitation flyer below.

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/civl/documents/55th_anniversary_program.pdf

Discuss "The 55th Anniversary" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Forbes Peak pictures

January 5, 2017, 8:32:10 EST

Forbes Peak pictures

Zuppy's pictures

Facebook|photo

Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo

Facebook|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo

Discuss "Forbes Peak pictures" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Vicki's wrap on the Forbes Flatlands

January 18, 2016, 9:47:04 EST

Vicki's wrap on the Forbes Flatlands

So happy that Jonny won.

Alexandra "Sasha" Serebrennikova|Bobby Bailey|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|record|Steve Blenkinsop|Trent Brown|Vicki Cain|Wesley "Wes" Hill|Wills Wing T2C|Yoko Isomoto

Vicki Cain <<Vicki>> writes:

Forbes Flatlands Hang Gliding Championships 2016

What started out looking like it was going to be the worst Forbes comp ever turned out to be one of the best! I think we'll be talking about this one for a long time to come! It's all about the numbers! Our 10th consecutive Forbes Flatlands competition. 62 Pilots from 13 Countries 22 Crew from all over All together in 1 place, for 10 days, doing what we love, having fun, seeing old friends, making new friends and making the most of this amazing sport.

Conditions turned on for task 4 to allow us to set the longest task ever in a hang gliding competition. 368 km from Forbes to Walgett. A massive 26 pilots made the task, that's 41% of the field!

It was a personal best flight for all at goal except for Jonny Durand, Len Paton and Guy Hubbard. And a World Record flight for the only female pilot to make goal, the current World Champion Yoko Isomoto. And the Forbes mantra rings true "How Good is Forbes!"

All this made possible by so many people. Thank you: Meet Director: Wesley Hill. Operations: Thea O'Connor. Launch Director: Michael Zupanc. Goal Marshall: Rob Van Der Klooster. Bill and Molly Moyes and the tug pilots Bobby Bailey, Steve McCarthy, Bruce Crerar, Blaino and Marco Carelli. Launch crew: Richard Nevins, Sue Nevins, Lizzy Nevins, Jack Nevins, Yes the whole Nevins family! Christina Quinn, Tony Hanlon, Annie Crerar, Bena, Linda Zupanc. The Task Committee: Gerolf Heinrichs, Jonny Durand, Bruce Wynne. Safety Committee: Gordon Rigg, Lukas Bader, Nils Vesk. Protest Committee: Steve Blenkinsop, Glenn McFarlane, Trent Brown.

We set 6 Tasks totaling over 1000 kms with the leaders averaging 160 km per day, that's close to 100 miles per day! The consistent flying at Forbes is why we come back year after year. How good is Forbes!

Congratulations to all the winners!

Top 10 Open Class

10th Olav Opsanger Norway Moyes RX 3.5
9th Gavin Myers Australia Moyes RX 5
8th Fredy Bircher Switzerland Moyes RX 3.5
7th Lukas Bader Germany Moyes RS 4
6th Josh Woods Australia Moyes RX 3.5
5th Len Paton Australia Moyes RS 4
4th Glen McFarlane Australia Wills Wing T2C 144
3rd Jason Kath Australia Wills Wing T2C 144
2nd Michael Jackson Australia Moyes LSS 5
And a most deserved win with a dominant performance, and his 6th Forbes Flatlands title
1st Jonny Durand Australia Moyes RX 3.5

Women Class: 1st Alexandra Serebrennikova Russia Moyes RX 3

Sport Class: 1st Noel Bear Australia Moyes Gecko 155

Forbes A Grade Award: 1st Josh Woods Australia Moyes RX 3.5

Forbes Council Encouragement Award: Howard Jones Australia Moyes RX 3.5

Thank you to all the pilots and their support crews for making the trek to Forbes, we hope you had the time of your life ; )

Full results can be found at www.forbesflatlands.com

Photo credits to Michael Zupanc Peak Pictures and Christina Quinn.

The podium at the Forbes Flatlands 2016

January 15, 2016, 9:03:52 EST

The podium at the Forbes Flatlands 2016

Moyes is a big winner

Alexandra "Sasha" Serebrennikova|Facebook|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Vicki Cain|video

Vicki sends out:

Open Class Jonny Durand Australia Moyes RX3.5
Women Class Alexandra Serebrennikova Russia Moyes RX3
Sport Class Noel Bear Australia Moyes Gecko 155
Forbes A Grade Award Josh Woods Australia Moyes RX3.5
Forbes Council Encouragement Award Howard Jones Australia Moyes RX3.5

Photo by Michael Zupanc:
Back row Left to Right: Vicki Cain, Howard Jones, Noel Bear, Alexandra Serebrennikova, Olav Opsanger, Gavin Myers, Glenn McFarlane, Len Paton, Jonny Durand, Michael Jackson, Jason Kath
Front row Left to Right: Josh Woods, Lukas Bader, Freddy Bircher

https://www.facebook.com/431557963627074/videos/883467868436079/?fref=nf

This week the Forbes Flatlands Hang Gliding Championships came to a close.

With such majestic scenes captured by our cameras over the six days of competition, WIN News reporter Felicity Nethery brings you the highlights from the sky.

2016 Forbes Flatlands »

January 11, 2016, 8:25:21 EST

2016 Forbes Flatlands

Tullio and Gordon

(Zupy|Facebook|Forbes Flatlands 2016|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo|Tullio Gervasoni|Zupanc)

Michael Zupanc posts:

2016 Forbes Flatlands, day 6 »

January 8, 2016, 7:48:44 EST

2016 Forbes Flatlands, day 6

The pilots at goal in Walgett

(Zupy|Facebook|Forbes Flatlands 2016|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo|Zupanc)

Results here: http://www.forbesflatlands.com/results.html

From Michael Zupanc:

2015 Canungra Classic - day 2 »

October 4, 2015, 7:57:41 MST -0600

2015 Canungra Classic

Jonny takes the lead

(Zupy|Attila Bertok|Canungra Classic 2015|John Smith|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Moyes Litespeed RX|Paris Williams|Steve Blenkinsop|Wills Wing T2C|Zupanc)

No one makes goal.

http://chgc.asn.au.143us.blankserver.com/CanungraClassic.aspx

Task 2:

# Name Glider Distance Total
1 Jon Durand Jnr Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 74.60 896
2 Glen McFarlane Wills Wing T2C 144 57.71 786
3 Tony Armstrong Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 56.77 779
4 Steve Blenkinsop Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 56.28 774
5 Attila Bertok Moyes LiteSpeed RX5 55.85 769
6 Nils Vesk Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 55.45 764
7 John Smith Moyes LiteSpeed RX5 53.25 729
8 Paris Williams Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 52.76 722
9 Jason Kath Wills Wing T2C 144 52.11 711
10 Darren Rickertt Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 49.76 681

Cumulative:

# Name Glider Total
1 Jon Durand Jnr Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 1831
2 Steve Blenkinsop Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 1758
3 Glen McFarlane Wills Wing T2C 144 1754
4 Attila Bertok Moyes LiteSpeed RX5 1744
5 John Smith Moyes LiteSpeed RX5 1689
6 Paris Williams Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 1682
7 Nils Vesk Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 1679
8 Guy Hubbard Moyes LiteSpeed RS4 1577
9 Adam Stevens Moyes LiteSpeed RX3.5 1541
10 Jason Kath Wills Wing T2C 144 1501

I sent Jonny a very short email with only a smiley face and the subject line, "No leading points." He wrote back:

Yes, that is correct, Davis. There was a push to have early start gates for the early guys due to conditions and having to be able to wait for so long around launch. It was decided we would not use leading points for the entire comp just time arrival. So, yes, in fact us stupid Canungra guys do actually know what scoring system we are using despite your comments. And to clarify the Durands do not own a launch site it was purchased years ago by the Canungra Club.

I'm so happy to see that Jonny understands the value of the OzGAP 2005 scoring system (invented in Australia by Michael Zupanc).

"Funny" points in competition scoring

June 4, 2015, 7:57:50 EDT

"Funny" points in competition scoring

Response to the previous article

Dustin Martin|Highland Aerosports Flight Park|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk

Dustin corrects me and writes:

I have continually made it known that I don't like leading points. And that I like race starts. Getting across the line first means you did something right, whether pulling or holding back, it was obviously right. Continually pulling out front in a gaggled up race is often an objectively wrong decision and I don't think it should be rewarded. I don't think the result will be slower, bigger gaggles. Some of the most aggressive, out front type pilots come from Brazil where there are only race starts.

Jonny Durand <<jonnyjnr80>> writes:

I however do disagree with Dustin and I believe the person who is taking risk to help the lead gaggle should be rewarded. Currently it is not a huge reward, more of a feel good bonus at the end of the day knowing you get some "funny points" as Davis calls them. Dustin is right in the fact that Brazil hosts some of the best leading pilots in the world and they currently use FS with leading points. This however is not the reason they all like to lead but more because of their national ranking system. Most pilots only want to win days and don't care as much about their over all results.

I know you say there is not much difference Davis (between "arrival time points" in OzGAP 2005 and the combination of "leading points" and "arrival position points" in GAP 2014), but I would be interested to see if we re scored the Quest Air Open Nationals Championships with lead out points using FS (GAP 2014), what would happen to those fourteen points that Oleg won by. We may very well find a different outcome.

Why should someone that takes no risk all day long who just follows and stays high get the same points as the pilots that are doing all the work providing they cross the line at the same time?

Your scoring program (which implements OzGAP 2005 and "arrival time points" written by Michael Zupanc) does not promote racing. It simply promotes the last glide of the day. We might as well start at one time and do just one glide and see who can cross the line first!

Two years ago I compared a couple of competitions using different scoring systems. Here: http://ozreport.com/17.039#0 and here: http://ozreport.com/17.041#0.

In the previous article I was not arguing that OzGAP 2005's "arrival time points" were better or worse or different than GAP 2014's (GAP 2002) combination of "leading points" and "arrival position points." I was merely arguing that GAP 2014's "leading points" apparently do not do what I think Jonny thinks that they do, reward the pilots who pull the leading gaggle. I have presented some evidence (and pointed to additional evidence) that this is a correct interpretation.

2014 Canungra Classic »

October 25, 2014, 7:17:33 PDT

2014 Canungra Classic

The first day

Canungra Classic 2014|Corinna Schwiegershausen|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Steve Blenkinsop|Vicki Cain

http://corinnaflies.blogspot.de/2014/10/day-1-61km-around-2-turnpoints.html

Vicki Cain writes:

First day of the Canungra Hang Gliding Classic 2014. Jonny Durand 1st into Goal, Corinna Schwiegershausen second then Steve Blenkinsop and Jonas Lobitz. Tough day, only four in goal.

Photo by Michael Zupanc. Jonny landing at goal.

Tin Cup

March 31, 2009, 8:45:18 EDT

Tin Cup

What next?

(Zupy|Davis Straub|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Quest Air|USHPA|Zupanc)


The Oz Report was heavily involved in stopping (for now) some ill considered changes in the USHPA competition system. Part of that involvement consisted of providing months ago detailed and well considered alternatives to the Competition Workgroup's proposals. These proposals will again be on the agenda for the Fall USHPA BOD meeting in Austin, Texas.

I will be there and I will be presenting in the Oz Report new proposals and a detailed examination of the competition system and what can be done to "improve" it.

Thanks for the very generous support from David Goto in Hawaii. Thanks also for the generous support from Michael Zupanc from Australia.

Please, help us out. Support something that you find useful so that it can continue to be there for you.

You can send $20 or more for a yearly subscription/donation. To pay for your subscription with your credit card or PayPal account:

If you’d rather just send a check for $20 (US Dollars, only please) or more, please feel free to do so. The mail gets forwarded to me wherever I’m at.

Payable to:

Davis Straub (Not to the Oz Report)
PMB 1889 PO Box 2430
Pensacola, FL 32513

These are our supporters (if you are not on the list and have donated to the Oz Report, email me and I'll make sure that you are recognized): http://ozreport.com/supporters.php. Some of you who I've missed in the past did write to me and made sure I knew just how important the Oz Report was to them. If I've missed you, please do tell me.

Come over to the Oz Report support web page and sign up to support us: http://ozreport.com/support.php. Or click here:

Race 2007 »

January 16, 2007, 7:26:46 AEDT

Race 2007

Updates the following article

(Zupy|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Zupanc)

Michael Zupanc «mike» writes:

Don't use the OzGap download link from the hgfa web site as a Race 2007 download is about to be added with OzGap as part of the default setup. The new version is just a bug fix of the old version.

And later writes:

There has been some hectic progress on this over the last week or so and the beta version of RACE 2007 can now be downloaded from http://www.jarnesjo.se/Race2007.msi OzGap is part of the default setup now.

There remains one niggling glitch. In the competition setup form, and also the competition properties form, you select what scoring system to use. Select OzGap and then proceed to the next form where amongst other things you then have the option of what version of the scoring system to use. This second option should not be there as despite what you see on the drop down list, you will have OzGap 2005.

Also download these files and move them into your "C:Program FilesRaceDataTemplates" folder:

http://ozreport.com/docs/TaskResult.htm  and http://ozreport.com/docs/CompetitionResult.htm. You can use these templates with any version of Race to produce output that doesn't include the pilot number in the first column.

Canungra Classic »

October 26, 2006, 7:40:00 pm PDT

Canungra

Jonny builds his lead

Adam Parer|Attila Bertok|Chris Jones|Corinna Schwiegershausen|David Seib|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Jon Durand snr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Scott Barrett

http://www.zupy.net/Canungra06/

Overall results:

PlaceNameGliderTotal
1JON JNR DurandMoyes Litespeed S 43762
2DAVID SeibMoyes Litespeed S 53619
3RICK DuncanAirborne Climax C4 13.53223
4STEVE MoyesMoyes Litespeed S 43219
5ATTILA BertokMoyes Litespeed S 53130
6SCOTT BarrettAirborne Climax C4 13.53103
7CORINNA SchwiegershausenMoyes Litespeed S 3.53069
8CHRIS JonesMoyes Litespeed S 42942
9ADAM ParerAirborne Climax C4 142927
10JON SNR DurandMoyes Litespeed S 4.52751

Fifth task:

PlaceNameGliderTimekmTotal
1JON JNR DurandMoyes Litespeed S 401:22:0142.3914
2DAVID SeibMoyes Litespeed S 501:24:2442.3890
3ATTILA BertokMoyes Litespeed S 501:26:1142.3854
4JON SNR DurandMoyes Litespeed S 4.501:29:5342.3835
5CHRIS JonesMoyes Litespeed S 401:43:3742.3795
6STEVE MoyesMoyes Litespeed S 401:48:2842.3778
7GLEN MacLeodMoyes Litespeed S 4.501:50:1042.3772
8ADAM ParerAirborne Climax C4 1401:59:0542.3745
9RICK DuncanAirborne Climax C4 13.541.3660
9SCOTT BarrettAirborne Climax C4 13.541.3660

Canungra Classic »

October 25, 2006, 4:29:09 pm PDT

Canungra

We have just finished the 4th round of the comp and the weather here has been excellent.

Attila Bertok|Chris Jones|Corinna Schwiegershausen|David Seib|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|record|Scott Barrett|weather

Attila Bertok|Chris Jones|Corinna Schwiegershausen|David Seib|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|record|Scott Barrett|weather

Attila Bertok|Chris Jones|Corinna Schwiegershausen|David Seib|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|record|Scott Barrett|weather

http://www.zupy.net/Canungra06/

jon durand «jonnyjnr80» writes:

Day 1: was a 44km task with very challenging conditions with only 4 pilots making goal.

Day 2: Was cancelled due to strong wind.

Day 3: This was probably the best day I have seen here for some time and if the comp was not on it would have been a record day. The task was set to Lake Moogera then crossing over the Great Dividing range to Millmeran with a total distance of 194kms. Atilla won the day in 3hrs 34mins and there were 19 pilots to make goal. There were about 30 pilots that set a personal best that day and many more smiling faces after a great flight.

I estimate that this day we could have gone at least 500kms if we had started four hours earlier instead of midday.

Day 4: Well another great day and the pilots are ready for another long task. We set a dogleg task to Killarney which takes you through some of the nicest terrain you will see in this area. We then set goal back at Millmeran to make a total distance of 204kms. I was lucky enough to win the day in 4 hrs 15 minutes and Steve Moyes was just behind me. We had a lot more personal bests again today with over 20 pilots in goal. I think the drivers are starting to wear thin after some long days.

Day 5: Back to the Tamborine launch so no more distance for us. Another dogleg of 78kms was called with goal at lake Moogerah. It was a hard day and many of the top pilots did not make goal however there were still 11 pilots in goal. I won the day again with Dave Seib 6 seconds behind me. Ricky, Moyes. Atilla and Scott did not make goal.

We are using the Fixed Total Validity  scoring system and we will be using this for all the Australian comps this year.

This is how the Fixed Total Validity scoring system works: http://www.zupy.net/Canungra06/ftv.htm.

Place Name Glider Total
1 JON JNR Durand Moyes Litespeed S 4 2212
2 RICK Duncan Airborne Climax C4 13.5 2073
3 STEVE Moyes Moyes Litespeed S 4 2050
4 DAVID Seib Moyes Litespeed S 5 1997
5 SCOTT Barrett Airborne Climax C4 13.5 1976
6 ATTILA Bertok Moyes Litespeed S 5 1941
7 CORINNA Schwiegershausen Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 1817
8 CHRIS Jones Moyes Litespeed S 4 1764
9 GLEN MacLeod Moyes Litespeed S 4.5 1564
10 TREVOR Purcell Moyes Litespeed S 5 1501

Discuss Canungra at the Oz Report forum

OzGap 2005 »

October 15, 2006, 6:02:04 pm PDT

OzGAP

Better URLs to help pilots understand the OzGAP 2005 scoring system

(Zupy|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Zupanc)

www.zupy.net/Canungra06/OzGap2005.htm

Michael Zupanc «mike» writes:

The new system does what the old systems try to do, but it does it really simply, in a way that can be easily explained to pilots. It is a departure point system without the departure points, and in future, if the departure points system needs to be emphasized more, then it is a simple to arrange, just change the speed/arrival points ratio.

Also FTV is in use here www.zupy.net/Canungra06/ftv.htm is a bit of a blurb on the system.

By the way, www.zupy.net/Canungra06 is the page for the Canungra Classic, starting in a week.

Sportavia - an initial wrap up »

Tue, Jan 31 2006, 12:02:14 am AEDT

Sportavia

Things did not go as well as we had hoped for

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|sailplane|Sportavia International Open 2006|weather

First, a pilot is killed the day before the meet. This does not put everyone is a pleasant forward looking mood, a mood which you really need to be able to battle with the elements (heat and wind) here. Certain individuals need to carry the psychic load for the competition and they were missing in action due to the pilot's death.

Second, the many enemies of hang gliding (GA business interests here at the Tocumwal airfield) had worn down the meet organizer over the last year with their constant negativity and they only increased the intensity of their battle to close down hang gliding here in the last week.

Third, the heat. The temperatures have averaged between five and nine degrees (Celsius) above normal over the last week. Twelve degrees above average over the last week was reported on television for the Riverina (that's where we are). Eight today and nine tomorrow.

Fourth, abnormally high humidity. There were numerous days with abnormally high humidity leading to towering cu's and over development, especially on the last two days.

Fifth, north and northeast winds. The normal winds are out of the south and cooler. The north winds pushed us up against the Victorian Alps 100 kilometers to the south. We were more restricted in our task calling then would have been the case otherwise. This may have lead to one day being called when it shouldn't have been.

Sixth, marginal or slightly stronger winds than we were psychologically prepared to deal with. With the early pilot's death in somewhat windy conditions we were generally gun shy and not gung ho to go out and get in the air when it was a bit rowdy and perhaps more dangerous.

Seventh, a safety committee that took its job very very seriously (too serious for my tastes) and succumbed to the psychology of the moment rather than looking empirically at the wind strength issues. The high temperatures caused them to evaluate the conditions as more dangerous than when it was cooler (with the same winds). One member of the safety committee even said that this was a valid response on their part. I feel that the safety committee should be seen and not heard.

Eighth, the meet organizer and meet director were the same person, and while this has worked for her in the past, it was, in my humble opinion, too much, given the vast array of forces aimed against her. It would have been better for her to concentrate on the organizational issues and let someone else deal with the meet direction. She was unable to keep her composure given all the pressures on her. Just having another individual in charge would have helped everyone, especially her.

Ninth, some pilots did not act fully responsibly. They need to refrain from acting out their feelings and putting them on the meet director. If you can't handle the conditions because you are too hot, that's your problem, not hers.

Tenth, on one day the safety committee said the day was fine, but some unofficial actors got to feeling that they could determine the course of the meet and persuade the meet officials that the day had to be called without a safety reason. It never was clear why the day was actually called.

Eleventh, we started in a hole and a black mood and we needed to climb out of that hole on the very first day. Or the night before the very first day. We needed active participants willing to pump up the mood to get us all aligned with our better natures and our active competitive selves.

In spite of these significant problems, we did have a reasonable meet. There were only very minor dramas at the air field. One pilot who got too close to the storms had to throw his chute, but he and his glider ended up fine. We were able to land in gust fronts without killing anyone.

We had strong tasks and flew on four days and could easily have flown on seven days. The facilities here are great and provided much comfort to the pilots. The journey to the runways was minor and it was easy to setup and break down if necessary and get back to creature comforts. Zupy handled the scoring with ease. There were plenty of volunteers and launch officials, and the launching went smoothly.

We were able to mix easily and professionally with the glider traffic and other airport traffic (which was very minor). It was easy to stay away from the no fly zone in the power plane pattern. The lift was strong and fully packed and we were able to get to reasonable height on many days. The remote start circles worked fine. The remote virtual goals worked fine. We had nice territories to fly over and often good conditions in fly in.

The sailplane and hang glider pilots got along well and there was lots of activity at the Bomber Bar and Restaurant. This is a great venue for a hang glider comp and we proved that it could work well at a large glider port and general aviation field. The tugs had a large hangar to stay in over night. The glider people, both those who work here, and those who came to fly here, seemed to learn a lot about hang gliding and enjoy it.

We plan to be back next year and assume that the problems that I have addressed above will be taken care of by then (if not sooner). I'd like to see sixty to hundred pilots here for a super competition (Australian Nationals).

Discuss "Sportavia - an initial wrap up" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Yesterday's accident

Fri, Jan 20 2006, 1:23:49 pm AEDT

Accident

The tow rope knotted itself around the side wire.

Chris Smith|fatality|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

The rope looped around the wire and formed a knot. There is a picture of the rope and the knot and I have examined it with Zupy. To form the knot the rope had to go completely around the wire, then the end the rope with the carabineer had to go through the loop just formed. The rope then had to be pulled tight to form the knot at the end of the rope next to the carabineer. The carabineer itself did not connect to the wire.

It is not clear when the rope looped around the wire. From Chris Smith's description, the rope would have been bowed substantially after the tug came out of the thermal. The weaklinks on both ends of the rope were broken and the pilot landed with the rope tied to the wire.

We have noticed that there is considerable movement and differences in altitude between the tugs and the hang glider pilots on the tow rope. Often the tug has been way above me or below me with bow in the rope when it is below me. This seems quite a bit more extreme than I have experienced aerotowing previously.

Discuss "Yesterday's accident" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Canungra Classic »

Fri, Sep 30 2005, 2:00:00 pm EDT

After seven days.

Attila Bertok|Cameron McNeill|Cameron Tunbridge|Chris Jones|David Seib|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor|Scott Barrett

Michael Zupanc «mike» sends:

http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/results/2005/results.htm

http://www.triptera.com.au/canungra/classic2005/index.html

Seventh day:

Place Name Glider Start Finish Time Total
1 David SEIB Moyes Litespeed S 5 12:00:00 13:52:16 01:52:16 996
2 Jon Jnr DURAND Moyes Litespeed S 4 11:45:00 13:51:10 02:06:10 902
3 Scott BARRETT Airborne Climax C4 13 12:00:00 14:07:20 02:07:20 849
4 Chris JONES Moyes Litespeed S 4 11:30:00 13:53:43 02:23:43 822
5 Cameron MCNEILL Moyes Litespeed S 4 11:30:00 13:54:01 02:24:01 820
6 Rohan HOLTKAMP Airborne Climax C4 13 11:45:00 14:05:10 02:20:10 802
7 Attila BERTOK Moyes Litespeed S 5 11:45:00 14:07:19 02:22:19 788
8 Bruce WYNNE Moyes Litespeed S 4 11:30:00 13:59:21 02:29:21 785
9 Rod FLOCKHART Moyes Litespeed S 4 12:15:00 14:29:20 02:14:20 780
10 Cameron TUNBRIDGE Airborne Climax C2 14 11:45:00 14:10:47 02:25:47 768
11 Steve MOYES Moyes Litespeed S 4 11:45:00 14:11:53 02:26:53 762
12 Trevor PURCELL Moyes Litespeed S 5 11:30:00 14:11:22 02:41:22 716
13 Katrinka Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 12:00:00 14:33:32 02:33:32 707
14 Len PATON Moyes Litespeed S 4 11:45:00 14:28:22 02:43:22 682
15 Dave STAVER Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 11:45:00 14:35:17 02:50:17 654

Totals:

Place Name Glider Total
1 Jon Jnr DURAND Moyes Litespeed S 4 3448
2 David SEIB Moyes Litespeed S 5 3433
3 Attila BERTOK Moyes Litespeed S 5 3394
4 Rohan HOLTKAMP Airborne Climax C4 13 3061
5 Steve MOYES Moyes Litespeed S 4 2827
6 Scott BARRETT Airborne Climax C4 13 2659
7 Chris JONES Moyes Litespeed S 4 2625
8 Dave STAVER Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 2624
9 Katrinka Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 2606
10 Cameron TUNBRIDGE Airborne Climax C2 14 2543

Let me say how great it is working with Zupy to make sure that I get results that I can publish. He reformatted the fields output from Race and published the results in HTML, an internet standard. He plays well with others, in other words. Thank you so much.

He also chased down the miscreant pilots who just didn't seem to think it was important that they correctly identified their gliders. The two glider manufacturers who sponsor this competition, Moyes and Airborne, I'm sure very much appreciate his efforts and success.

I have published the results of the Canungra Classic, because Zupy, as the scorekeeper, was more than willing to work with me to make sure that his output was publishable. Other scorekeepers have not been nearly so forthcoming, and in those cases I have not been able to publish their results. I believe it is their loss.

Canungra Classic »

Thu, Sep 29 2005, 4:00:00 pm EDT

After six days.

(Zupy|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|weather|Zupanc)

Michael Zupanc «mike» sends:

http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/results/2005/results.htm

http://www.triptera.com.au/canungra/classic2005/index.html

Sixth day:

More bad weather

Canungra Classic »

Wed, Sep 28 2005, 4:00:00 pm EDT

After five days.

Attila Bertok|Chris Jones|David Seib|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Phil Schroder|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor|Scott Barrett|weather

Michael Zupanc «mike» sends:

http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/results/2005/results.htm

http://www.triptera.com.au/canungra/classic2005/index.html

Fifth day:

Bad weather.

Overall:

Place Name Glider Total
1 Attila BERTOK Moyes Litespeed S 5 2734
2 Jon Jnr DURAND Moyes Litespeed S 4 2650
3 David SEIB Moyes Litespeed S 5 2527
4 Rohan HOLTKAMP Airborne Climax C4 13 2423
5 Steve MOYES Moyes Litespeed S 4 2129
6 Phil SCHRODER Airborne Climax C2 14 2092
7 Dave STAVER Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 2059
8 Katrinka Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 2010
9 Scott BARRETT     1930
10 Chris JONES Moyes Litespeed S 4 1926

Canungra Classic »

Tue, Sep 27 2005, 3:00:00 pm EDT

After four days.

Attila Bertok|Chris Jones|David Seib|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Phil Schroder|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor|Scott Barrett

Michael Zupanc «mike» sends:

http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/results/2005/results.htm

http://www.triptera.com.au/canungra/classic2005/index.html

Fourth day:

Place Name Glider Time Total
1 SEIB, David Moyes Litespeed S 5 02:15:18 992
2 HOLTKAMP, Rohan Airborne Climax C4 13 02:41:47 886
3 MOYES, Steve Moyes Litespeed S 4 02:58:26 856
4 Katrinka Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 03:01:41 847
5 BARRETT, Scott     03:09:38 815

Overall:

Place Name Glider Total
1 Attila BERTOK Moyes Litespeed S 5 2734
2 Jon Jnr DURAND Moyes Litespeed S 4 2650
3 David SEIB Moyes Litespeed S 5 2527
4 Rohan HOLTKAMP Airborne Climax C4 13 2423
5 Steve MOYES Moyes Litespeed S 4 2129
6 Phil SCHRODER Airborne Climax C2 14 2092
7 Dave STAVER Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 2059
8 Katrinka Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 2010
9 Scott BARRETT     1930
10 Chris JONES Moyes Litespeed S 4 1926

OzGAP 2005 »

Mon, Sep 26 2005, 2:00:06 pm EDT

Get to goal early.

(Zupy|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Zupanc)

Michael Zupanc «mike» writes:

OzGAP 2005 Has been developed to simplify the sometimes confusing saga of "Departure Points" Put simply, all the pilot has to do, is get to goal early! Your Departure Time is irrelevant.

The Departure time of any other pilot is irrelevant. All you have to do is time your exit from the launch so that you get to goal before anyone else. Departure points are gone. Place based Arrival Points are gone.

OzGAP 2005 is simply a time based Arrival Points system that constitutes ¼ of the available speed points, that means that if the maximum Distance Points available is 600 points, 300 will be available to speed and 100 points will be available for arrival points. The rate at which the points drop of is fixed. The graph below shows the rate at which the points drop off.

You need to get to goal within 45 minutes of the first person in goal to get much in the way of usable arrival points. After about an hour the points are getting close to zero. Technically, the points are zero, one and a half hours after the first pilot in goal.

Points drop away quickly at first. 20 minutes after the first pilot arrives, approximately half of the available points are gone. Three quarters of an hour after the first pilot, the points are down to only approximately 15% of what was available. Get to goal early!

Canungra Classic »

Mon, Sep 26 2005, 2:00:00 pm EDT

After three days.

Adam Parer|Attila Bertok|Chris Jones|David Seib|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Phil Schroder|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor

Michael Zupanc «mike» sends:

http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/results/2005/results.htm

http://www.triptera.com.au/canungra/classic2005/index.html

1 Attila BERTOK Moyes Litespeed 5 2046
2 Jon Jnr DURAND Moyes Litespeed 4 2018
3 Rohan HOLTKAMP Airborne Climax C4 14 1681
4 Phil SCHRODER Airborne Climax C2 14 1612
5 David SEIB Moyes Litespeed S 5 1610
6 Dave STAVER Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 1577
7 John STRICKLAND Moyes Litespeed 5 1476
8 Adam PARER Airborne Climax C2 14 1467
9 Chris JONES Moyes Litespeed S 4 1435
10 Glen MACLEOD Moyes Litespeed S 4 1387

Canugra Classic »

Fri, Sep 23 2005, 5:00:00 pm EDT

The Durand's backyard

Adam Parer|Attila Bertok|Chris Jones|David Seib|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Phil Schroder|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor

Michael Zupanc «mike» sends:

http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/results/2005/results.htm

http://www.triptera.com.au/canungra/classic2005/index.html

Place Name Glider Total
1 Attila BERTOK Moyes Litespeed 5 1977
2 Jon Jnr DURAND Moyes Litespeed 4 1934
3 Rohan HOLTKAMP Airborne Climax C4 14 1639
4 Phil SCHRODER Airborne Climax C2 14 1584
5 Dave STAVER Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 1535
6 John STRICKLAND Moyes Litespeed 5 1449
7 David SEIB Moyes Litespeed S 5 1420
8 Chris JONES Moyes Litespeed S 4 1399
9 Adam PARER Airborne Climax C2 14 1386
10 Glen MACLEOD Moyes Litespeed S 4 1370

CIVL - the Sporting Code »

Tue, Feb 8 2005, 6:00:06 pm EST

John Aldridge is working to clean up the latest version of the Sporting Code.

Ø|Øyvind Ellefsen|CIVL|Dennis Pagen|John Aldridge|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|PG|record

John Aldridge at « HGMeethead» writes:

After Zupy's thoughts you wrote << (editor's note: CIVL Sporting Code (FAI Section 7a) was an extraction of the supposedly relevant sections of Section 7 for competitions. Unfortunately a bunch of irrelevant stuff was inadvertently left in. Hopefully John Aldridge will be feeling better and will be able to removed these bits. At 61 pages it is already too long for me. >>

I expect most pilots would probably agree with your last comment! They are in the sport to fly, not to read endless rules - but I hope their team leaders and a few of the more thoughtful pilots take a look at Section 7A from time to time.

Anyway the irrelevant stuff, Xavier Murillo told me that every time he saw something irrelevant he dismissed it as "hangie stuff" rather than asking why it was there - and we probably did something similar; because of this S7 got added to all the time but rarely was anything taken out. Zupy himself looked after Section 7 for about three years and added quite a bit to it, partly as a result of plenary decisions but mainly due to the use of GPS in Category 1 meets.

It had got to be quite a large document, not particularly well ordered and the less helpful for that so, when Zupy backed out I offered to split it up and try to make it more readable. I published my efforts in advance of the last plenary, but the only feedback I got was on the Records & Badges and the Paragliding Accuracy subsections. Some revision was carried out by the hang gliding and the paragliding sub-committees while in Croatia and a few alterations made as a result, but the bulk of it got approved as I had drafted it - warts and all.

I have since spotted some irrelevant bits in S7A and removal of those will be up for approval at the plenary in Guatemala later this month, but I'm afraid I had had neither the time nor the inclination to go through it paragraph by paragraph and would welcome suggestions for amendments from others. As the subject has cropped up publicly this seems a good time to explain the way our sporting code is changed - and why it can be a frustratingly slow process. I'm afraid that whether I am feeling better or not will make little difference to this - but I do now expect to be fit to travel to Guatemala.

CIVL rules (including those in S7) may not be changed without the agreement of the plenary i.e. without your delegates voting for the change. In order that no nation is caught out by small focus groups trying to hijack a plenary there is also a rule that nothing may be voted upon at a plenary meeting unless it is on the agenda and that items for the agenda must be submitted a minimum of 45 days beforehand.

There is a proviso that, with the agreement of 2/3rds of the delegates present, other matters may be discussed - but no decision may be made on them. The matters to be discussed in Guatemala and the proposals for rule changes are in a package of documents on the CIVL website (at http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/meetings/) which has been notified to delegates and the heads of the various standing subcommittees (SSCs).

Anyone who is interested in downloading it will find it points delegates to http://www.rogallo.co.uk/civl/s7.htm where copies of the various parts of S7 with proposed amendments highlighted in them can also be downloaded; these amendments mostly originate from the Bureau or from jury or steward reports from 2004 Category 1 meets.

In addition to those amendments, others can be found in the agenda for the hang gliding SSC, the safety & training SSC and in a couple of separate national proposals. It would be nice if pilots found the time to read this stuff so they know what it is their delegates will be asked to vote on (apart from the venue of the 2007 Worlds) and can lobby them before the event; I know you have looked through this material and I hope the delegates have!

So what about any changes that people may feel are needed in the light of the Hay experience? Well, they cannot be voted in Guatemala unless, by coincidence, they are already on the agenda. I'm afraid this is a timing problem as the agenda had already been published - but it is not the end of the world.

There are no Cat 1 hang gliding meets between this plenary and the next one so there is actually plenty of time to achieve any necessary changes - so pilots who feel there is a need for change have plenty of time to raise these issues. The formal way to do it is to lobby their national delegates, but I am aware that not all of them will be responsive. For this reason I have no problem with pilots or team leaders taking a different approach and making suggestions directly to me, after all, they are the ones most directly affected by the rules.

If I think their suggestions are sensible and non-controversial I will incorporate them (subject to Bureau approval) or put them up for Bureau discussion. If the Bureau has doubts the proposals are usually put on the hang gliding SSC agenda for discussion - so they are not forgotten and can be voted upon. Of course if they are properly proposed by a delegate they will definitely get discussed and voted upon.

In a perfect would the hang gliding SSC would work as envisaged in our Internal Regulations and consider rule changes and other relevant matters throughout the year - and this should be achievable in these days of international electronic communication; unfortunately the committee rarely seems to function except on the day before the plenary. I believe changing this is one way we could save time and make plenaries more productive.

I believe the various SSCs and who chairs them are listed on the CIVL website but I will list those relevant to hang gliding here: Hang Gliding (class 1, 2 and 5) - chaired by Dennis Pagen (US) World Hang Gliding Series (Speed gliding and aerobatics) - chaired by Dennis Pagen (US) Records, Badges & Flight Verification - chaired by Scott Torkelson (DNK) with Oyvind Ellefsen (NOR) taking over next month Sporting Code - chaired by John Aldridge (UK) Safety & Training - chaired by Klaus Tanzler (DEU). Our Internal Regulations also permit the appointment of working groups to deal with current, but not permanent, matters of interest. An example of this was the Class Definition WG a few years back. These Wgs operate in the same manner as SSCs.

(editor's note: I have an article on the CIVL Plenary agenda in the next issue - written before this article. John's suggestion re the committees is excellent.)

Why does the wind die down at night?

Fri, Feb 4 2005, 5:00:01 am EST

There are no stupid questions.

(Zupy|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Zupanc)

Something had always bothered me about the wind. It almost always dies down at night and then starts again the next day. I knew that the wind was caused by pressure differences in the atmosphere. I'm not talking about on and off-shore flows that are caused by differential heating over the water and land.

The pressure differences obviously persisted irrespective of whether it was day time or night time so it made no sense to me that the winds that should be there had disappeared only to reappear in midmorning. Where did they go and why did they go someplace at all?

I had an opportunity to ask this question of Michael Zupanc when I first got to Deniliquin for the Australian Nationals. He had a quick and simple answer. One of great interest to hang glider pilots.

After the sun goes down, thermal activity slows and then stops. No longer is there mixing of the layers of air near the surface. A boundary layer of air near the earth's surface that is slowed by the resistance of the surface to the winds sets up and is not disturbed. The winds are still there but they no longer come down to the thin surface layer of air within which we live.

The next morning, heating from the sun starts the thermal activity. The convection cells that set up disrupt the  boundary layer at the earth's surface, carrying air up from the surface and bringing it down from the upper layers which are carrying the wind. Soon the wind is brought down to the surface and the boundary layer has disappeared. The wind again appears on the surface.

WGS84 and other datums

Thu, Feb 3 2005, 6:00:02 am EST

It's a small world after all.

(Zupy|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Quest Air|Tove Heaney|Zupanc)

When I got to the Australian Nationals and found out that Zupy was using WGS84 instead of the Australian Geod '66 datum I was very pleasantly surprised. WGS84 is the world  standard and it was great to see Australian scorekeepers and meet directors stop being so parochial and start using a standard that works seamlessly with the GPS system and is familiar to international pilots.

Of course, Michael Zupanc has been Australia's CIVL representative and so is familiar with international concerns. Also, Tove, the meet director, is Australia's most progressive and innovative meet director (we in the US have based our meet structures on her innovations) so it was natural to see this change happening at a meet that she was running.

Zupy explained to me that he was using OziExplorer, an Australian electronic GPS/map software, and low and behold, their maps of Australia used the WGS84 map datum and not the outdated Australian Geod '66. The lame argument for using this datum is that some of the paper maps were based on it. Like 200 meters made a big difference for new waypoints and goal determined in the tow paddock by the task committee.

When the waypoints are transferred to our GPS's from the scorekeeper's computer, they are transferred assuming the WGS84 datum (this was not the case for the 5030 and Compeo if you set the datum in the flight computer to something other than WGS84). The waypoints are stored in Garmin GPSes using WGS84 at the datum, no matter what datum is used to display them.

Of course, it doesn't matter what datum Australian meet organizers use as long as they don't add any new waypoints to their already existing list. We can display them in degrees minutes.decimal minutes format with the WGS84 datum even if that's not the format that they give them to us. It just adds a level of uncertainty when we look at their printed list and requires a bit of testing on our part to make sure everything is okay.

It turned out it wasn't okay if Compeo or 5030 users had set their instruments to Australian Geod '66. The display of coordinate values for the waypoints didn't change when you switched datums, as is the case with the Garmin GPSs. This was obviously unnerving.

I would hope that in the future all competitions with international pilots use the international datum, WGS84. Perhaps CIVL can make this a requirement, and not just a recommendation for CIVL sanctioned meets, as one scorekeeper in Australia seems resistant to this. I would personally like to see meet directors and scorekeepers give (at the same time) new waypoint coordinates in dd mm.mmm format also, in addition to whatever their preferred format is (UTM, for example).

I appreciate the fact that Paul Rundell, meet director at the Worlds, was willing to use the WGS84 datum for all new waypoints at the Worlds, and was just sorry that he didn't provide dd mm.mmm formats at the same time as he broadcast UTM formatted coordinate values. Still, to reduce confusion, it would be much better to have this worked out in advance.

Again, this only matters if new waypoints are added by the task committee when the task is called. There is a significant time pressure at this point, which is why we need to eliminate the uncertainty.

If the 2007 flex wing Worlds are in Big Spring, Texas, WGS84 and dd mm.mmm will be the standard used. They will also be used at the Women's and Rigid Wing Worlds and pre-Worlds at Quest Air in Florida in April 2005 and 2006.

The CIVL Sporting Code Vs. Sportsmanship

Mon, Jan 31 2005, 11:00:03 am EST

Pilot skills?

(Zupy|CIVL|John Aldridge|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|record|USHGA|Zupanc)

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

There is an unfortunate reality that must be faced with respect to the rules for hang gliding competition. They are written by amateur volunteers, and despite the efforts of numerous people, the rules are not capable of covering all possibilities.

Section 7a is a paltry 61 pages, and in those 61 pages, many pages deal with issues different to competition flying. To have a rule book that did cover all the possibilities would mean the publication would need to run into hundreds of pages. Of course having such a rule book would have its disadvantages. Who would read a rule book that is so long? Does anyone actually read the current publications??

In Chelan during the Class 5 World Championships, a pilot's GPS failed to record his crossing of the start circle, his track log functioned as expected out on course, it just did not work properly within the start circle. The start was centered around the launch, and no pilot launched before the "window open time". There was no suggestion that he launched from anywhere else (he was on the hill during the launch time), so therefore, he must have launched within the proper time window, from the proper launch and subsequently cross the start circle. The sporting thing to do would have been to give him a start time of (say) the time of the first pilot to launch, or some other start time that reflected the fact that the protest committee had to actually do something! Unfortunately, the majority of the jury decided that no "official" start means no start, therefore, no flight.

I one heard a comment that "pilots must serve the rules". I am of the opinion that the rules must serve the pilots. We are out there to have a sporting competition, and every effort must be made so that the sporting aspect of what we do is not lost. Take the case of (say) a pilot missing a turnpoint by some small margin. If the GPS shows that the pilot missed the sector, then there is clear evidence that the pilot has missed the sector, so no problem (except for the pilot :-). In cases where there is no clear evidence supporting either side of a dispute, then a decision needs to be made.

We have a protest process that uses a jury to decide the fate of pilots' disputes. In situations where the rules need to be "interpreted", they need to be able to make those interpretations with sportsmanship in mind, not legalese arguments.

The way things have been going, anyone would think that category one competitions are a test of pilot skill!!

(editor's note: CIVL Sporting Code (FAI Section 7a) was an extraction of the supposedly relevant sections of Section 7 for competitions. Unfortunately a bunch of irrelevant stuff was inadvertently left in. Hopefully John Aldridge will be feeling better and will be able to removed these bits.

At 61 pages it is already too long for me. Our own USHGA Competition Rulebook is too long and is still in the process of being divided up so that only the relevant sections are in it.)

Sportsmanship

Sun, Jan 30 2005, 1:00:02 am EST

What goes around should come around.

(Zupy|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|photo|Zupanc)

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

Gerolf is familiar with the issue of sportsmanship vs the rules.

During the Forbes World Championships in 1998, Gerolf had a double camera failure. Both his main and backup cameras failed (yes, cameras were once used as flight verification!). On this occasion his problems were centered around the fact that he was unable to photograph the official clock in the goal paddock.

The rules regarding this were quite clear. The pilots had to have the complete "sequence" of photos for their flight evidence to be accepted. The "goal photo" was deemed necessary to establish the accuracy of the time stamp on the data back cameras that were in use at the time.

I forget the reasons why, but when Gerolf made goal, he could not then take the necessary photograph of the official clock, so, he got Pedro Chapa (one of the CIVL staff at the event) to verify that his camera had the correct time on the data back function. Of course though, when the photos were checked, Gerolf, (correctly, according to the rules) was not awarded the goal for that day as he did not have the required flight evidence.

Gerolf protested. There was no dispute that Gerolf made the goal, and his data back time stamp was checked by a competent person. But he did not have the evidence that the rules specifically asked for.

Even though the rules were specific in this respect, the jury went for sportsmanship rather that the rules and Gerolf was awarded his goal time for the day.

Funny how things have changed.

2005 Australian Nationals »

Sat, Jan 1 2005, 10:00:00 am EST

Cirrus everywhere. Shade everywhere. The wind is blowing like stink. Let's fly!

Attila Bertok|Australian Nationals 2005|Brett Hazlett|Chris Jones|Curt Warren|Davis Straub|Dustin Martin|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Jon Durand jnr|Kevin Carter|Kraig Coomber|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk

http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/Denni/Denni.htm

Zupy has been unable to put the results up on the HGFA server above.

There are just some days that you fly in a contest that you'd have normally not flown if you weren't in a meet. It isn't that these days are particularly dangerous, it's just that they look pretty marginal, so why bother unless it is to determine just who is the coolest dude in the place.

I've flown plenty of days in Australia where the sky looks like a gray blanket, and it's hard to imagine that there is any lift out there. Today was one of those days. I've had some of my most interesting flights here on those days.

It started off gray in the morning with cirrus covering most of the sky, and only later in the morning did it open up a little to give us a peek at the sun and hope that its rays would warm up the ground. Of course, even with a gray sky, the sun does get its energy into the earth and light the fire that keeps us aloft.

The wind is fifteen to twenty kilometers per hour out of the southwest and with the poor prospects for soaring, the task committee mercifully calls an exactly straight down wind task to a goal that they pull off the map. I am truly thankful as there was little chance to go in some other direction today.

Setting up in the tow paddock in this amount of wind is no easy task and it brings out frayed nerves as pilots get ready to launch. I'm always launching before 97% of the other pilots are ready to go, so I miss most of this, but today, I have to pin off low when I get too high behind the trike and can't get it down. I land and still have an opportunity to launch first again as others are holding back waiting for others to show them where the lift is at.

Pete takes me to where two pilots are slowly thermaling and sure enough the lift is quite weak. It is just enough to keep me barely over 2,000' for the next twenty minutes as I drift downwind for 7 kilometers. This is typical as I can see from the other pilots. Apparently Mario Alonzi uniquely found 800 fpm right over the paddock.

I hook up with two pilots and we go on glide down to 450' AGL just outside the ten kilometer start circle before I find 600 fpm that gets us to 4,000'. It had appeared that the day was already over before it began with the poor prospects actually turning out to be true and the pilots scattered about near the tow paddock. But, luckily we survive to fly another day. 

I'm staying with these guys hoping to triple my chances of staying up. There are large areas of shade from the cirrus and patches of sun that hold greater promise. Even when I find the next thermal (lucky twice), I hang back to stay with these guys and not head off on my own.

I'm more than willing to stay in zero or slightly negative lift as long as we are drifting downwind at about 20 mph. About an hour into the flight, and now two of us, the third pilot got higher in one thermal and left us, are down to seven hundred feet. This time the other pilot finds the good lift first and again we climb up to just over 4,000'. Two low saves already in the flight, and we are barely a third of the way into it.

Twenty minutes later I'm back down to 700' over Coleambally, our first sign of paved roads and about half way into the task. The other pilot who had held back comes and joins me in weak drifting lift.  I will drift continuously thermaling for the next forty three kilometers. I will spend the first 35 kilometers below 3,500'.

Coleambally marks a division in the sky. In the first part of the task it was a mix of cirrus and blue open sky with patches of sun light amidst the shade on the ground. Ahead there are strato cumulus clouds and they are getting thicker the further to the north I go. I am carefully monitoring the land below looking for sunlit areas as it looks like the last forty kilometers is all shaded and thickly shaded at that. No wimpy cirrus.

My pilot friend dove a little to the north as I hung on in slightly better than zero to find some decent lift. I come in under him and don't get much but continue circling in light lift drifting toward the last sunlit patch. I can see him circling there so I widen my circles, search around and find better lift that slowly turns into 200 fpm. This is the best lift in a good long time and I'm sticking with it, especially as it doesn't look like there is any lift ahead. I'm 38 kilometers from goal.

As I climb from 3,000' to 7,000' Chris Jones and Brett Hazlett come in over me. I'm watching the required glide ratio to goal drop with 38 to 1 to 14 to 1 as I climb up. Given the strong tail wind I'm sure that I can make it, but after spending almost the whole flight groveling, I want to be sure.

It appears to me that the 36 kilometers of dark area ahead will basically provide zero sink and lift, except where I can see a few small patches of sunlight. If that's true then it is an easy glide to goal, even from this far out.

I go on glide and Brett and Chris join me as I keep it at best glide, still spooked by the weak day and numerous low saves. Sure I'm now at 7,000', but vanity will get me no where quick.

It doesn't take long to realize that we aren't going down, this is a new day and it's time to pull in the bar and go for it. Still I can only get it down to 2,200' AGL at the goal. Two pilots have just landed and three including Chris and Brett come in just in front of me. A total of twelve will make it to goal today.

Curt Warren was feeling poorly, and  played tug pilot for a while before flying. He didn't get too far. Kraig Coomber and Steve Moyes made it in. Oleg was the second one in. Jonny and Dustin landed short. Kevin Carter made it in after Craig and before Steve. The two pilots that I had flown with didn't make it in.

The task was 157 kilometers and pilots were slow to make it back in for scoring.

While getting so low is disturbing, I love flying on these tough days, as long as I can successfully overcome the adversity, even if it is just a matter of luck. I felt very lucky today.

Many pilots landed in  area just north east of the tow paddock where there were scattered dirt roads. They sent out trikes to help guide the drivers toward their pilots.

Day three:

Place Name Glider Nation Time Total
1 COOMBER, Kraig Moyes Litespeed 4 AUS 02:18:38 944
2 BONDARCHUK, Oleg Aeros Combat 13 UKR 02:26:03 925
3 BOISSELIER, Antoine Moyes Litespeed S 4 FRA 02:26:27 919
4 BERTOK, Attila Moyes Litespeed S 5 HUN 02:19:53 917
5 WARREN, Curt Moyes Litespeed S 4 USA 02:26:31 915
6 ALONZI, Mario Aeros Combat L FRA 02:20:16 910
7 DURAND, John Jnr Moyes Litespeed S 4 AUS 02:27:14 908
8 HAZLETT, Brett Moyes Litespeed 4 CAN 02:27:40 902
9 MARTIN, Dustin Moyes Litespeed S 4.5 USA 02:28:15 895
10 GERARD, Jean-Francois Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 FRA 02:28:20 889

Day four:

Place Name Glider Nation Time Total
1 ALONZI, Mario Aeros Combat L FRA 02:21:53 862
2 BONDARCHUK, Oleg Aeros Combat 13 UKR 02:23:03 817
3 HAZLETT, Brett Moyes Litespeed 4 CAN 02:32:29 769
4 CAUX, Raymond Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 FRA 02:45:34 732
5 JONES, Chris Moyes Litespeed S 4 AUS 02:45:54 729
6 STRAUB, Davis Moyes Litespeed 4 USA 02:54:29 725
7 COOMBER, Kraig Moyes Litespeed 4 AUS 02:41:06 716
8 GUILLEN, Bruno Moyes Litespeed 4 FRA 02:49:46 715
9 GIAMMIGHELE, Tony Moyes Litespeed S 4 AUS 03:00:26 699
10 PALMARINI, Jean-Francois Moyes Litespeed S 3.5 FRA 02:48:20 698
11 CARTER, Kevin Aeros Combat 15 USA 03:04:50 671
12 MOYES, Steve Moyes Litespeed S 4.5 AUS 03:04:57 664

Overall after four days:

Place Name Glider Nation Total
1 BONDARCHUK, OlegAeros Combat 13UKR 3584
2 HAZLETT, BrettMoyes Litespeed S 4CAN 3363
3 DURAND, John JnrMoyes Litespeed S 4AUS 3338
4 COOMBER, KraigMoyes Litespeed S  4AUS 3312
5 CAUX, RaymondMoyes Litespeed S 3.5FRA 3109
6 MOYES, SteveMoyes Litespeed S 4.5AUS 3061
7 ALONZI, MarioAeros Combat LFRA 3053
8 SEIB, DavidMoyes Litespeed S 4.5AUS 2957
9 BERTOK, AttilaMoyes Litespeed S 5HUN 2952
10 MARTIN, DustinMoyes Litespeed S 4.5USA 2903

Jonny Durand flying the first day.

Discuss Oz Nats at the Oz Report forum

WPR

Tue, Mar 23 2004, 11:00:02 am GMT

The new World Ranking goes live.

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

The class 1 ranking (new version) is now going to be the "official" version. There has been a small change to the formulas which gives all pilots at least some points, and the Nation ranking has been changed to the sum of the best four pilots from each country.

The ranking is at http://rankings.fai.org/hanggliding/wprs/

Some time soon, the links on the CIVL page will be changed so the ranking is accessed directly from the CIVL page. The formulas used to produce the ranking have also been published.

Discuss WPRS at the Oz Report forum

WPR Vs. WPRS

Fri, Feb 27 2004, 3:00:05 pm EST

CIVL has approved the new WPR ranking system for hang glider pilots.

Angelo Crapanzano|CIVL|PG|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Angelo Crapanzano|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|PG|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

https://ozreport.com/toc.php?8.038

I asked Angelo Crapanzano «angelo», the Italian CIVL rep (I think), for a report on this issue. He writes:

Yes, hang gliding decided to use Zupy's new ranking system (WPR) but still only considering Category 1 and 2 CIVL sanctioned events. Paragliding decided to wait and stay with the old system. I had a proposal to use any competition in the world instead but, as it was not included in the agenda, because I was late, it was not discussed.

Discuss WPRS at the Oz Report forum

WPRS Vs. WPR

Mon, Feb 16 2004, 2:00:03 pm EST

I compare the old WPRS world ranking with the new WPR system which may be adopted at the next CIVL Plenary.

(Zupy|Brett Hazlett|CIVL|Gerolf Heinrichs|Kraig Coomber|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Zupanc)

http://search.freefind.com/find.html?
id=79813653&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&query=WPR&sa.x=15&sa.y=14

You can find earlier articles comparing the WPRS and the WPR at the URL above.

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

The Proposed WPR can be viewed at: http://rankings.fai.org/hanggliding/wprs/

Both HG and PG rankings are represented, however the rankings are somewhat out of date as there are major hassles with entering all the non-RACE results manually (as opposed to automatic data extraction from RACE data files)

This proposed ranking is due to be a topic of discussion at the CIVL Plenary meeting.

Let's compare the top ten ranked pilots under both systems:

WPRS (1/02/04):

Rank Name
1 Ruhmer Manfred
2 Schmitz Betinho (Carlos)
3 Bondarchuk Oleg
4 Sandoli Alvaro (Nene Rotor)
5 Boisselier Antoine
6 Coomber Kraig
7 Alonzi Mario
8 Hazlett Brett
9 Guillen Bruno
9 Heinrichs Gerolf

WPR (latest):

Rank Pilot
1 Ruhmer Manfred
2 Bondarchuk Oleg
3 Coomber Kraig
4 Alvaro Figueiredo Sandoli (Nene Rotor)
5 Boisselier Antoine
6 Schmitz Betinho (Carlos)
7 Hazlett Brett
8 Alonzi Mario
9 Guillen Bruno
10 Durand Jon Jnr

Both systems are a lot closer together than in my previous reviews of the WPRS ranking. This is no doubt due to the fact that almost all (except the Brazilian pilots) attended the Worlds, the Europeans, the Australian and the Florida meets.

CIVL Plenary

Thu, Jan 8 2004, 5:00:02 pm GMT

CIVL

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|record|USHGA|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Worlds

CIVL has published the agenda of their upcoming Plenary (General) session at the end of February (available only to CIVL delegates). It's amazing how little can be said in such a document and how dull it can look, when under the covers there can be so many interesting issues. Of course, the fact that all the meat is missing from this document (hidden away in unpublished and likely unavailable annexes) makes for a document that hides more than it reveals.

Will the "Record, Badges and Flight verification sub committee report and proposal (Annex 6)" have anything to say without its leader? Almost two years after I submitted to CIVL specific proposals to allow the use of GPSes for record purposes, it appears that there are no proposals being submitted to CIVL. One CIVL delegate has stated that the sub committee chairman felt that CIVL was not open to allowing GPSes to be used for record purposes and therefore he felt it was useless to make any proposals.

How about the perennial favorite, the WPRS? "WPRS HG Working group report and proposal - Michael Zupanc." Will the CIVL Plenary finally adopt a pilot ranking system that could reduce somewhat the European bias of the current system? Will FAI make its computer system available to this new ranking system?

The FAI Sporting License continues to play a part in all this as it discourages competition participation in the US and other nations. US pilots are disadvantaged as they are required to purchase a separate $35 FAI Sporting License, while this is not required by other national hang gliding associations. Of course, the USHGA membership fee is much less than the HGFA yearly fee, and I would love to hear from pilots in other countries about high their yearly membership fees are and how much they pay for the FAI Sporting License.

If US competition pilots are differentially discouraged from participation in the WPRS pilot ranking system, then it will continue to be strongly European biased (the Brazilians aren't happy with the WPRS system either). With this bias the WPRS will continue to be held in disrepute around the world, making it less likely that national meet organizers will apply for Category 2 sanctioning.

I wonder if any recent (or any) CIVL Plenary has reduced the barriers to competition participation. Perhaps they will be telling us more about their drug testing procedures at this next Plenary. BTW, I haven't seen any drug testing around here at the pre-Worlds.

Discuss "CIVL Plenary" at the Oz Report forum   link»

WPR and WPRS

Mon, Dec 1 2003, 7:00:00 pm GMT

WPRS

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

Tim has sorted the glitches in the PHP code and the rankings are working again, however, they are a bit out of date (the HG ranking at least) as data entry can be a bit slow at times.

Head to https://rankings.fai.org/hanggliding/wprs/index.php

Discuss WPRS at the Oz Report forum

WPRS »

Mon, Nov 24 2003, 3:00:00 pm GMT

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael Zupanc «zupy» CIVL vice President writes:

Yes, it is in a sorry state. It seems that CIVL cannot make a decision on the matter, hence it just drags on.

The elusive conversion program is to convert the scores that are generated from ScorEx (I think that is the name of the program) which is the program that the PWC uses to score competitions, into "RACE like" results so that they can be imported into the ranking database. I sent a copy of the ranking database and that was it. I have never seen this other scoring program, and the conversion program was to be done by the people that created it (sensible idea), however, nothing has happened here either.

They seem to have forgotten the address for their own computer system.

However another small glitch seems to have cropped up. The PHP version on the FAI server that is hosting the ranking has been upgraded and this appears to have thrown a bit of a spanner in the web display. That display is way out of date anyway.

Discuss "WPRS" at the Oz Report forum   link»

WPRS »

Thu, Nov 20 2003, 7:00:03 pm GMT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|PG|Thierry Montigneaux|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Do I need to mention that continued sorry state of affairs with respect to implementing the new WPRS system that has already been around for two years now? It seems like the paragliding meet organizers can’t seem to report their results in Race format. The hang glider meet organizers don’t seem to have this problem. Perhaps we can do the new WPRS just in hang gliding.

At the moment the new ranking is taking a lot of time, especially the PG results as it is time consuming when results are not in RACE format. At the last plenary Stefan Mast offered to obtain a program to allow importing of the data supplied in other formats. Unfortunately Michael Zupanc and Stefan have not co-operated well with this and we still have no conversion program.

Olivier will talk with Stefan next week about this matter. There has to be a comparison between the old WPRS and new WPR (which actually exists until July and August) but we can’t access it. Action – Olivier, to call Thierry Montigneaux to find out the address for the new computer system.

Well, it looks like it fell through the cracks once again folks. But, no worries, the Europeans can continue to live with the current system that suits them so well.

Discuss "WPRS" at the Oz Report forum   link»

The Oz Competitions

Wed, Oct 29 2003, 10:00:04 am GMT

James Freeman|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Tove Heaney|Worlds

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

After much confusion, there have been some changes to the HG comp calendar. The final version of the changes are:

Australian Nationals (Australian Open) 28th Dec 2003 to 4th Jan 2004 Deniliquin, (unchanged) Multi-class competition Tove Heaney

Hay Open 6th to 13th Jan 2004 Hay, NSW New comp, bit more laid back than the Pre-Worlds.

Dynamic Flight Pre-Worlds 14th to 21st Jan 2004 Dynamic Flight, James Freeman

Bogong Cup 24th to 31st Jan 2004 (unchanged)

In amongst this is the Corryong Cup 18th to 24th Jan 2004 for those that want less stress.

(editor’s note: The Oz Report calendar has been updated: https://OzReport.com/calendar.php).

Discuss oz comps at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "The Oz Competitions" at the Oz Report forum   link»

The Brazilians and CIVL

Thu, Mar 13 2003, 10:00:03 pm GMT

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Did I happen to mention that the Brazilian hang glider pilots are also fed up with the world pilot ranking system (WPRS)? After realizing that the European CIVL delegates thought that it was just fine that they gave their fellow countryman a 50% bonus for their local competition, the Brazilian said screw this.

Look at the list of CIVL delegates. What do you see? European domination. Is it any wonder that they see no problem with a playing field that tilts in their direction? I mean to them it just feels natural.

So is it any wonder that the WPR system (that only gives the Europeans at 25% bonus in the world ranking) was quietly dropped at the last CIVL Plenary? Is it any wonder that they would shy away from a system that was being implemented by an Australian? Any wonder that FAI would deny Zupy database access on their web site?

This smells so rotten and CIVL just sits there and doesn’t say a word about it.

The Brazilians are ignoring the world ranking, given how unfair it is to them, and who can blame them. They are going out and getting sponsorship in their own country and saying screw the rest of you guys. They are going to CIVL and bringing the Worlds, etc. in their country, because they feel that they’ve got an incredible draw down there. And they do.

Discuss "The Brazilians and CIVL" at the Oz Report forum   link»

WPR – CIVL dropped the ball

Fri, Mar 7 2003, 9:00:07 pm GMT

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

(Davis)

Is WPR working on the FAI server yet?

(Zupy)

No. Just the "flat pages"

(Davis)

Will it go side by side with WPR in 2003?

(Zupy)

Allegedly, but of course it was to run last year, except that the data was not entered until just before the Plenary, and then there were errors. (I have since added a mechanism to highlight this error if it happens again).

(Zupy)

One more thing. I sent the complete ranking to the CIVL Plenary (highlighted here in the Oz Report) from late 2001 up to the present to the meeting (same as what is currently on the web) so that they could look at the way the ranking worked over time and how scores ebbed and flowed. The original idea was to compare the two systems for a full year (through 2002), which they could have done, if they looked at it.

(editor’s note: How depressing. After well over a years worth of work the CIVL Plenary doesn’t even look at the results of the WPR project, FAI doesn’t make its database available to the already previously approved WPR, and CIVL, by default, sticks with the old and outdated WPRS system. It would be unbelievable if it wasn’t so common.

Is this incompetence, or is there a conspiracy to be found here? Do the Europeans continue to enjoy their 50% bonus and don’t want to go down to their 25% bonus under WPR? Do some meet organizers stand in the way of a better world ranking system?

What do they think this is, professional tennis?)

Discuss "WPR – CIVL dropped the ball" at the Oz Report forum   link»

What do we want from our CIVL representative?

Mon, Mar 3 2003, 9:00:03 pm GMT

CIVL|Gordon Rigg|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

1.) To work closely with the CIVL subcommittee on developing rules for the use of GPSes for world record verification outside of competitions (and inside also). Work hard to get rules that allow the use of standard 2-D GPSes (in place of cameras) for WR's adopted at the Bureau and subsequently at the Plenary.

2) Work with Zupy and whoever else can be worked with at CIVL to get WPR up on the FAI web site and working side by side WPRS so that it can be approved by next year at the CIVL Plenary.

3) Work with CIVL and whoever would be working on this to implement the 1000 m release/engine off rules as per Gordon Rigg.

4) Work with CIVL or as a subcommittee to present a proposal to the Bureau and the Plenary to eliminate the extra 25% and 50% bonuses for the Europeans Championships and the Worlds (but the Europeans first).

5) Clarify the advertisement rule so that we understand how CIVL is applying the FAI rule re advertisements on competitor's gliders. A major concern of our number 1 ranked US flex wing pilot.

6) Read and disseminate to US pilots the specifics of the Brazilian Worlds Local rules. Specifically with respect to advertisements.

Discuss "What do we want from our CIVL representative?" at the Oz Report forum   link»

CIVL Plenary Report

Sat, Mar 1 2003, 9:00:04 pm GMT

Angelo Crapanzano|CIVL|Compe-GPS|Dennis Pagen|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

Angelo Crapanzano <angelo@metamorfosi.com> writes in response to my questions:

Hope that the integration of Compe-GPS and Race would be made in time for the 2004 Northern Hemisphere competition season. It looks difficult to me to have it done for the next Southern Hemisphere competition season. It really depends on what we are going to do: a common interface using the existing engines or a new program?

(Davis)

Local rules for the Worlds in Brazil? Any discussion of the advertising fiasco from the pre-Worlds?

(Angelo)

There have been quite a lot of discussion on the subject, but you would not like the result: it was decided that an area of 0,25 square meters is available for the organizers adjacent to the number both on the left leading edge and the right undersurface.

The sponsor must be proposed by the organizers one month in advance and accepted by the CIVL bureau. I agree there could be problems with competing sponsors (as already happened), but we must also consider that we should encourage sponsors to come and, at the beginning for them is more rentable to sponsor a big competition than a pilot. Don't forget sponsor on numbers are very common (Olympics, just to say one) and could be a boost to reduce the ever increasing entry fees (at least I hope).

(editor’s note: The issue as presented in the Oz Report was that the Brazilian sponsors did not have a right to require competitors to put an ad on their leading edge according to FAI regulations. I said nothing about the use of a sponsor’s logo on the undersurface combined with the number, which is allowed under FAI rules.

It looks like CIVL now says the left leading edge doesn’t belong to the pilot for their sponsors, but to the organizers for their sponsors. This from sponsors who are charging $600/pilot to come to the worlds, while, unlike anywhere else in the world, they have very high level of sponsorship, TV coverage, etc. It sure is a wish and a hope that the rates charged pilots for entry into the meet would come down with sponsorship (or their services go up). Sounds to me like it goes right into the organizers pocket and never comes out again.

I don’t mind the sponsors netting $200,000 (purely rumored) from the pre-Worlds, as long as they don’t steal from the competitors.)

(Davis)

What did the delegates say about PG Worlds in Brazil?

(Angelo)

The Italian paragliders did vote for France on the question of money, but both bids were very good and very well presented. We have been told the takeoff area has been enlarged and will be enlarged even more before 2005. The French proposal was really good: in a nice prealps area with more technical flying compared to Governador.

Up to now, out of 8 paragliding world championships 7 have been in Europe and one in Japan and that's probably what made the difference but, maybe, it's only because the paragliders wanted to meet the Brazilian girls… :-)

(Davis)

Why did the Oz bid win instead of the US one for the Worlds?

(Angelo)

You cannot ask my opinion: I'm the guy who flipped the coin! :-)

Actually, we did call the possible members of the team and half of them wanted to go in Australia and half in Florida.

In my opinion Oz may give better flying and longer distances (but it's not so important) while Florida gives definitively a better weather (not too hot) and a nicer environment.

Organization would be good in both places for sure.

Australia comes when pilots are still rusty from the winter but outside of the European season, so we don't lose competitions. The best ever result for the Italian team was in Australia 97 when we got the bronze medal but the world championship has been only once in US and they deserve a second one for sure.

I've never been in Florida and personally I would like to, but there was quite a difference in entry fee between Oz and US (and I think the entry fees should be reduced).

Probably dividing the pilots in two groups could influence because nobody likes the cut (which increases the costs too). Personally I would have liked it because I've a new formula to make it in a correct way and, after a discussion with Dennis Pagen, we found out a very good way to run the "out" competition giving the possibility to these pilots to get back again in the final group.

If Zupy had not the visa problem they would have two votes more (Oz and Nz) Actually I should have voted for Florida because in Australia they are going to use OzGAP while in US they would probably use GAP2002 :-) :-)

Discuss "CIVL Plenary Report" at the Oz Report forum   link»

CIVL Plenary Report

Wed, Feb 26 2003, 9:00:02 pm GMT

Dennis Pagen|Gordon Rigg|James Freeman|Jerz Rossignol|John Aldridge|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|Mike Daily|Olivier Burghelle|Paris Williams|Peter Gray

James Freeman <jfreeman@tassie.net.au> writes:

There were a number of changes to section 7 approved. John Aldridge will have a copy of the new version. The historical timeliness of posting of stuff to the CIVL website leave a bit to be desired so I don't know when this will appear but it must be before Brazil as they will be in force there.

(Davis)

For example, did they do anything to the release height for towing for WR's?

(James Freeman)

No, not on agenda

(editor’s note: Hmmm, I thought it came from the CIVL bureau meeting. At least it did according to the Bureau minutes. Well, at least they didn’t lower it, but you would have thought that Gordon Rigg’s idea would have been adopted.))

(Davis)

GPS usage for records?

(James Freeman)

Yes, so you can make records at competitions but the real answer is sort of. Say you do a triangle. As it stands the TPs do not have to be declared in advance so when you enter the cylinder (but say do not go into the FAI sector on the point) it is currently valid (but one pilot had his record rejected by his local NAC for not going into FAI sector - go figure). There have been some changes to section 7 that not make this plain. Triangle is smallest one that just touches cylinders. Idea is to encourage record tasks at Cat ½ comps.

Requirement for photo evidence will still be in place (as far as I could discern) but is up for removal. What is needed is something that says (in a nutshell) if a pilot makes a world record in a Cat½ comp and the competition organisers validate this task then this validation + a barograph trace will be accepted for World record. I would like to see declaration boards and photos gone and GPS/barographs in. The process of change is slow as outlined below.

On that topic the 1% rule did come up. A subcommittee will be proposing better guidelines for how much you have to break an old record to get a new one. With GPS accuracy of 1 second and 10m I think it should be if you break by more than this you can get it. Mike Barber's flight was noted as an example that should have been recognised.

(editor’s note: So I see that they didn’t do anything about using GPSes for record validation. How novel. Not like we didn’t say anything about this, like a dozen times.)

(Davis)

Take away bonuses for worlds, Europeans?

(James Freeman)

No, not even discussed in HG sub committee as not on agenda.

(editor’s note: Well, they never listen to me. Neither does my CIVL representative.)

(Davis)

Approve WPR or WPRS?

(James Freeman)

Zupy not there so deferred (this means a full year). Agreed that new system required.

Some data entry issues as PGs do not use RACE and often submit results as PDF or even GIF!!!

Manual data entry being used. 90 comps are in the new database. Money allocated from budget for development of software to ensure easy data entry.

FAI (Thierry) is being very slow to provide Zupy server space, so he tells me. Also FAI using Acess 97, not 2000 so there will be issues with MDB format and ODBC drivers.

(editor’s note: Because Zupy neglected to get a visa for Romania, we are stuck with WPRS for another year! This is incredible? Hasn’t any one heard of the internet and the possibility to work this out via e-mail? Unbelievable. Zupy has been doing this for over a year. Come on guys, get together to this.)

(James Freeman)

First an observation about how CIVL works. Low budget with no gravy train in evidence. Essentially volunteer organisation. Mailing list, emails and sub-committee structure to do the real business over the course of the year. Single annual meeting (Plenary) which essentially is very rushed and covers HG and PG issues.

To make something happen you need to get the item discussed on the mailing list or a more private subcommittee mailing list.

(editor’s note; There was very little discussion on the CIVL mailing list, and the items that were discussed didn’t get on the agenda. Only CIVL representatives can get these items on the agenda, and ours has wax in his ears.)

You want some sort of consensus position well before the Plenary and a neat written proposal. Then you need to get the item on the agenda of the HG or PG subcommittee who have a full days meeting the day before the Plenary to discuss issues. If your 'thing' is not on this agenda it ain't gonna happen until at least next year.

This meeting the day before the Plenary will approve/disapprove/send to committee your 'thing'. If it gets up it will be presented to the Plenary where it is essentially now a sure thing. So for approval of something you need to get is discussed and then on the agenda for the HG or PG subcommittee (day before Plenary) and on the Plenary agenda. As well as the HG/PG day long meetings before the Plenary there is sub-committee stuff discussed for several days before. I was not there so I don't know how this works exactly.

Olivier to continue as president of CIVL.

Dennis Pagen resigned and awarded some sort of FAI service medal widget.

Stopped task rule argued extensively. There is now a new rule in section 7 for HG which removes the requirement for pilots in goal to score a stopped task.

Unlike PG we use multiple clocks. Angelo suggested that if a task is stopped you score it like this: You find the shortest course time available to a pilot who took the last (used) start gate. Say the gate was 2.30 and the task was stopped at 3.30 this would be 1 hour. You then score pilots at the position they were at 1 hour flying after the gate they actually took.

Personally I think the whole stopped task thing sucks. It is used to pump up the validity of competitions flown at marginal weather sites IMHO. Anyway Angelo's suggested method with result in most of the pilots getting a similar score (fairly pointless) but has interesting side effects in that if I get to goal in 59 minutes (in the example) I get goal but if you take (1:01) you did not get to goal in the 1 hour so will be pulled back from goal.

This proposal is in committee discussion stage now. There will be no stopped tasks at the OzZ Pre/Worlds. If the weather is unsafe a task will be cancelled as we will have more than enough fair tasks for a valid comp.

(editor’s note: I think that the stopped task idea is excellent and very helpful for the seven day meets in Florida and Texas.)

Serial class for PG dead in water due to impossibility to police, lack of interest, no increase in observed safety, lack of manufacturer interest. Next proposal will be to ban protos in comps. This of course suffers from similar problems.

Requirements for entry to worlds to be tightened. Top ⅔ of CIVL cat 2 comp. Less exemptions to be granted - you will need a very good reason why you could not qualify. Exemptions must be applied for 60 days in advance.

Requirement for advertising on wings a CIVL cat 1 comps. 0.25m square (example 50x50cm) on R undersurface and L leading edge. Advertising to include numbers. Penalty for non adherence not clear. Major sponsor to be announced 30 days in advance (was 6 months). Conflict of interest problems noted but given low level of sponsorship not likely to be major issue.

FAI has some requirement for appropriate sponsors. I will have to look that one up as it seemed to include alcohol as well as tobacco. Brewers were certainly on my target list and have used a variety of adventure sports in their advertising in recent memory.

(editor’s note: I assume that this means that the Brazilian Worlds organizers can’t force pilots to fly with advertisements on their leading edges. I hope this means that. I continue to hear stories about how the Brazilian pre-Worlds organizers made a killing, and I mean a killing on that meet.)

Can now have at least one local jury/steward which makes a small decrease in cost for Worlds/Pres. Cost of Worlds/Continentals pointed out namely in $US 8000 for sanction 2 stewards, 3 jury with transport, accommodations, food, car and out of pockets (say $3000 a head) Daily food for pilots at say $70 pp + ceremonies.

(editor's note: This would have helped at the Worlds in Chelan.)

A motion to scrap the food (outside Switzerland where a sandwich is $10+) should get up in the local rules. For most delegates lower prize money and entry fee was desired. Only Australia was willing to accommodate this desire which may or may not have tipped the balance.

Most of the delegates expressed the opinion that they has 4 very good bids for the HG and PG worlds and that tossing a coin would be as good a way as any of deciding. The night before Angelo C asked me for a $1 Australian (which by chance I had). The story goes that this was tossed and the kangaroo came up so we got their vote. Don't know if it is true or not but the coin will be mounted and presented at the Worlds anyway.

(editor’s note: So we still have no real idea why CIVL delegates voted one way or another on the Worlds bids.

I bet I know the reason that they chose Brazil as the site of the paragliding worlds, and I bet the launch site wasn’t the main consideration. I wonder if the paragliding meet organizers are going to go home with all the cash also. At least the pilots will enjoy themselves.

Looks like Jerz will have to go back on his, “I’m never coming back to Hay again.” Statement.)

Gap 2003 ready - apparently examines track logs to see if pilot in gaggle or leading out and allocates points according to some (probably excessively complex) new formula. Not many comps keen to be guinea pig.

(editor’s note: Let’s get Peter Gray involved. ☺)

Nothing on pudding basin helmets - my personal pet hate as if you make everyone have a styrofoam helmet you will prevent some brain damage and if everyone has to do it there is no disadvantage.

(editor’s note: Yah, almost all the pilots are going with brain scoops now with no foam padding what so ever. A bunch of future vegetables in a making.)

Local rules for Worlds at Brazil approved

(editor’s note: I wonder what they say about advertising and toilets on launch. I would love to see these rules when they get posted.)

Chelan noted to be one of worst organised comps ever

(editor’s note: Like, so this is news? See Oz Reports before, during and after.)

Slovenia noted to be very well organised

Guatemala attended for the first time. Very enthusiastic bunch. Lost bid to host next CIVL to Croatia 14:13. Full of Latin enthusiasm - kinda like a whole lot of Angelo's with an accent.

(editor’s note: I bet that they would find this hard to believe and understand. I loved flying there.)

With a new understanding of the process I think I can do what I want with regard to scoring at the Worlds. This is to use GAP without the departure points.

I just don't see that a pilot who makes goal with the lead gaggle of 30-50 pilots (who all took the first gate) deserves more points than say Paris/Bo/Jersey etc who for one reason of another took a later gate, went at it far more alone (smaller or non existent gaggles), got the fastest time across the course but not the highest score.

With 3-4 useable gates and a large field it seems to me that few pilots are really leading out and therefore deserve a bonus. With the departure bonus gone a pilot is free to take the optimal gate (without penalty) and the pressure to crowd at the first gate is reduced increasing safety and fairness if for some reason you can't make that gate.

In Europe HG is in grave danger of dying for all the usual reasons (margins, instructors, convenience, public image). PG:HG is up to 10:1 in many countries.

(editor’s note: Thanks James, great report. I hope to find out more when I see the Plenary minutes or if other CIVL representatives can write and send in their impressions of the meeting.

Discuss "CIVL Plenary Report" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Australia wins flex wing Worlds bid!

Sat, Feb 22 2003, 10:00:01 pm GMT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

Or should I say the US loses the Worlds bid again by one vote? I got the following message:

Paragliding Worlds: Brazil 15, France 12

Hang Gliding Worlds: Hay, Australia 14, USA 13

Zupy was not at the meeting because he didn’t have a visa, so Australia missed out on two votes (OZ + NZ).

Entry for Pre-Worlds $250, Worlds $400 US. US bid price was $600.

(editor’s note: Well, that certainly makes a difference. $600+towing fees is quite a lot.)

Additional costs for CIVL Worlds requirements are as follows (in $US):

CIVL sanction $8000. 5 stewards and jury $3000 each for airfares/accommodations/car/food. Food for pilots $70 ($5 per day). Opening and closing ceremonies $40/pilot.

So there is $23000 US fixed ($8000 + 5 * 3000). Assuming 150 pilots = $155 per pilot for CIVL reqs + $110 US for the pilot food/parties). So this is where $250 goes.

(editor’s note: I wouldn’t assume 150 pilots, maybe 100 to 120. Therefore the costs per pilot go much higher.)

The basic competition cost is $150. The slight increase over the usual $110 US for Australian competitions is to fund video post production encourage sponsors and get some TV coverage.

Price for pre- Worlds includes single steward with a big chunk for video post production to make a package to 1) show potential sponsors and 2) get a 20 minute spot on national TV so they can say to sponsors here is your brand exposure.

(editor’s note: Might not be that much if not a whole lot of folks show up for the pre-Worlds. Previously there have been a lot of pilots who show up in Australia for these meets. I assume that they will be very popular, but maybe not 150 pilot.)

By the way the entire CIVL budget is only $40,000 US per annum. Almost all the people that work there are basically volunteers. Their only income comes from comp sanction fees.

(editor’s note: This is very exciting news – well it is for me. I love flying in Hay and in Florida so it was a toss up for me. Of course, I’m flying a rigid wing glider, so this isn’t even a meet that I’m invited to. I can fly the pre-Worlds without a problem, but things get dicier at he Worlds.

I wonder how having the Worlds in Hay is going to disrupt the general three meet schedule for Australia. The meets are usually 8 or 9 days long. Will there be a Bogong Cup also? I assume the Australian Open will happen before the Worlds and pre-Worlds.

Last time I wasn’t allowed to fly my Exxtacy during the Worlds in Forbes. I wonder if I go whether I will be allowed to fly with the competitors as a reporter. There are rules that need to be modified if CIVL wants to have in air press coverage. I wonder if they care enough to do that.

I was wondering how the Worlds would affect the spring meets in Florida. Now I don’t have to worry about that. I assume that they will continue to be very popular and that there will be lots of rigid wing pilots at these meets.

If the Worlds weren’t worth any more ranking points (in advance) than the other CIVL sanctioned meets, than it wouldn’t be such a big issue that Florida lost the bid. Their successful meets are already important for world ranking points and they would be just that much more valuable if we had a fair world pilot ranking system.

I would love to hear a lot more about how the discussion went. What was the deciding issue? Was it the cost to pilots (some pilots don’t have to pay anyway)? Was it the split nature of the Florida bid with two flight parks and a cut? Was it a reflection of broader anti-Americanism? Were there other considerations?

If you were there, tell me what happened. A lot more is happening at the CIVL Plenary so please tell me and the Oz Report readers what you know.)

Discuss "Australia wins flex wing Worlds bid!" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Paraglider Pilot Ranking

Fri, Feb 21 2003, 8:00:04 pm GMT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|PG

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

The Class 3 ranking has been calculated using the new system for the period from the present, back to 2001. Head for http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/rankings/newrankings/wpr.htm.

This version of the display is just an interim measure until the database functions on the FAI server are activated when the new ranking becomes official - That is assuming the CIVL Plenary approves the new ranking!

Discuss "Paraglider Pilot Ranking" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Australian flex wing Worlds Bid

Wed, Feb 19 2003, 10:00:02 pm GMT

James Freeman|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

James Freeman has placed Dynamic Flight’s Bid for the 2005 Worlds up on their web site (as I hoped he would). The USHGA still hasn’t placed their proposal up on their web site. The CIVL Plenary meeting which will vote on these bids is happening very soon, like 20th - 22nd February. In a couple of days.

If you want to check out the Australian proposal quickly and get back to your CIVL representative right away to tell them what you want, see below. I guess the US bid won’t have the option of having your informed input to your CIVL representative.

James Freeman <jfreeman@tassie.net.au> writes:

The Hay Worlds 2005 bid is up on our website at: http://www.dynamicflight.com.au/WWW_files/frame.htm

Zupy, the Australian CIVL representative who was bringing the bid package to the Plenary, was declared an illegal alien and deported at the Romanian airport apparently as he did not have a visa to enter the country. Romania apparently made it a requirement on Jan 16th.

After some serious begging I managed to get the Konstantin at the Romanian embassy in London to issue me a visa (normally 30 days) in 18 hours so it look like at least I will make it.

Zupy has the show materials so we are pretty digital at the moment (see the web site). Wonder what printing and binding is like in Romania?

If is about 4°C here in London. I miss the Hay tow paddock already.

Discuss "Australian flex wing Worlds Bid" at the Oz Report forum   link»

How long should a competition run?

Fri, Feb 14 2003, 10:00:01 pm GMT

competition|Gordon Rigg|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

I'd say that anything over eight rounds is a waste of competitors time and money, less than four days and you have a dodgy comp (more than four days for the minimum would be nice, but then everyone would complain about all the devalued comps).

Gordon Rigg <Rigg@btinternet.com> writes:

Davis should consider if fourteen tasks at a world championships with one hundred and twenty competitors might really count a bit more than six or seven tasks with sixty competitors…

(editor’s note: The issue here is should the Worlds and the Europeans count more in the WPR or WPRS ranking, because they are longer competitions. It is not at all clear that a longer competition should count any more, especially if the extra days don’t tell you anything more about the relative skills and accomplishments of the competitors.

Both the WPR and the WPRS ranking systems only count your “wins.” It counts your four best meets. It drops your bad ones. It isn’t an average of your performance over time, just a highlight film.

Therefore, you might think that if you divided the Worlds or the Europeans in half, and took your placing in the first half and your placing in the second half (starting over again) that you would get an extra chance at the good score and thereby move yourself up in the world ranking.

Maybe. But then everyone else (who goes to these meets) gets the same double counting, and therefore you probably won’t improve your position much if at all over anyone else who attended theses meets.

Of course, you would likely do better against pilots who didn’t attend these meets, because you’ve added an additional meet from which to possibly get a good result, while the other pilots don’t get this additional opportunity.

So, in the end, I see no justification for giving extra bonus points to the Worlds or the Europeans just because they are longer.)

Discuss "How long should a competition run?" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Beta testing the WPR

Thu, Feb 13 2003, 5:00:06 pm GMT

Antoine Boisselier|Australian Nationals 2002|Bogong Cup 2003|Flytec Championship|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Kathleen Rigg|Kraig Coomber|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|Robert Reisinger

Thanks to the input from the Oz Report and Gordon and Kathleen Rigg, Zupy has been made aware of various errors in the WPR ranking. This has been a great process and I’ve been happy to help Zupy get the problems with getting this system going straightened out. If you see any problems with this current ranking that may relate to problems with the data please contact Zupy. Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

I have sorted out the hassles. It turned out to be a procedural error with data input. Looks like the next changes will be to make the database more user friendly. There were a number of competitions that did not appear on the ranking. I think I have got them all now, if any are still missing (I doubt it) it is easy to add them (assuming the data is available).

I have updated the web site with all the rankings from October 2001, then every few months up till the present time.

So for the benefit of those who cannot read the explanation document, the way that comps devalue in time and other aspects of the ranking system become obvious by following the changes to the rankings at each update.

Head for http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/wpr.htm for the explanation and the full list of rankings from Oct 2001 onwards.

Pilot Nation Rank Previous Points
Ruhmer Manfred AUT 1 1 319
100 HG EC 2002 Class 1
76 Brazil Pre Worlds
75 2002 Wallaby Open
69 World Championship- Algodonales
Bondarchuk Oleg UKR 1 2 319
80 Australian Open 2003
80 Bogong Cup 2003
80 Brazil Pre Worlds
79 2002 Wallaby Open
Heinrichs Gerolf AUT 3 3 305
89 HG EC 2002 Class 1
76 Bogong Cup 2003
71 Millau Classic
69 Australian Nationals 2002
Williams Paris USA 4 4 300
76 Australian Nationals 2002
76 Australian Open 2003
75 Flytec Championship 2002
73 Bogong Cup 2003
Rigg Gordon GBR 5 7 283
82 HG EC 2002 Class 1
72 Australian Open 2003
70 Australian Open - Open
60 Bogong Cup 2003
Durand Jon Jnr AUS 6 17 276
75 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
69 Australian Open 2003
66 Australian Open - Open
66 Bogong Cup 2002
Coomber Kraig AUS 7 16 274
80 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
69 Bogong Cup 2003
66 Australian Nationals 2002
59 Brazil Pre Worlds
Reisinger Robert AUT 8 5 258
68 Millau Classic
65 World Championship- Algodonales
63 European Championship 2000
62 Brazil Pre Worlds
Boisselier Antoine FRA 9 6 257
92 HG EC 2002 Class 1
59 World Championship- Algodonales
53 Millau Classic
53 Australian Nationals 2002
Barber Mike USA 10 8 252
73 Australian Open - Open
73 Australian Nationals 2002
56 2002 Wallaby Open
50 Millau Classic 2001

Discuss "Beta testing the WPR" at the Oz Report forum   link»

WPR (fair)

Tue, Feb 11 2003, 7:00:02 pm GMT

Australian Nationals 2002|Australian Nationals 2003|Australian Open|Bogong Cup 2003|Flytec Championship|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Kraig Coomber|Manfred Ruhmer|Mario Alonzi|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|Rohan Holtkamp|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

Below is the first page of a modified ranking. Now all comps are assumed to be Category 2 competition so that there I no bonus and so all are worth 80 points. There are some differences with your version of the modified ranking. These would have been caused by the fact that different comp points means different ranking points, which means different Pilot Quality next time the rankings are calculated. This process then gets repeated each time the ranking is calculated, which ultimately gives different results.

The rankings in the "previous" column are the rankings prior to the start of the Australian season, so the effect of the Oz season is still evident.

0in0in 0in">
Pilot Nation Rank Previous Points
Bondarchuk Oleg UKR 1 2 294
80 Bogong Cup 2003
80 Brazil Pre Worlds
76 Australian Open - Open
58 HG EC 2002 Class 1
Heinrichs Gerolf AUT 2 2 282
76 Bogong Cup 2003
71 HG EC 2002 Class 1
69 Australian Nationals 2002
66 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
Coomber Kraig AUS 3 11 277
80 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
69 Bogong Cup 2003
66 Australian Nationals 2002
62 Bogong Cup 2002
Ruhmer Manfred AUT 4 1 266
80 HG EC 2002 Class 1
76 Brazil Pre Worlds
55 World Championship- Algodonales
55 Flytec Championship
Durand Jon Jnr AUS 5 11 262
75 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
70 Bogong Cup 2002
66 Australian Open - Open
51 Bogong Cup 2003
Williams Paris USA 6 9 253
76 Australian Nationals 2002
73 Bogong Cup 2003
53 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
51 Bogong Cup 2002
Holtkamp Rohan AUS 7 5 248
66 Bogong Cup 2002
63 Bogong Cup 2003
61 Australian Open - Open
59 Australian Nationals 2002
Barber Mike USA 8 4 246
73 Australian Open - Open
73 Australian Nationals 2002
50 Millau Classic 2001
50 2001 Forbes Odyssey
Rigg Gordon GBR 9 10 241
70 Australian Open - Open
65 HG EC 2002 Class 1
60 Bogong Cup 2003
46 UK Nationals 2002
Alonzi Mario FRA 10 7 231
63 Australian Open - Open
62 Australian Nationals 2002
55 Slovenian Open 2001
51 HG EC 2002 Class 1

(editor’s note: I asked Zupy to run his WPR analysis for me assuming no bonus values as I could only make a stab at it with the data that I had from him.)

Discuss "WPR (fair)" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flex wing World Pilot Ranking – fixed again

Mon, Feb 10 2003, 11:00:01 pm GMT

CIVL|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Kraig Coomber|Manfred Ruhmer|Mario Alonzi|Mike Barber|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|Rohan Holtkamp|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

So what if we fix up the WPR system and make it so the Worlds and the Europeans are not given a 25% bonus? Here’s now the WPR (fair) would rank pilots:

Pilot Nation Rank Previous Points
Bondarchuk Oleg UKR 1 2 294
80 Bogong Cup 2003
80 Brazil Pre Worlds
76 Australian Open -Open
58 HG EC 2002 Class 1
Coomber Kraig AUS 2 12 274
80 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
69 Bogong Cup 2003
66 Australian Nationals 2002
59 Brazil Pre Worlds
Heinrichs Gerolf AUT 3 3 270
71 HG EC 2002 Class 1
76 Bogong Cup 2003
69 Australian Nationals 2002
54 World Championship-Algodonales
Ruhmer Manfred AUT 4 1 264
80 HG EC 2002 Class 1
76 Brazil Pre Worlds
55 World Championship-Algodonales
53 European Championship 2000
Durand Jon Jnr AUS 5 13 258
75 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
66 Australian Open -Open
66 Bogong Cup 2002
51 Bogong Cup 2003
Barber Mike USA 6 4 246
73 Australian Open -Open
73 Australian Nationals 2002
50 Millau Classic 2001
50 2001 Forbes Odyssey
Williams Paris USA 7 7 245
76 Australian Nationals 2002
73 Bogong Cup 2003
43 World Championship-Algodonales
53 Australian Nationals2003 HG
Rigg Gordon GBR 8 11 237
66 HG EC 2002 Class 1
70 Australian Open -Open
60 Bogong Cup 2003
42 World Championship-Algodonales
Holtkamp Rohan AUS 9 6 236
50 World Championship-Algodonales
63 Bogong Cup 2003
62 Bogong Cup 2002
61 Australian Open -Open
Alonzi Mario FRA 10 7 230
63 Australian Open -Open
50 HG EC 2002 Class 1
62 Australian Nationals 2002
55 Slovenian Open 2001

And comparing these three rankings:

WPR WPR Wprs
fair
1 Bondarchuk Oleg 2 1
2 Coomber Kraig 4 17
3 Heinrichs Gerolf 3 3
4 Ruhmer Manfred 1 6
5 Durand Jon Jnr 6 15
6 Barber Mike 10 15
7 Williams Paris 8 11
8 Rigg Gordon 5 2
9 Holtkamp Rohan 9 14
10 Alonzi Mario 11 5

Now is there anything unfair about this WPR (fair) ranking? Yes, the pilots didn’t have advance notice that all the meets would be of equal value in the WPR (fair) ranking system, so they weren’t able to use this information to help make a decision about which meets to attend. They in fact relied on the WPRS ranking system which gave the European Championships and the Worlds a 50% bonus and were therefore just that much more attractive as meets to attend.

None the less the WPR (fair) is the fairest representation of the actual results of the competitions flown by the pilots and should be used to rank the pilots. All other considerations are distortions of the actual results and are done for reasons other than fairly representing the results of pilot competition.

Our CIVL National Delegates should vote at the next CIVL Plenary to get rid of the artificial bonuses so as to allow for a fair representation of pilot skills in our world pilot ranking systems.

Discuss "Flex wing World Pilot Ranking – fixed again" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flex wing World Pilot Ranking - fixed

Mon, Feb 10 2003, 11:00:00 pm GMT

Antoine Boisselier|European Championships 2002|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Kraig Coomber|Manfred Ruhmer|Mario Alonzi|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|Rohan Holtkamp|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

The 2002 European Championships were not in the calculation. This now puts Manfred back on top! There still is a premium for the Cat 1 comps, but less so than the old system. Cat 2 comps are worth 80% in the new system whereas they were only 67% in the old system.

(editor’s note: That means that the Europeans have a 25% additional bonus on the WPR system and a 50% bonus under the WPRS system. Totally without justification.)

It is interesting to note that the Pilot quality at the European Championships was less than the Brazil Pre-Worlds (highest, then in order), Australian Nationals, Bogong Cup, Wallaby Open, Flytec Championships, then the 2002 Europeans. However the Europeans were worth 100 points, while all the other comps (other than the Worlds) were worth 80 points.

If you go to http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/wpr.htm you get the full WPR ranking as well as the explanation for the WPR system.

The WPR corrected for the error of not including the 2002 Europeans:

Pilot Nation Rank Previous Points
Ruhmer Manfred AUT 1 1 310
100 HG EC 2002 Class 1
76 Brazil Pre Worlds
69 World Championship-Algodonales
66 European Championship 2000
Bondarchuk Oleg UKR 2 2 308
80 Bogong Cup 2003
80 Brazil Pre Worlds
76 Australian Open -Open
72 HG EC 2002 Class 1
Heinrichs Gerolf AUT 3 3 301
89 HG EC 2002 Class 1
76 Bogong Cup 2003
69 Australian Nationals 2002
67 World Championship-Algodonales
Coomber Kraig AUS 4 12 274
80 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
69 Bogong Cup 2003
66 Australian Nationals 2002
59 Brazil Pre Worlds
Rigg Gordon GBR 5 11 263
82 HG EC 2002 Class 1
70 Australian Open -Open
60 Bogong Cup 2003
52 World Championship-Algodonales
Durand Jon Jnr AUS 6 13 259
75 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
66 Australian Open -Open
66 Bogong Cup 2002
51 Bogong Cup 2003
Boisselier Antoine FRA 7 10 257
92 HG EC 2002 Class 1
59 World Championship-Algodonales
53 Australian Nationals 2002
53 Brazil Pre Worlds
Williams Paris USA 8 7 256
76 Australian Nationals 2002
73 Bogong Cup 2003
54 World Championship-Algodonales
53 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
Holtkamp Rohan AUS 9 6 249
63 World Championship-Algodonales
63 Bogong Cup 2003
62 Bogong Cup 2002
61 Australian Open -Open
Barber Mike USA 10 4 246
73 Australian Open -Open
73 Australian Nationals 2002
50 Millau Classic 2001
50 2001 Forbes Odyssey
Alonzi Mario FRA 11 7 244
63 Australian Open –Open
63 HG EC 2002 Class 1
62 Australian Nationals 2002
55 Slovenian Open 2001

Where were the ten top pilots in this corrected WPR ranking ranked in the current WPRS ranking?

WPR Pilot Wprs
1 Ruhmer Manfred 6
2 Bondarchuk Oleg 1
3 Heinrichs Gerolf 3
4 Coomber Kraig 17
5 Rigg Gordon 2
6 Durand Jon Jnr 15
7 Boisselier Antoine 4
8 Williams Paris 11
9 Holtkamp Rohan 14
10 Barber Mike 15

Manfred goes back to number one because of his wins and good placings outside of Australia in meets with 25% bonuses added on.

Discuss "Flex wing World Pilot Ranking - fixed" at the Oz Report forum   link»

WPRS = the European ranking system

Sun, Feb 9 2003, 2:00:01 pm GMT

World Pilot Ranking Scheme

The European Championships have an out sided value especially in the current WPRS ranking even though the Australian meets have just completed. Here is the number of points by meets for the top ten WPRS ranked pilots:

European HG Champs 02 936
Brasilia HG 02 287
Australian Open 02 263
Bogong HG Cup 2003 198
Australian Nationals 02 149
Slov HG Open 01 129
Wallaby HG Open 84
Flytec C1 02 79
Australian HG Open 03 50
German HG Open 01 48
UK Open 01 38
German HG Open 02 32
Wildkogelpokal 02 28

Or Graphically:

The 2002 European Championships account for almost 50% of the value of the points that are used to rank the top ten WPRS pilots. Any wonder why European pilots dominate the WPRS ranking?

And, again, why do the European Championships count for so much in the WPRS ranking? Because they are artificially given 50% more value than any of the other meets used in the current WPRS ranking.

This artificial increase in value of the European and World Championships in both the WPR and the WPRS formats is without merit and completely unjustifiable.

Discuss "WPRS = the European ranking system" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Flex wing World Pilot Ranking

Sun, Feb 9 2003, 2:00:00 pm GMT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

The flex wing WPR update for 1st February, 2003 has been completed. Manfred has certainly been penalised for not coming to Oz.

In terms of Pilot Quality, the 2003 Australian Nationals and 2003 Bogong had very similar Pilot Quality factors, with the Nationals being slightly higher than Bogong. Both comps were comfortably above the "maximum" limit. (All comps have at least a PQ factor of 0.2, and if the numbers go above the maximum figure for pilot quality, the PQ factor remains at 1). The 2003 Australian Open at Denniliquin had lesser pilot quality, but still had a PQ factor of 1.

About the only competitions that reach the maximum Pilot Quality have been the category 1 competitions, the three main Australian comps, the Florida Aerotow meets and the Brazil preworlds.

(editor’s note: I wonder what it is about the European flex wing National Competitions that don’t allow them to get to a PQ of 1?)

I will put the flat pages on the web which should be accessible via the FAI rankings page (the database is set up for a proper web presentation, it is just not happening on the FAI server as yet). The explanation for how the database works is on that page.

(editor’s note: I couldn’t find the explanation at http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/rankings/ but it can be found at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/summary.htm)

Pilot Nation Rank Previous Points
Bondarchuk Oleg UKR 1 5 296
80 Bogong Cup 2003
80 Brazil Pre Worlds
76 Australian Open - Open
60 European Championship 2000
Heinrichs Gerolf AUT 2 2 278
76 Bogong Cup 2003
69 Australian Nationals 2002
67 World Championship- Algodonales
66 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
Coomber Kraig AUS 3 16 274
80 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
69 Bogong Cup 2003
66 Australian Nationals 2002
59 Brazil Pre Worlds
Ruhmer Manfred AUT 4 1 265
76 Brazil Pre Worlds
69 World Championship- Algodonales
66 European Championship 2000
55 Flytec Championship
Durand Jon Jnr AUS 5 12 259
75 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
66 Australian Open - Open
66 Bogong Cup 2002
51 Bogong Cup 2003
Williams Paris USA 6 5 256
76 Australian Nationals 2002
73 Bogong Cup 2003
54 World Championship- Algodonales
53 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
Holtkamp Rohan AUS 7 4 249
63 World Championship- Algodonales
63 Bogong Cup 2003
62 Bogong Cup 2002
61 Australian Open - Open
Barber Mike USA 8 3 246
73 Australian Open - Open
73 Australian Nationals 2002
50 Millau Classic 2001
50 2001 Forbes Odyssey
Bertok Attila HUN 9 17 236
66 Bogong Cup 2003
61 Australian Nationals 2003 HG
57 World Championship- Algodonales
52 2001 Australian Hang Gliding Nationals
Reisinger Robert AUT 10 11 232
65 World Championship- Algodonales
63 European Championship 2000
62 Brazil Pre Worlds
42 Wallaby Open

There appears to be a large error in this WPR ranking, which is the devaluation of the 2002 Europeans by posting dating it to 2000. Zupy writes:

The Europeans are getting devalued, as they are quite old now. Originally they would have been worth 100 points. The old system does not devalue comps, hence they remain full value till they are deleted, which gives the odd situation of a comp having as much influence on the ranking when it is deleted, as when it is entered into the ranking originally.

The WPR system still arbitrarily pumps up the value of the Worlds and the Europeans over other high level competitions by 25%, which, will better than the 50% that the WPRS overvalues these meets, still is completely unjustified. The number of quality competitors attending the meet should be the only pre-determinant of the value of a meet.

The WPR ranking above (likely in error) is certainly a different ranking than that obtained using the WPRS system which is about to be superceded by the WPR system. They will both be used for 2003. The probable error that Zupy has made makes it so that the most striking feature of this ranking is the fact that the 2002 European Championship and the 2001 World Championships don’t appear to be more important than the Pre-Worlds, Australian meets, and the Florida meets. This is as it should be.

If this proves not to be an error, this WPR ranking certainly is a welcome change and reflects the fact that top ranked pilots are going to other meets which makes them just as difficult to win. If the Worlds and the Europeans weren’t given 25% more value than other big time meets, there would certainly be little reason to change the current process for sanctioning the continental championships. Who cares if that really means there is only one continental championship, the Europeans. No longer does it have an outsized importance.

Where were the ten top pilots in this WPR ranking ranked in the current WPRS ranking?

WPR Pilot Wprs
1 Bondarchuk Oleg 1
2 Heinrichs Gerolf 3
3 Coomber Kraig 17
4 Ruhmer Manfred 6
5 Durand Jon Jnr 15
6 Williams Paris 11
7 Holtkamp Rohan 14
8 Barber Mike 15
9 Bertok Attila 31
10 Reisinger Robert 13

Both rankings agree that Oleg is the number one ranked pilot, and this is because he comes and flies the Australian competitions and does well there. Manfred hasn’t flown in Australia lately.

The big differences are that four Australian pilots are much more highly ranked because they fly in the high quality Australian competitions. This is exactly as it should be. Eight of the pilots in the tope ten WPR ranking have been flying in the Australian competitions in the last two years.

But, just because you come and fly there doesn’t mean you get top WPR ranking. Gordon Rigg who was number two in the WPRS ranking and who doesn’t show up in the top ten of the WPR ranking has flown in Australia the last two years as have three French National team pilots who were in the top ten of the WPRS ranking. You have to also do well in Australia compared to the top ten pilots (WPR ranking) who also flew in Australia.

Mike Barber didn’t come and fly in Australia this year and his WPR ranking fell from third to eighth. Attila, Kraig, and Jon did better this year in Australia and their WPR ranking improved. Paris and Rohan didn’t do as well in Australia as they did last year, so their WPR ranking fell.

The WPR system (assuming that the value of the Worlds and Europeans is not artificially inflated) is much fairer than the WPRS system rating meets by the quality of the pilots who attend, not just by the number who attend. It would be completely fair if it didn’t give any artificial weight to Category 1 meets over Category 2 meets. Under these circumstances it would let the pilots decide which meets are the most important and competitive by showing up for those meets.

If Manfred doesn’t think that flying in Australia is important to him, then it just means that he thinks that his world ranking isn’t all that important. Probably true as we all still consider him the best pilot. But, …

Discuss "Flex wing World Pilot Ranking" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Larry Sanderson out at SSA

Sun, Feb 2 2003, 9:00:03 am GMT

Jocky Sanderson|Ken Ward|Larry Sanderson|SSA

Ken Ward <kenward1000@mac.com> writes:

Submitted on 2/2/2003 12:16:19 AM by xxx xxx. Today the Executive Committee has received an offer of resignation from Larry Sanderson as President of the SSA. The Executive Committee is presently in negotiations to finalize the details.

There's been a recent spike in SSA (Soaring Society of America) related traffic on the Usenet newsgroup rec.aviation.soaring, with regard to it's President, Larry Sanderson. Interested parties can search the archived threads for details at http://ras.archive.gliderpilot.net. The result was a meeting this weekend by the Executive Committee, followed by a posting to the SSA web site (http://www.ssa.org).

Discuss "Larry Sanderson out at SSA" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Give ‘em what they want

Sun, Feb 2 2003, 9:00:02 am GMT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Paris Williams

Zupy mentions the issue of task setting and the approach of making tasks progressively more difficult as you approach the goal. Of course, most pilots think the task is already more difficult the further you go just because they get more chances to fall down the further they have to fly.

We often try for an upwind or crosswind task on the last leg. It would be nice if there was a more gradual and progressive transition to the difficult leg, but this is unlikely to be realistic.

Pilots are much happier making goal and are less happy with tasks that make it progressively more difficult to do so. Therefore they are less willing to vote in task committee members that want to set these kinds of tasks. Perhaps this is a good argument against democracy as a hang gliding competition is in some ways an elitist enterprise.

Hang gliding competitions emphasize racing, i.e. getting to the goal the fastest. You only have to be faster than the guys in the fastest gaggle. This means that it makes sense to hang with the fastest gaggle and then work your way into a good position to get a good final glide into goal.

Still, as Paris, Tomas, and other aggressive pilots have shown, it is possible to fly faster than the gaggle of fast pilots on strong days. The help that the other members of the gaggle provide is significantly less valuable on those strong days, while the timidity that the members exhibit when leaving a thermal too late to go on glide will slow everyone in the gaggle down.

I agree that task committees should choose tasks that are progressively more difficult, require three hours to complete for the fastest pilots, are at least 75 miles (120 km) in no wind conditions and are lengthened or shortened to account for the prevailing wind. It would be nice to have accurate enough predictions of the lift in order to be able to tune these parameters even further, lengthening the task on strong lift days with high cloud bases.

Meet organizers can help this process by providing a very comprehensive list of possible turnpoints and goals (a few hundred) for all wind directions and all distances away from the start circle. You don’t want to be restricted in the task committee meeting by the list of pre-selected turnpoints, and you don’t want to have to force the pilots to enter new ones as they prepare for their flights.

There is also the factor of what percentage of pilots do you want in goal. There is a parameter for this in the Race program, and often the task committee looks to see how they are doing by looking at the number of pilots at goal. This goal is in conflict with the goal of testing the pilots with progressively more difficult flying on the task. Perhaps we should pay less attention to this factor.

Discuss "Give ‘em what they want" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Give ‘em GAP

Sun, Feb 2 2003, 9:00:01 am GMT

Angelo Crapanzano|GAP 2002|Gerolf Heinrichs|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Tim Cummings

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

A few points of consideration for the recent discussions regarding scoring systems, and towards the end of this blurb, some other, very important aspects that seem to get routinely forgotten.

Strictly defined tasks (the typical competition task with turnpoints and a goal) vs the more "open" style of task (cats cradle, Time/distance, and similar task types)

There are often suggestions that we should be going towards the trend set by the sailplane fraternity where they are using formats where pilots fly more by themselves, and less with other competitors. Considering that sailplanes cannot fly in large gaggles for long periods of time like hang gliders and paragliders do because of the risk of mid air collision, sailplanes are forced to split different types of gliders into different tasks and to spread gliders out in the air as much as possible.

So, do we want to use the "open" style of tasks because we want to fly those types of tasks, or do we want to reduce gaggle flying? Both of these reasons have valid arguments for and against.

Simple scoring systems vs complex scoring systems.

I think everyone would agree that a simple system, whereby pilots and spectators would easily know what the day scores were at the end of each day, would be very good for the sport. Unfortunately, as Angelo states, competition flying is a complex environment. It is easy to come up with a simple scoring system, I have certainly considered many of them over the years, but the problem is that it seems that there are always "situations" where a pilot becomes disadvantaged because of a failure to address a particular situation.

The scoring systems that we currently use have evolved from simple systems. Over the years new scoring considerations have been introduced to deal with different aspects of a competition flight. These different considerations were homogenized into the package called the GAP formulas named so because of its architects, Gerolf Heinrichs, Angelo Crapanzano and Paul Mollison.

The best and fairest "race" is one where everyone starts together. That way, the first into goal is the winner. Of course, there are not many places where you can get the entire competition field into the same patch of air, safely, in order to use the single start concept.

On the other hand, the fastest flights can typically be made by leaving after other pilots and using them as markers to spot the better thermals. GAP has a mechanism to address this, but unfortunately, it has some severe flaws, and it was not until Tim Cummings came up with a different way of looking at the problem that these problems were addressed. Have a look at http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/manual/departurepoints.pdf for the reasoning behind this.

This then brings up another problem, pilots realise that they must go early to score well, but they cannot physically get into the air fast enough to be able to go early. This is more a problem with towing competitions, and less so for large mountain launches where pilots can launch quickly. So, to address this, more complexity. Staggered start times, Combinations of staggered starts and simple line crossing time starts, penalties for starting too early, penalties for starting too late etc, etc.

GAP was created to address the many variables in competition flight, but its departure points system was ineffective. OzGap addressed these issues and then GAP 2002 was conceived. The debate on the pros and cons of OzGAP and GAP 2002 is itself quite a drawn out argument, but suffice to say that Angelo and myself agree on some points but disagree on others.

Is there such a thing as the perfect scoring system? Probably not, because first we have to agree on what we are trying to measure. This is itself, a marathon debate.

Then there is the issue that a scoring system cannot be considered in isolation. The way that start times are managed is not part of the scoring program but it is integral in how the system works. If you chose to use some of the more "open" systems, then the way you manage the goal(s) also becomes crucial. In fact many aspects of the competition setup will alter the eventual competition results, but none of this is part of the "scoring system", and most importantly, these aspects need to be changed if the scoring system is changed.

Then there is the task setting. We try to set tasks that measure pilot skill; or do we? Many tasks get set because the task committee think that that task would be "Ok to fly on that day". Tasks need to get progressively harder from the start to the finish so that, for the pilots that do not make the goal, pilot skill can be measured by the distance achieved. Often this does not happen, so the next question becomes, is this by accident or design?

Then into all this, pilot safety and spectator appeal need to be considered. How big do we allow gaggles to become? Do we alter tasks to accommodate the media? After all, the media are the key to getting sponsors and financial prosperity of the sport and its participants.

And the point of all this? Irrespective of whether you are in favor of a "simple" system, or a "complex" system, the debate is very complex indeed as it must also take into account many aspects that seem to be conveniently (?) ignored.

Discuss "Give ‘em GAP" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Pre-Worlds »

Wed, Jan 15 2003, 6:00:01 pm EST

calendar|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Worlds

calendar|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Worlds

(Zupy|Zupanc)|calendar|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Worlds

calendar|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Worlds|Zupanc)

calendar|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Worlds

http://events.fai.org/hgpg/civl-calendar.asp

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

The organizers have said that they will have info on this site http://www.oberdrautaler-flugsportclub.at. But it does not seem to contain relevant info yet. I believe the dates were to be decided so that they simply fit into the CIVL calendar. I'll see what is happening there.

The Top Twenty »

Wed, Dec 11 2002, 12:00:05 pm EST

Allan Barnes|Curt Warren|Gordon Rigg|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|weather

Allan Barnes|Curt Warren|Gordon Rigg|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|weather

Allan Barnes|Curt Warren|Gordon Rigg|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|weather

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Allan Barnes|Curt Warren|Gordon Rigg|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|weather

Allan Barnes|Curt Warren|Gordon Rigg|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|weather|Zupanc)

Allan Barnes|Curt Warren|Gordon Rigg|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Paris Williams|weather|Zupanc)

Allan Barnes|Curt Warren|Gordon Rigg|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Paris Williams|weather

Gordon Rigg «Rigg» writes:

Firstly this seeding puts all the top pilots at one start time. What possible incentive is there for any of the other pilots to start at a different time? The effect will be only to stop the top pilots from trying a different start. All the other pilots will then know that the best pilots are available to follow at this time too. The effect will be that in good conditions every pilot starts at the same time leading to dangerous overcrowding. If, to stop the overcrowding, the other pilots are excluded from the top 20 start then this is a bit like a "cut" - the pilot who is 21st is disadvantaged in that he has no choice but to make his own course. Of course there is nothing unfair about a cut provided it is published as a cut and everyone knows about it- but a cut occurs after several tasks - in a competition everyone starts equal!

(editor’s note: The proposal said nothing about restricting any of the other pilots from starting at any given time. The proposal was developed by the top pilots to encourage a race between them – any anyone else who wanted to join in?)

Secondly in poor conditions there is every possibility that sooner or later the top 20 start time will arrive with unusable conditions. There may be pilots outside of the top 20 already on their way as the top pilots land at the start gate where they will watch the other lower ranked pilots climb out and fly to goal an hour or so later! I have seen conditions where this could have happened many times at many competitions, Ager 95, Tre Pezzi Monte Cucco 1999, Valedares, Innsbruck...it doesn't matter how reliable conditions are supposed to be - its amazing how pilots choose not to recall these common poor conditions when they plan future competitions!

Thirdly the "who's won in the goal field" argument is spurious. Of course, we think we know who won when we see the pilots cross the line in a "straight race", but we don't actually know until the track log is checked. Ask Tom Weissenberger who recently spent prize money he didn't actually get before his track log was checked in Lanzarote! If the scoring computers are in the goal (like at Algodonales) then there could be a temporary score board with the fastest times displayed to the queuing pilots - why not?

Lastly, and most importantly, the tactics and skills tested in the competition are reduced: If a competition is going to use a single start and a straight race then that's fine. That competition will test pilots skills at a straight race when everyone can see everyone else at the start and fight it out from there. If a competition uses multiple start gates, so that the pilots can decide when to start that's another - that competition tests another tactical skill from the pilots. Also conditions are seldom consistent and pilots are free to read the weather and decide when to fly the course to best effect. Of course, there may be some straight races, and some elapsed time races with multiple starts in the same competition. The pilots get to know at the briefing and can plan their attack from there.

Unfortunately few pilots actually choose which start to take - many just look for someone who might know better and follow them, and start when they start. This goes further, even to the take off lane where people pretend to be hanging out and relaxing while really watching to see when some big names start to suit up and get ready to go. Maybe these guys should really be watching the conditions rather than another pilot, who are perhaps watching them and also not looking at the conditions?

There are pilots out there who have very little idea how to decide when to start, or how to judge if conditions are at their best - they are very good pilots, sometimes even famous. They can steer the glider very well and keep up with the others, perhaps even arrive first sometimes if their glider is good. However they have a whole section of skills missing. They will of course say that trying to test these judgment skills introduces a large element of luck. This is shown by the same "lucky" pilots choosing better start times, flying better routes that they have no chance to follow, and having such luck time and time again.

Of course there is another side which is the psychological pressure. Pilots leading a competition are trying to hang on to their position and feel the expectation upon them. Those further behind might try to win by taking an unpopular start time and flying on their own without any concern for the possibility of "losing". To become a champion the ability to handle this sort of pressure is one of the most important requirements.

In almost all sports there is a chance for some risky tactic to try to snatch victory from defeat, but making all the top pilots start together removes this chance to grab victory and places it further out of reach, reducing the number of possible winners as the competition reaches its end. The latter tasks could become a procession with the leaders on hand to cover the tactics of the challengers. Of course the pilots expecting to be in the lead toward the end of the competition think it's a great idea, in the same way that they feel cheated when someone does something different to beat him.

Worse still the pilots happy to come second or third and unwilling to risk challenging the leader, would find it easier to keep their places without needing to worry about clever (lucky) pilots overtaking them. Many pilots have used their skill in finding a faster time and faster route to overtake the lead gaggle - such pilots as Allan Barnes, Paris Williams, Manfed Ruhmer himself. Perhaps the master tactician in this is Oleg Bondarchuk. The fact that such things are possible is what makes competition exciting and one of the main reasons I enjoy it.

This idea hands the advantage to ranked pilots right at the beginning, and then keeps handing it back to them as long as they don't make a mistake. Well I say everyone should start equal and it is up to the pilots to seize victory from the others, not just hang on to an advantage and avoid loosing!

During the Europeans in Slovenia, my probably suspect tactics meant that until well over half way through the competition I had never taken the same start gate as the task winner. Sometimes starting early, sometimes late. I placed in the first few several times. The first day I flew with Manfred, and managed to get over the line before him (behind Oleg) He didn't even know who I was. Perhaps if more of the good pilots thought more about using the different start gates to advantage then there would be more than one task winning gaggle, and it would be a lot harder for one pilot to dominate. So if one pilot does dominate he would be all the more respected for it.

Gordon Rigg "I was robbed and now I feel sick as a parrot"

(editor’s note: Got a comment or opinion about the “race proposal?” Send it in and help out the debate.)

curt warren «secretagentcrack» writes:

Playing the start game...that's the beauty of it. What's next? -Prohibiting course-line deviation?

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

At our Canungra meet, a new twist was successfully trialled. The task is called, and the window opens 15 minutes later (launch is open). Then for the next hour (or so) the start times are measured to the second, then at the appropriate time, the start time intervals kick in. That way the guns, who want to avoid the cat and mouse games, would leave after the "start time intervals" kick in, while the more causal pilots would simply climb up and go whenever they want (before the guns, hopefully).

That way pilots chose whether they want to partake in the cat and mouse games, or not. This makes it easier for more casual pilots to get going earlier

World Pilot Ranking

Fri, Dec 6 2002, 2:00:06 pm EST

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tim Cummings|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Tim Cummings|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tim Cummings|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tim Cummings|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Zupanc)

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tim Cummings|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/wpr.htm

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

The database has been ready for some time now (Tim Cummings did the programming), there just seems to be some difficulty getting some server space on the FAI server so that it can run in parallel with the existing WPRS.

I have set up some flat pages with the overall ranking so that people can see what their ranking is and also so they can check out the explanation. I also asked for a link to my page from the FAI page, but that has not quite happened yet http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/wpr.htm is where the new ranking can be found.

Canungra Classic »

Sat, Oct 5 2002, 2:00:00 pm EDT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Zupanc)

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

http://www.triptera.com.au/canungra/classic2002/

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

Canungra finished with a bit of a fizzer, the last day was canned due to dud conditions, overcast in the wrong places and it then started blowing over the back, by which time it was too late to go anywhere else. Had a great fly yesterday though.

(editor’s note: Final results can be found at the URL above or on the last Oz Report OzReport.com/Ozv6n203.shtml.)

More Sports

Wed, Sep 25 2002, 12:00:01 pm EDT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|USHGA

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tove Heaney|USHGA

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Tove Heaney|USHGA

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tove Heaney|USHGA

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tove Heaney|USHGA|Zupanc)

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tove Heaney|USHGA

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

In case you might get the wrong impression, Tove is part of the Comps Committee, and I believe it was her idea to run the three classes at a national level comp. It's just that the rules were in place and it was all sorted out well in advance, but then there was some very vocal opposition to the idea, which was a bit of a bummer to deal with.

(editor’s note: I expect that there will be opposition to any of the proposed additions to the USHGA competition format as it currently stands.)

More Sports

Tue, Sep 24 2002, 2:00:01 pm EDT

Jim Lee|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Nick Kennedy|Russ Locke|USHGA

Jim Lee|John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Nick Kennedy|Russ Locke|USHGA

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|Jim Lee|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Nick Kennedy|Russ Locke|USHGA

Jim Lee|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Nick Kennedy|Russ Locke|USHGA

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Jim Lee|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Nick Kennedy|Russ Locke|USHGA

Jim Lee|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Nick Kennedy|Russ Locke|USHGA|Zupanc)

Jim Lee|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Nick Kennedy|Russ Locke|USHGA

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

The kingpost - floater - open class idea has been around for some time. It first appeared in our competition manual in 1998; however it was only used occasionally for social competitions.

We had a major problem in terms of declining competition participation in our major events. The onset of the topless glider meant that without a new (expensive) glider, you were not competitive, so the Competition Committee came up with a somewhat radical concept of using the glider sub classes in our manual in a three class "national level" competition, whereby there would be different sanction levels given to different glider sub classes which would actually favor pilots flying kingposted gliders, to a small extent.

Our calculations figured that this favoritism would not affect the top end of our national ranking, but it should make a difference to the guys who are not trying to be National Champions (those with kingposted gliders!). The plan was to use the three tiered comp to get some of these old timers back to a national level competition.

There was considerable debate and some very vocal opposition to the idea, but it went ahead anyway, and it turned out to be something of a success. Lots of the old timers did dust themselves off and come out to play, our national team did not suddenly get replaced by a bunch of grey haired pilots with kingposts and the competition went well (except for the mug who had to score 150 pilots in three different competitions :-).

nick kennedy «nkavalancheranch» writes:

Well I got 12 emails from pilots who liked the sports class idea!

Right now we have a: RW, Flex and Swift Classes.

1. At the next year’s comps if the powers that be chose to have a RW and Flex Sports Class. That’s it! Just leave it at that.

And call it that, because that is what it is!

2. Options on scoring I came up with: Flex Sports Class: Kingpost add 20% to score. 45 years of age, add 10%, 50 years of age, add 15%, 55 years of age, add 20%,female add 20%.

RW Sports class: add the above except, of course, the kingpost which is non existent.

So, a lady pilot 50 years old flying a kingpost gets 35% added to her Sports Class score. These are carrots to encourage pilots to attend in spite of age and gear.

3. Let the sports class task committee pick its own task after the RW and Flex task are called.

4. For the 1st year give everyone a nominal numbers of points to kick start the scoring system (it does not matter, say give everyone who enters Sports Class for the 1st time a 100 sports class national points).

5. Score it just like NTSS is now and publish the Sports Class results. Maybe call it USSC points (United States Sports Class).

6. Make up some general rules that make sense and then set it in stone for a given time say 2-3 years (to let it stew) so it does not get overly political and over tweaked by self righteous types.

What not to do: 1. don’t handicap gliders, the point is to just have shorter tasks; landing at the same goal as everyone else. Handicapping gliders is the world’s biggest headache and is not the point.

I will be atLakePowell this week with JZ, Russ Locke, Jim Lee, and Tip Rodgers and I'm going to interview these guys and then write up a proper proposal to give to you guys and the rest of the Competition Committee. I'm going to try and keep it simple, easy to understand, fun and dangle some carrots out in front of people!

When I was a comp director in the past I did try a call more makeable tasks and let me tell you the bulk of the field liked it, which is good because we have to keep in mind that these is where the bulk of the entry fees come from, that fund the whole event. We have to keep in mind that even a short race is a race. To win the sports class you will have to have a good start, pick the best thermals fly good lines and plan and fly a final glide. Hell most of the guys out there now don't even get to the final glide part which is a real bummer because it is the most fun!!

(editor’s note: Now we have three separate proposals for adding additional competition subgroups. This is democracy in action.

One proposal adds to additional glider classes – floater and king posted. One adds a separate competition within the normal competition based on pilot preference for shorter task length and perhaps other pilot considerations. The third adds a new pilot competition class separate from the existing competition class that uses NTSS points.

Maybe we’ll have a chance to see which if any of these proposals meets with favor at the upcoming USHGA BOD meeting.)

The Alternate WPRS

Thu, Aug 29 2002, 1:00:07 pm EDT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Zupanc)

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

It is all together, basically waiting for all the data to be entered (huge job, because it has to go back 3 years) and also took a bit of time to get the system sorted so that Thierry can get the data on to the web easily. (Thierry is quite handy with a computer!)

It should be appearing (both class 1 and 3) on the FAI server soon (famous last words) Class 2 and 5 will happen after Class 1 and 3 is online.

Girls⁣ just wanna have fun »

Sun, Jun 2 2002, 4:00:01 am EDT

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|CIVL|Dennis Pagen|girls|Jamie Shelden|Jamie Sheldon|John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Paula Bowyer|record|Ron Gleason

Girls⁣ just wanna have fun

People who are far away and are basically just stumbling around in the dark are not going to be making very good decisions. This is a story about some people like that, the CIVL Bureau This is a story about how this CIVL Bureau almost screwed the US women’s team.

This is also a story of how the CIVL Bureau acted in manner to discourage a women from competing when she was completely qualified to compete. In fact, much more qualified than many others to compete at the highest level. This is not something we need in our sport.

Jamie Sheldon is a USfemale pilot whose been flying in an Exxtacy in competitions in the US. We get to see her a lot and have a pretty good idea of her excellent flying skills. She is the only female pilot flying rigids in competitions.

This spring a number of us talked to her about flying flex wings on the US Women’s National team at the Worlds in Chelan. We had heard that there wouldn’t be enough women on the team to make a full team and we felt that Jamie would make a strong addition to the team given how well she was flying. We knew that she had been flying the Moyes Litesport in Floridaand had plenty of flex wing experience. In fact she had been talking about only flying flex wings.

Finally she agreed to see if she could fly on the US Women’s Team after checking out who would be going to Chelan. We all thought that this would substantially improve the chances of the team winning in Chelan.

But first, like most women, Jamie had to get an exemption from CIVL to fly in the Worlds. It is a requirement of CIVL that in order to fly in a Category 1 meet like the Worlds you need to have finished in the top 2/3 rd’s of a Category 2 competition – for example, the big UScompetitions. Most women have not been able to do this.

If you don’t meet this requirement, you have to meet other requirements. Jamie was familiar with this process, because she had attempted to get an exemption before so that she could fly her Exxtacy in Spainat the Worlds in 2001.

Jamie wanted to apply for the exemption before she went to the 2001 Worlds, but Jim Zeiset and Dennis Pagen told her that this the meet organizers never check these things and that the CIVL never enforces the rules regarding qualification so I didn't need to bother applying for one. She argued that she did, but they were convinced that it didn’t matter, so finally she went to Europeto fly in the 2001 Worlds without an exemption. Of course, in Spainshe found out that the meet organizers did indeed check and that CIVL was now enforcing this provision. She ended up flying after all the competitors were off the hill (not that she was happy about this).

Jamie sent in her request for an exemption to fly in the 2002 Women’s Worlds in Chelan. She also answered a questionnaire about her skills (although it turns out that this is not necessary but I will go into that in a minute). This is CIVL’s response (Paula Bowyer sent this out) on May 10th:

Sorry to say Jamie has not been granted an exemption. Her case was discussed at length by several members of the Bureau. If you object strongly I will set out the reasons but the decision will not change, I hope she will still enjoy her flying though and will get better in more competitions.

Okay, she wasn’t qualified to fly in the Women’s Worlds. But, what is with this, we will tell you the reasons if you ask, but you can’t make us change our minds? I sure wouldn’t have put it that way if I were the CIVL Bureau.

Well, just exactly are the qualifications? If we look at the local rules for the 2002 Women’s Worlds that were approved by the CIVL Plenary, we can see the requirements:

3. 3.1 Exceptions

Application for any exceptions to these eligibility rules must be made by the pilot’s NAC, with supporting evidence of the pilot’s international competition history. This should be received by the CIVL PR Officer (currently Paula Bowyer, email - https://OzReport.com/emailer.php?toName=paula&code=7061756p612061742066616920646s74206s7267) at least 60 days before the Championship,

There is currently a standing exception in Women’s World Championships for which previous cross-country requirements will continue to be accepted. These are detailed at Annex B.

Annex B to Local Regulations

Requirements for Women’s World Championships

Pilot Name:

Date and location of Birth:

a) Has the pilot finished in the top 2/3 of a HG event ? If yes, name and date of the HG event ? Ranking of the pilot ?

b) Has the pilot received the Delta Silver Badge or flown the equivalent of 100 km? If yes, date, location, precise distance and witnesses ?

c) In case, the answers to a) and b) are NO, please fill in the following questionnaire :

Had Jamie flown 60 miles (like in one flight)? Oh yah, like a whole bunch of times. If you read these rules it is an open and shut case, Jamie qualifies for the 2002 Women’s Worlds. You’ll notice that she doesn’t have to worry about the questionnaire either.

Ron Gleason, the National team leader at the 2002 Worlds, wrote back to Paula asking what the reasons were for Jamie’s rejection. Her reply on May 12th was:

Jamie was not up to the standard in Algo - and knew she wasn't. She was being pushed by Jim Zeiset to enter and expressed relief when not granted a (belated) exemption.

(editor’s note: Paula is referring to the 2001 Worlds here. Jamie completely denies the accusations.)

Her record since then does not show either improvement or much experience with gaggle flying. It seems she is happy at a tow meet as she does not have to mix it with others - and a safe pilot at a hill meet because she can opt to launch when the crowds have gone.

OK, she might gain valuable experience at Chelan. On the other hand, it's not supposed to be a training experience - that's what Cat 2 events are for. Add to that possible lack of recent flex wing experience - which isn't really a safety issue but is perhaps a standard indicator and a sign that she has not been focusing solely on the Worlds.

You’ve got to wonder where they got all this supposition and what it had to do with meeting the written requirements for an exemption for the Women’s Worlds.

Now to be fair, this is another set of requirements for an exemption that is detailed in the CIVL Sporting Code. It is a bit more rigorous than the requirements for the Women’s Worlds, but it turns out Jamie easily meets those criteria also. I won’t publish all those requirements because this article is already long.

On May 16th I wrote to Paula after I had ready the above e-mails from her and CIVL. I quoted the message above and asked:

I am going to be writing an article about this issue.

Is this really what you want to say?

I know all the US women pilots. Jamie is better than all the other women pilots other than Kari.

I think CIVL wants to look better than this.

I may have been underrating a few good USwomen flex wing pilots, but I think I got most of that right. Paula wrote back on May 16th:

I would ask that you withhold publication on this until discussions with Ron are completed, as it was between CIVL and the national aero club representative and was not in the public domain. I hope you respect my viewpoint on this, I thought we were developing a working relationship, and I was prepared to give you the inside track on non confidential info in CIVL, but that also implies a degree of responsibility from you, when you receive something you know should not be published. Hope you see my point on this,

On May 17th I wrote back to Paula:

Someone that you haven't referred in your e-mail gave this to me. As I now have it there are no ethical issues re publishing it. I hope you understand that.

I have been asked by Ron to withhold anything while he works with you. Another e-mail that I received indicated that that was useless, perhaps it is not.

I am not publishing anything at this moment, but I am under no obligation implied or otherwise to withhold anything. My obligation is to the hang gliding community to paint a true picture of their national and international organizations. It is your obligation to make CIVL look as good as possible.

I await CIVL's actions, which always speak louder than words.

Paula responded on the 18th:

{..} It is your obligation to make CIVL look as good as possible. :-)

Blimey, an uphill struggle there then :-)

I'm still waiting for the facts from Ron. I'm sure you'll know when anything happens.

On May 25th I got a message from Jamie Sheldon when I asked her if she had heard anything. She wrote later that:

I was told that the CIVL believed you were "threatening to expose the inner workings of the CIVL," and that it made me pretty unhappy that they were so concerned about this.

Jamie couldn’t wait to "expose the inner workings of the organization."

On June 1st Paula sent out the following message:

The Bureau has discussed Jamie's exemption again and will grant her application on the understanding she works on her take-offs. The original decision was made because several members of the Bureau were concerned about her lack of current experience on a flex wing, it had nothing to do with how she ranked against the other American Women.

To avoid this time-consuming discussion in the future, please can you ask all pilots to

a) think ahead and try to qualify via a Cat 2 competition

b) (Women) show some recent competition experience in the class they want to compete in

c) If exemptions are to be applied for, give as much information about the current and recent experience as you possibly can in the first instance.

Rules for exemptions are likely to be revised/clarified at the next Plenary meeting so please check the outcome of that debate!

Look forward to meeting you in Chelan, and all the Women’s team

Jamie wrote:

Unbelievable, isn't it? We can talk about the whole thing when you get a chance. I'm still pretty disgusted with the way the CIVL handled this.

On June 2nd I got the following message from Jamie:

My grievance with the CIVL Bureau has less to do with their decision to grant or not grant an exemption, but more to do with their decision making process and the way they handled the issue in terms of their communications.

First, the initial message denying the exemption didn't give any indication as to their reasoning, just a statement that if we "felt strongly" about the refusal, that they would provide the reasons, but that the "decision would not change." I was quite surprised not only that they wouldn't give me the exemption, but more so at the tone of the message. Rather than a statement that they couldn't grant the exemption for reasons X, Y and Z, they simply said no and told me the decision was final. The fact that they wouldn't give the reasons up front made me wonder what was up.

The second email message responding to Ron's request for the specific reasons for the denial was as strange as the first. It specifically stated that there were no safety issues, but the problem was more my performance, that I was "a safe pilot at a hill meet because I could opt to launch when the crowds were gone" and that my "possible" lack of flex wing experience "wasn't really a safety issue but perhaps a standard indicator and a sign that I have not been focusing solely on the worlds."

First, I was surprised by the apparent focus on my competition performance rather than whether I was safe to fly in the Women's Worlds. After all, my understanding was that exemptions specifically address those pilots who have not placed in the top 2/3 at a major competition. Why would they be concerned about my performance? Obviously, if I need an exemption, I haven't done well enough to qualify - that's why I need the exemption in the first place! I had thought the only concern was safety.

Second, I wondered where the Bureau might have received the specific information on my flying skills. I assumed that the comment regarding their perception that I was afraid of gaggles must have come from someone who knows me, otherwise, the CIVL would simply be making some sort of random guess. Looking at the makeup of the Bureau, the only person who has any firsthand knowledge of my flying experience is Dennis Pagen. The other members are people that I have never even met and that have never been around me during a competition or at any other time for that matter. As for my actual flex wing experience, I flew flexies for 7 years before switching to rigids, primarily foot launching. I have hundreds of hours and literally thousands of flex wing foot launches, many from launch sites over 9000 ft. (without a single blown launch) and plenty of gaggle flying and cross country experience.

I spoke with Dennis who indicated that not only did he provide only positive comments about my skills (he had voted to grant the exemption), but in fact, he hadn't even been included in any of the "lengthy discussions" among the Bureau members. This confused me even more. I admit I don't know much about the workings of the CIVL, but I would have assumed (up until now) that the person with the most relevant information about my skills and safety record would be the person who has witnessed, first hand, my competition flying. When Dennis and I spoke, he said that he specifically remembered seeing me in the middle of the gaggles and that it had never been his perception that I was afraid of gaggle flying. So, the one voting member that had relevant first hand knowledge wasn't included in the discussions. That didn't seem right to me.

As for the belief that I was being pressured by Jim Zeiset to fly at the Worlds inSpain, I was just baffled. I don't know what Bureau member came up with this one, but all I could do was laugh at it. JZ had a similar response.

The bottom line is this: Regardless of the decision to grant or deny an exemption, I am less than pleased with the way the CIVL has handled the matter. In addition to coming up with incorrect information about my flying from who knows where, failing to include in the discussions the one voting member who would have relevant first hand knowledge, and failing to follow their own guidelines regarding granting exemptions, throughout this process they have been strangely secretive about the whole decision, as if they did not want to have to justify what they were doing. This is what makes me very unhappy! Are they not here for us? Why do they not want the general hang gliding population to know and understand their decisions?

It was made clear to me early on when I started discussing this problem with you Davis, that if there was anything published in the Oz Report that it would piss off the CIVL and possibly result in them not reconsidering my case at all. In fact, early on I was excluded from all email discussions between Ron and the Bureau, presumably because of their concern that I would make the matter public. This really bothers me. Why is this information so confidential? Why should they be embarrassed by a decision they make if it is based in reality and without political bias? Asking the CIVL to explain or justify a decision they have made should not cause this kind of reaction. I am puzzled by their apparent desire to work in secret as well as their disgust when the very people they are supposed to be serving want to make things public. There is no logical reason why this information should not be disseminated, aside from the CIVL's concern that we don't make them look bad. If they're going to look bad as a result of a decision, then maybe it was not the best decision in the first place.

I am happy that they have decided to give me the exemption after all and hope this message doesn't change that :-) As you know, I wanted to discuss this matter in hopes that there is some chance that they will handle these types of matters better in the future.

I think the e-mail exchanges pretty much speak for themselves (which is why I love to get copies of e-mail. I feel like the Justice Department with some Microsoft/Bill Gates e-mails.)

CIVL is so far out of it (that is it has very little in the field experience with what is actually going on with all these competitions and whose who) that it just can’t be expected to make reasonable decisions. I know that Dennis has the experience, and I really respect Zupy who while often is not in the competitions is there scoring the meets and interacting with the pilots. Dennis was the only pilot familiar enough with Janie to have any idea about her skills.

Oh well, we can only bring these issues up and hope that people have a chance to learn.

Who’s on first?

Sun, May 5 2002, 7:00:05 pm GMT

Jim Bowyer|John Aldridge|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Paula Bowyer|Russ Locke|Juraj Sladk

http://www.cloudbase.org/Chelanworlds

Paula Bowyer <paula@fai.org> writes:

There seems to be some confusion over the info of who is doing what at Chelan.

Jury president: Jim Bowyer. Jury members: Zupy Zupanc & Juraj Sladk

Steward: John Aldridge

According to the published Chelan local rules:

International Jury: President Jim Bowyer –U.K.

Stewards: John Aldridge –U.K., Russ Locke –USA

Discuss "Who’s on first?" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Mark+Enter – the firestorm »

Mon, Apr 15 2002, 5:00:01 pm EDT

CIVL|Florida|Ivan Twose|Mark+Enter|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Moura Velloso|PG|photo|record|Tim Cummings

CIVL|Florida|Ivan Twose|Mark+Enter|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Moura Velloso|PG|photo|record|Tim Cummings

(Zupy|Zupanc)|CIVL|Florida|Ivan Twose|Mark+Enter|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Moura Velloso|PG|photo|record|Tim Cummings

CIVL|Florida|Ivan Twose|Mark+Enter|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Moura Velloso|PG|photo|record|Tim Cummings|Zupanc)

CIVL|Florida|Ivan Twose|Mark+Enter|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Moura Velloso|PG|photo|record|Tim Cummings

Well our little discussion really generated some interest. There are two issues – whether it is really feasible to cheat with Mark+Enter and whether one should trust the pilots not to do this. I’m of the trust camp re this issue. I don’t see how any hang glider pilot could live with himself if he were to alter his GPS to make sure that he got a waypoint within a cylinder.

Any way, here’s what others have to say:

D Tim Cummings «timcu» writes:

When you Mark+Enter on a Garmin GPS there is no indelible time stored. A time is downloaded, but on a lot of Garmin models it is meaningless (some time in 1989) and on the others I think it is the time that Enter was pressed, not the time that Mark was pressed. Regardless, Garmin documentation says it is also meaningless and was only put in there when they were debugging their original software.

A timestamp to the nearest minute is stored in the description field of the waypoint, but of course this can be edited.

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

The Australian Comps are run with Australian rules, which mean that "mark + enter" is Ok. Whenever the track log verification program "fails" a pilot, it is investigated as to why, and this is where pilots with a "mark + enter" are awarded the TP (if appropriate). The "mark + enter" concept is somewhat unpopular at CIVL level, so Ivan is correct in having the default setting that rejects these pilots.

How other comps are run is up to the other comp organisers and their appropriate rules.

On the subject of cheating, I would be interested to find out how many pilots have gaps in their track logs at theFlorida comps (with GAP 2002, switching off your track log at appropriate times will improve your score)

I agree that there can be problems if the various programs do things in a way that the operator cannot check, and if necessary, modify what is going on. I am not sure as to how GAP 2002 /CompeGPS V4.0 goes in this regard.

However. Things are not quite so clear with the "mark + enter" procedures. Different Garmin software versions handle the time stamps differently. Some do it the second, some to the minute and some do strange things! Using "mark + enter" is somewhat "agricultural" but it is handy for pilots with low track point storage.

On the subject of photos as GPS backup, when the (current) GPS rules were debated in a working group at CIVL (year ago) I wanted to have the option of using photos as backup if the comp organiser wished to do so. This was refused. I argued that it would be rare that an organiser would want this (for example, Bassano) and this method is nothing new as we have used it inAustralia for some time. We have error correction procedures for when TP coordinates do not properly match the physical feature, but to no avail. The idea was still refused.

Ivan Twose «ivan.twose» writes:

1. When you Mark+Enter the time is registered to the minute.

The Old Garmin 38, stored the time in two places: One in the waypoint comment, and the other in an internal field. From the PC, you could read this value. But Garmin decided not to do this any more. The Garmin-12 does not store the time there. I tested again today in my PC, and the Garmin12 I have, returns a zero for this time value. I have documentation from Garmin that says that this field is 'unused'. I don’t have any Garmin 38 to test this right now.

The time is recorded as a comment, like this:15-APR-0211:15 In my Garmin12, CRTD11:33 15-APR-02 In my Garmin III

Angelo wrote: 2. “If you modify the Mark+Enter point the time of modification or downloading is registered (even if you do it from a computer and then you download it to the GPS)”

I can modify the coordinates of a waypoint with my own, and not change the comment. The computer will not know if I modified or not.

Ok, now we now that it is possible to cheat. I could suppose no one is going to cheat, and make some changes in Compe-GPS to read the comment of the waypoints. (Its not easy, look the Garmin-12 and III, the comment has a different format!).

But, I cannot add the point directly to the track, because I don’t know the seconds of the point.

When I made my first Compe-GPS in year 98, I wanted a secure system, because people were a bit afraid of the GPS-system, so I decided to ignore the Mark-Enter possibility. (In that time, people did not believe in GPS, there was the SA error, etc. So I made a 'secure' system, only working with the track).

Last year, designing version 3.0 of Compe-GPS for the WAG´s, Juaki and I decided to draw all the pilot’s mark-enter waypoints in screen, but let the judge to decide if the point are ok or not.

These are my conclusions. I don’t say paragliding pilots will cheat. I only want you to know that this possibility exists. Now, we can all together decide what to do.

José Luiz Moura Velloso «joseluiz» writes:

I have to disagree with you about validating Mark + Enter in competitions. It should not be used, because it is very easy to cheat with Mark+Enter. In the last Oz Report you write that Mark+Enter has a time stamp. The problem is that, in Garmin GPS, you could change the waypoints coordinates (in the GPS or with a computer) without changing the timestamp, and even change the timestamp.

When you download the waypoints to the computer, you'll have no means to know if a coordinate was changed (by the way, tracklogs are safe: you can't insert manually a track log point in the GPS, and if you do that in a computer, the timestamp will be zeroed).

I have made several experiments, and no software was able to detect the changes (I tried my own software, used in competitions inBrazil, Compe-GPS, and CheckIT,). There are several ways you can cheat with Mark+Enter. I will show you one of them, where you don't need a computer. It's so easy, you can do it flying!

1. Suppose you're in a task with cylinder turnpoints, with 400 m radius.

2. Let's assume that for this turnpoint, you came from a direction and go back over the same approximate route. When you're about 200 m before the cylinder, press Mark+Enter, turn and go to the next cylinder. You will gain 400 meters, which is more than enough to give you a good advantage.

3. To cheat, you must make the Mark+Enter you did move from the original position to a new position inside the cylinder. You can do this anytime before you give your GPS to be checked.

4. To move the waypoint, you should first look at the turnpoint coordinate. Then find the new waypoint, and change it. The Mark+Enter coordinates will be very close to the turnpoint (probably it will change only the final digits). You should change the coordinates so the new coordinate will be average of the turnpoint and the Mark+Enter (ex: turnpoint: N 20o 45.200, Mark+Enter: N 20o 45.600 You should change the Mark+Enter to N 20o 45.400). You're inside the cylinder!

5. This change will not change the time stamp (which is saved in the comment field on Garmin GPS 12), so the GPS program will not know that you changed the coordinates.

Some remarks:

* even if you forgot to press Mark+Enter near the turnpoint, you can do this after you land, and change the timestamp (it's in the comment field).

* I choose to turn back 200 m before because it is the time that you can safely do this cheating with a Garmin 12 GPS, with a track being recorded each 30 seconds (the limit the GPS program will accept as valid)..

* if the legs before and after the turnpoint are 90 degrees apart, you can leave for the new turnpoint before the 200 m.

* If you have a computer it is much more easier to cheat. You can download your tracklog to the computer, create a new waypoint exactly at the cylinder boundary, look at the timestamps of your tracklog near the cylinder and change the timestamp of the new waypoint (to make things unsafer, the Mark+Enter timestamp don't save seconds, only minutes! So there is no problem with precise timing here).

So, as you can see, Mark+Enter should not be allowed in competitions because they're so easy to cheat. The only argument to use it would be to trust that no pilots would cheat with this. But you will totally trust the pilots, there would be no need also to check the tracklogs, you could only trust in the pilot's word that they did the turnpoint.

Clive Belbin «belbinclive» writes:

I looked into the reliability of Mark+Enter about 18 months ago - this snippet from an email that I wrote at the time tells you how to do it:

"...that useful feature I mailed you about recently - the one where you can create a waypoint in the Map screen when in Pan mode - It seems to me that this makes it pretty easy to forge a marked waypoint in sector; all you need to do is:

i) Realise you didn't get in sector even with a marked waypoint taken at the time,

ii) pan to a point on the snail trail that is in sector and reasonably close to the snail trail,

iii) press goto, press enter,

iv) access the waypoint list,

v) identify the waypoint which you marked when you thought you were in sector (e.g. 013),

vi) edit waypoint 013 and use the REF section to make it 0.0km from the MAP waypoint,

vii) remove the reference to MAP from the REF section on waypoint 013.

viii) to really cover your tracks, delete waypoint MAP.

Waypoint 013 will now have the same coordinates as MAP but will have its original timestamp."

If it really mattered, you could amend the waypoint's time-stamp by a couple of seconds, perhaps after examining your track-log, but don't delete the colon separator as it's not available to re-enter.

If the miscreant was just a few metres outside and modified the marked point as above, I think it would be quite difficult to identify the forgery by fitting a curve to the available track points (although I haven't produced an exhaustive proof of this!).

I’ve got just one word - Nylon

Fri, Mar 22 2002, 3:00:03 pm EST

Angelo Crapanzano|Bob Hanna|Bob Hannah|CIVL|Mark "Forger" Stucky|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|nylon

Well a number of you took me to task about Bob Hannah’s suggestion regarding alternatives to Nylon.

Mark Stucky «stucky_mark» writes:

Vectran is amazing stuff. We used a 1000ft length of ¾" Vectran for the tow rope when I was towed in the F-106 behind a C-141. It doesn't have much elongation under load (you want some shock absorption and this was the argument against using steel cable for hang straps) but I figure the long nylon webbing of the harness would probably absorb enough.

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

Maybe this is confusing wording. The "normal material" just states the material that is commonly used in most existing hang straps. 8mm rope has 50mm2 cross section. Trying to keep exotic materials and metal connections (because of the lack of "give" and the resulting shock loads) out of the picture for the "main."

Bill Belcourt «bill» points to the article that I’ve put up on my web site at: www.davisstraub.com/Glide/2000_international_technical_res.htm. The conclusion of this report (on materials used for climbing) is:

The decrease in strength with use is a worry for any of the Technora, Kevlar or Vectran materials. The Gemini and the Spectra-A are also extremely stiff, difficult to tie and untie, and an 18 foot piece makes a bulky object hanging from the harness. They make excellent chock cord (where a stiff cord is desirable), but would make a poor cordelette. We think that Titan is a suitable material for this application. The webolette is an elegant solution to multi-point anchors and also good, although we'd prefer to see slightly higher strength on the single-strand arms. Last, nylon cord and webbing is cheap, strong, universally available, and seems to have virtually unlimited flex life.

Angelo Crapanzano «angelo» writes:

Well, I often don't agree or understand CIVL rules too but, in this case, there is a reason to use Nylon. Its elasticity is around 4 to 8 times more than Vectran, Spectra or Kevlar. A hangstrap must mainly absorb shock loads and elasticity (i.e. elongation) is mandatory. The shock load depends a lot on the elasticity. If the elasticity was "zero" then the smallest shock load would bring the load to "infinite." Also because of its elasticity, Nylon is, generally speaking, more resistant to fatigue (repetitive shock loads) than more rigid fibres.

At the beginning of hang gliding started the fashion to use 4 or 5 mm steel cables but, after a few accidents it was discovered that, under a shock load, they where breaking easier than a Nylon rope which was nominally less strong.

The test was made in a very crude but perfect way. A harness was loaded with about the weight of a normal pilot then suspended from a very rigid point. The harness was lifted about one meter and let fall. The steel cable broke like nothing while the Nylon webbing did not.

The experience tells us there is also a reason for a back-up rope: several years ago a friend of mine, to adjust the hang point on his brand new glider routed the original hang strap in an unusual way: the webbing was cut in flight after half an hour and he was lucky he had borrow one bad looking strap just before taking off.

I agree that on rigid wings the hang strap is so short that its actual elasticity may look not so important, but elasticity counts quite a lot on knots too. Nylon loses over 40% of his strength in a knot while Kevlar loses 70%. A similar problem comes with stitching. If the webbing is reasonably elastic, the load would spread on more stitches while if it's too rigid the load would be on few stitches which will break one after the other (and if the material is stronger, at equal strength there is less room for stitches too).

Please note the elasticity is needed on the harness main strap too, where it's even more important because it's longer (this is yet another requirement to think about when designing a rigid hang strap).

Safety is important and where is the problem if, in competition, all of us has the same drag due to hang straps and cables?

Discuss "I’ve got just one word - Nylon" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

No thin wires allowed in Florida meets

Sat, Mar 16 2002, 2:00:03 pm EST

Florida|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Florida|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Florida|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Florida|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Zupanc)

Florida|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

There was a motion to implement these rules immediately (the wording was "at the end of the Plenary) on the grounds that safety is more important than procedure. The motion was sent around earlier this week, so it is a fairly new thing

I have no objections to this except that the pilots need to be told first!! I have not seen anything published about this, so I am not too sure how many pilots know about (none, I suspect). I believe Dennis has contacted the various manufacturers to inform them of this.

HANG GLIDING SAFETY STANDARDS

Purpose The purpose of these standards is to insure a certain minimum level of structural integrity and pilot safety in class 1, 2 and Class 5 Hang Gliders.

In general hang gliders should comply with the load test certification standards of, the HGMA, BHPA or DHV, or similar testing body. Where dimensional limits are applied to structures, these have been chosen such that adequate strength is achievable with materials currently in use.

Reduced strength due to use of unconventional materials meeting these dimensional limits is the competitors responsibility. Where relevant the conventional material is stated.

These standards override the certified configuration of a glider.

Structural limits

· Minimum diameter of any structural external wire cables is 1.9 mm or 5/64 inches.

· Where an external compression strut is braced with rigging wires they must attach within 10cm of the point were the compression load is applied.

· Side-wires shall attach to A-frames at no more than 10cm above the plane of the control tube, measured when the glider is resting on a horizontal surface.

· If a control bar is made of materials other than metal, it must have an internal steel rigging cable that serves as a structural backup.

· The pilot suspension must include a non-metallic load bearing material of minimum 50 mm2 cross-section area (normal material Nylon woven webbing with 1000kg breaking strain). The attachment loop must have a backup, which bypasses any mechanical devices and either the main, or backup must be non-metallic.

· A rescue parachute must be capable of deployment by both the right and left hand of the pilot in a normal flying attitude is mandatory.

References to compression struts and rigging wires refers to the loads placed on parts of a glider by flight stresses. Gliders with cantilevered wings do not apply compression loads to the uprights, while in general, Class 1 gliders do have uprights which are under compression in flight.

Control cables are not deemed to be structural.

Any external part of the glider which has compression loads placed upon it during flight is an “external compression strut”, and therefore bracing wires attached to it shall conform to these rules.

Where the terminology or definitions which are used in these rules are in question with any particular glider, the relevant protest committee will provide a ruling.

Ballast

A competing glider may carry jettisonable ballast only in the form of fine sand or water. A pilot must avoid dropping ballast at any time or in a manner likely to affect other competing gliders or third parties. For PG competition, the total ballast, including all flight equipment and the glider must not exceed 33 kilograms in addition to the pilot’s weight. The Pilot’s weight is defined as body weight when dressed in jeans, shirt and underwear.

GAP 2002 »

Mon, Mar 11 2002, 1:00:01 am GMT

Angelo Crapanzano|Compe-GPS|GAP 2002|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Tim Cummings

Angelo Crapanzano comes up with his latest version of the GAP scoring system, GAP 2002. He, like Tim Cummings and Zupy in Australia, is trying to address the issue of getting the pilots to get out on the course before the day gets old.

If you have a close look at how the departure points are designed now, you'll see it's an area (distance * time). Because the distance is the same for everybody this means that the departure bonus is just a speed bonus in a race which starts from the start time of the pilot who gets to goal first.

I'm sure that GAP2002 is quite an improvement and will change pilots' behavior in the right direction :-)

In my opinion the new departure bonus will prove valuable and the available points should have been increased (at the expenses of distance points). I've not done it because pilots need time to get accustomed, but I'm sure in one or two years pilots will ask for many more departure points

Pilot Departure Bonus Points, better known as the "early bird bonus" are provided to encourage the pilots to take off early and reward the risk involved in being in the leading group. This bonus is the only modification in GAP2000 over GAP 2000 and now accurately rewards the pilots which are leading and using the earlier part of the day (so as not to waste useful thermals by standing around thinking about getting ready to launch).

Using GAP 2002 pilots will get departure points even if they land short of goal. GAP2002 (if used in conjunction with the latest version of Compe-GPS) considers the track logs of all the pilots who started and calculates the Leading Coefficient (Lc) by comparing the area included between each track log and the start line (i.e. the horizontal line going through the earliest start time, among pilots completing the speed section – i.e. usually means getting to goal). If other programs are used to validate the track logs then, for each pilot, a straight line from start to arrival (or landing) will be considered, but results will be less accurate.

In the graphic above, Red started first but Blue was the first pilot crossing the goal line. Yellow lead for a good portion of the task, but landed short. Brown took the least time to get to goal (thus will get the most speed points), but started late. He likely had pilots in front to show him the thermals, thus he will get less departure points.

In the case of a pilot landed short (like Yellow and Turquoise) his track log is completed with a straight line from his landing to the latest possible arrival time (goal closing time). This way a pilot landing just short of goal would be less penalised and could even get full departure points if he lead for a significant portion of the task.

If a pilot (Turquoise) starts before the start line, his Leading Coefficient is calculated from the horizontal dotted line passing through his own start time. The pilot who best used the earliest part of the day (i.e. Blue, who shows the smallest area) gets all the available departure points, while the others gets their points according to the same formula used for the speed points (and for the same reasons).

If the task in the example is full value, lasted about 2.5 hours and 30% of pilots made the finish line, then Blue will get all of the available 81 departure points. Yellow gets 65 departure points, despite the fact that he landed out, because he was leading for quite a while. Red gets 49 departure points because he started early but was not fast enough. Brown gets full speed points but receives only 18 departure points because he started quite late. Turquoise gets 15 departure points, to reward the risk of starting early.

Keep in mind. Even if a pilot doesn’t get to the goal line he will still get some departure points if he started early enough, was fast enough and landed close enough to the goal line. Even if two pilots started and arrived at the same time the departure points may be different, especially if one pilot was leading for most of the course compared to the other.

Discuss "GAP 2002" at the Oz Report forum   link»

CIVL Sporting code changes

Wed, Feb 13 2002, 12:00:05 am GMT

GAP 2002|Gerolf Heinrichs|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au> writes:

Weight limits

Regarding whether or not ballast should be included in the weight allocation for a HG, Hmm… Actually I would think not, as it…

  • Is not part of the structure
  • Can be said to be simulating a heavy pilot (which, of course is OK)

S7 Proposals

The S7 proposal can be found at; www.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/draft/draft4.zip. The proposal is a zipped word document which is using the "Track Changes" feature. You will notice 1.1 has a change which says that the safety standards and class definitions are to be in force for Cat 2 comps.

Scoring systems

After OzGAP was put together, I sent the idea out to the "GAP" people (Gerolf, Angelo, Paul). Angelo then came up with GAP 2002. I had a few objections concerning some aspects of the system (It relies on assumptions to form conclusions regarding how much a pilot had "lead" during the flight, and it can give points to pilots that launch very early and just hang around (causing congestion) waiting for other pilots to launch which will then give them someone to follow). But I am not saying that GAP 2002 is a bad system, just that OzGAP is better :-)

Only CIVL approved scoring systems can be used in a Cat 1 comp. As far as I am aware, GAP is the only scoring formula that has had such approval (not to sure if that is written down anywhere). Anyhow, When that was decided GAP 98 was the only GAP around, so I guess it really means that GAP 98 is the only scoring formula that can be used in a Cat 1 comp!

There needs to be a list (in chapter 8 of Section 7). This would be a job for a scoring system subcommittee. Later versions of GAP should be specifically added (exclude the earlier versions?), and OzGAP, as well as any other scoring formulas that can be supported with convincing argument

Discuss "CIVL Sporting code changes" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Carbon fiber work

Wed, Feb 13 2002, 12:00:04 am GMT

carbon fiber|Ian Duncan|Jamie Shelden

There was significant response to Jamie Ruiz’s article on beefing up the ATOS. Many pilots with extensive carbon fiber experience had lots to say about Jaime’s methods. I’m afraid that there wasn’t any mutually agreed upon resolution. You can find some of the correspondence on the rigid wing list, which often serves as an adjunct to the Oz Report.

Ian Duncan <compositecreations@bigpond.com> who makes the Moyes Litespeed carbon fiber spars and who has lots of concerns about the curing temperature of composites and how hot these spars get in the hot Australian sun writes:

Just thought I'd point out that Jaime's repair as stated by himself was carried out with a 2:1 epoxy mix… with a Tg of say… 60°C. On a hot day in Florida, given some temperature inertia in the Atos spars, these additions would be all but useless straight after takeoff until the resin cooled. Then repeat the cycle over and over again and before long its always useless. I have sent Jaime an e-mail but thought it prudent to point this out to you in case you thought to follow his instructions… on how not to do a repair.

The Tg is the temperature at which the cured epoxy will resoften. All cured epoxies soften eventually at some temperature. The cure 2:1 systems soften at around 60°C. Black carbonfibre can get up over 100°C in the sun. Even under the cover of your sail the spars can get up around 80°C. At this temp. all your additions are in a soft resin matrix and doing nothing. Think about the consequences of the cycling of softening and hardening and what it will do to your beautiful job especially if there is any movement of the original Atos spar whilst your repairs are soft. Ask your resin supplier what the Tg of your cured resin is!

When we first built carbon spars for Moyes CSX they were quite large diameter and therefore quite stiff. We thought this was great until you think of a pilot tumbling around under a glider or being slammed into the keel in a tuck… Karate Kid with a whole body weight as a fist.

The Litespeed has been subsequently built with spars that flex to smooth out the impact loads. A combination of strength and flex. The Litespeed spars will bend 4 feet before failure.

Apply this theory to an Atos wing with such a deep chord and such a thin laminate and it is not so surprising that the spars will fail under the shock loads of a tumble/tuck. Strengthen the spars along their length only and you apply more load at the centre junction. Something may still give as you have increased the stiffness and therefore the shock loading.

Discuss "Carbon fiber work" at the Oz Report forum   link»

CIVL issues

Mon, Feb 11 2002, 8:00:00 pm EST

Angelo Crapanzano|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|record|USHGA|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Worlds

Angelo Crapanzano|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|record|USHGA|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Worlds

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Angelo Crapanzano|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|record|USHGA|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Worlds

Angelo Crapanzano|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|record|USHGA|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Worlds|Zupanc)

Angelo Crapanzano|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|record|USHGA|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Worlds

Our national CIVL delegates will be meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland the weekend after next to discuss and vote on a number of issues that will effect the competition scene in 2002 and beyond. Few pilots are aware of the significant influence that this international body has on their sport, but its effects can be felt in glider design and manufacturing, competition and world records.

Class Definitions

At the 2001 Plenary (the name for the general meeting of national delegates), all caged gliders (Swifts, Millenniums) were moved in Class IV (along with Class O gliders that were not foot-launchable in nil wind conditions). This allowed the rigid wing hang gliders to compete among themselves (starting in January 2002) without having to compete against the higher performing Swifts.

Last October the USHGA has presented a proposal to the CIVL Bureau (CIVL executive committee ) which moved the ATOS-type gliders in a new Class, Class V, and put the Swifts back in Class II. This proposal was accepted by the Bureau to be proposed at the Plenary in February.

At the recent spring USHGA BOD meeting the Competition Committee approved a revision of the USHGA proposal to be presented at the Plenary that would instead make Class II an open nil wind launchable rigid wing class (not quite sure how this is defined) and still put the ATOS-type gliders in Class V (not quite sure how this is defined).

Plenary delegates will have to decide whether to stick with the class structure that they decided on at the last Plenary (the existing CIVL class structure) or adopt one of these two new proposals (or perhaps another proposal or compromise).

ATOS pilots hope to have a class that is open to rigid wing hang gliders and Swift pilots hope for an open rigid wing class. We’ll see if all their hopes are met.

One thousand meter limit

The USHGA has already proposed to the Bureau, and it has accepted the proposal, to reduce the height over the launch site that one can be towed to to start a long distance world record attempt. Currently it is 2,000 meters. We have proposed that it be reduced to one thousand meters.

We feel that it is an undue burden on tow operations to be basically forced to tow to 2,000 meters for a record attempt. The additional height is just a free ride for 20 or so miles.

The Plenary will get to decide on the recommendation from the Bureau to accept this proposal.

GAP

If you’ve been following the discussion in the Oz Report about the OzGAP system you’ll see that there are possible changes in the works with respect to the scoring system used in almost all CIVL sanctioned meets. There will likely be another proposal from Angelo Crapanzano, one of the original designers of the GAP system, which will attempt to do the same things that the OzGAP system does, i.e. encourage pilots to get out on the course early.

We expect to see OzGAP or some other scoring system like it used at the upcoming US meets, and perhaps at other meets around the world. This will effect pilot group behavior in this meets. CIVL could decide at the next meeting which system to use in upcoming meets.

You can find an explanation of the OzGAP system at http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/manual/departurepoints.pdf and you’ll find the module that you need to add to the Race scoring program to incorporate OzGAP at http://www.hgfa.asn.au/Competition/technical.htm.

New ranking system

At the last Plenary the delegates votes to adopt a new WPRS ranking system. The details of how to apply that system were to be worked out over 2001. Well, now it has been worked out and the delegated will be asked to adopt that actual working system.

The new system takes into account the quality of the pilots who attend the meet, not just the number of pilots who attend.

You can find out about this system at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/wpr.htm. A full explanation of how it works is found at: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/summary.htm.

Changes to the Sporting Code

The ever busy Michael Zupanc has been working on making numerous changes and fixes to the FAI Sport Code Section 7 (which deals with hang gliders). He has sent out draft 1.4 for comments. I don’t know if it is up on the web at any location but you can most likely get a copy from him at«zupy».

One item that Zupy is proposing is to limit the weight of all Class O gliders - hang gliders to 70 kilograms. Don’t know exaxctly what that includes, although it specifically excludes parachutes.

Applying CIVL safety measures to Category 2 competitions

There appears to be some disagreement between the CIVL President and at least some members of the Bureau regarding whether the CIVL safety standards, section 22.2 of Section 7 of the FAI Sporting Code apply to Category 2 competitions, i.e. national competitions.

This had a very direct effect on the results of the recent Australian competitions as some pilots came with 1.5 mm wires and other pilots thought that they weren’t allowed to use these thin wires.

It is my hope that CIVL mandates that these safety standards do indeed apply to Category 2 competitions.

Local regulations at the 2002 Worlds in Chelan

The organizers of the World meets in Chelan will present their proposed local regulations for CIVL approval. You can find a copy of the proposed regulations at http://www.cloudbase.org/chelanworlds/Chelan%20Worlds%20Local%20Regulations.htm

I have raised a number of issues with respect to these rules including the use of a start circle (instead of the proposed start gate and tarp) the use of cylinders (instead of sectors), multiple start times (instead on one single start time), separating the competitions (instead of putting all the rigid wing hang gliders, caged gliders, and women flex wing gliders all together over the Butte for an hour and fifteen minutes). These are just a few of the issues that need to be addressed by CIVL when they look at and vote on whether to approve the local rules.

It is my general feeling after reading the proposed regulations for the Worlds, that they are poorly thought out and not up to date. The meet organizers have very limited experience in international competition and are not aware of the latest developments.

This doesn’t mean that their approach – each task is a race with only one start time, late in the afternoon, isn’t correct, it just means that potential attendees should think long and hard about whether this is what they want and whether they are willing to ask for something different.

OzGAP

Thu, Jan 24 2002, 1:00:03 am EST

Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Zupanc)

Manfred Ruhmer|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael Zupanc«zupy» writes:

Departure points systems are supposed to achieve two goals.

One is to reward the pilots that chose to go early, or more specifically those that take risks by not having any pilots in front of them to act as thermal markers. The other reason for it is to encourage pilots to launch early enough so that even slow pilots have a chance to make goal.

The problems with the old GAP departure points are listed in the OzGAP explanation, so….

Now have a look at some of the problems faced by the system that attempts to sort out who should, or should not get rewarded.

First of all, when looking at bonuses for going early, we only look at the group of pilots that make goal. If the start times of all pilots were used (and bonus points given to all pilots according to how early they launch?) then there would be some interesting repercussions (covered briefly, later).

Take the situation where a pilot launches early, with some others, and follows them all the way to goal (they fly quickly). These other pilots then land just short of the goal, the pilot that followed gets some extra height and makes goal. He is now the first out (from the pilots that make goal) and the first in, but he has not lead at all during the flight. Another situation. The same pilot launches in the same manner (early, with some others), this time he flies slower, is overtaken, but because he is being overtaken, he always has someone in front to spot the thermals. The other pilots that he launches with do not make the goal. He is the first person to leave (from the pilots that make goal). In neither case does this pilot deserve "leading" points because he followed other pilots for the entire flight.

The problem could be solved by analyzing all the track logs and determining from that, exactly who was leading and when and for how long. This is not (at this stage) a feasible idea.

A couple of considerations.

Remember that a pilot that leaves the hill early will not be a "leader" (in general) as he will probably leave with others anyway and/or he will quickly be overtaken. Remember that the guns will tend to fly in the period of time that gives the best racing conditions. In fact, to structure a system that forces them to fly outside optimal thermal conditions is a backward step. The fact that there have been a number of 1000 point scores in the recent competitions is testimony that the guns are not being forced to go “too early”.

In the graph on page 6 of the OzGAP explanation, Steffen did not necessarily lead at all during the flight. He went early, but did he make decisions? Why should he (as opposed to someone else) get all the departure points? The pilots that fly fast must leave gaggles to do so (lead out) a pilot that leaves early and flies slowly is overtaken, then simply follows these leaders, until they disappear in the distance, by which time another faster pilot may have come along, upon which the faster pilot will again lead out. Add to this, the fact that in good flatland conditions, both fast and slow pilots often do not see any other pilots for extended periods of time (they are all leading, both fast pilots and slow ones)

How is this different to any other departure bonus? Risk versus gain.

If you simply gave a 100 point bonus to the first pilot to launch, who would take it up and when? Would they take off as soon as it looks like it will be soarable and just hang around till it gets better? Maybe someone is not intending to stay for the remainder of the competition. They can just launch, go to the bombout paddock and collect their bombout score, plus the maximum departure points because they took off first Would it make sense to base the points that other pilots get on the performance of this pilot?

A well structured system needs to split the gain that a pilot can make by flying late (and playing leap frog) and the risk that a pilot takes by going early

Choice of Benchmark.

The “fastest/first” in benchmark is appropriate for a number of reasons, which altogether sum up to a more practical approach than the somewhat "romantic" notion that a pilot that leaves early (and makes goal) has been a "leader" in the flight.

As I have explained previously, In good flatland conditions pilots spread horizontally and vertically, hence many pilots, both early and late ones will not have anyone in view ahead of them, hence they are "leading", hence the notion that an "early" pilot must be leading, is false.

What are the alternatives?

Previously, the concept of a departure point system was based on your takeoff time. While this may seem the obvious way to go, there are some drawbacks (explained later)

OzGAP works in reverse. You are allocated points according to how soon (compared against the field) you made goal, and how fast you flew.

Look at a Traditional system (one which uses takeoff time in the calculation) Using the idea of taking the takeoff time and then flight time in the calculation (first to leave/first to arrive= 1000 points), you have the situation where a pilot that leaves early (from the pilots that make goal) has good "attributes" in terms of Dep. Points (sounds reasonable). Also, the pilot that arrives early in goal has good "attributes" in terms of Dep. Points (also sounds reasonable). The pilot that is the first to leave (out of the pilots that make goal) and first to arrive will have the maximum Dep. Points. Now there's a snag!

Anyhow, put that aside for the moment and we will have a look at a couple of situations.

A pilot leaves early (out of the pilots that make goal). Of course we always only look at the pilots that make goal because we do not have enough data to make any judgments on the actions of the other pilots. (Unless we use a detailed examination of all the track logs) But, what about the other 70 to 90% of the competition field that took off that day. The pilots that make goal are typically only a portion of the pilots attempting the task, so the pilot who launched early (out of the pilots that make goal) may have been a leader, or he may have been a blood-sucking leach that simply followed every other glider in the sky. We just don't know. Unless there is a detailed analysis of all the track logs we cannot say whether a pilot that leaves early (out of the pilots that make goal) was in fact a leader or a follower. All we can say is that the earlier the pilot goes, the more likely he was to have been a leader, at least early in the flight.

Now put that aside and look at the other side of the story.

Gerolf is flying along, with a group of pilots, and he thinks to himself. If I stick with this group, all I can hope for is a score similar to the pilots in this group. So, he pulls the bar in and gets going. He "leads out" from the gaggle. The faster a pilot is the more he had to have lead-out from whoever he may have been flying with. He should get "leading points", or should he? When he lead-out, he may have been simply flying to another pilot that he saw circling up in front of him. Maybe there was no one in front of him? Again, we just don't have the data to make an accurate assessment on what really went on. We can say that the earlier a pilot arrives in goal, the more likely he was to have been a leader, at least late in the flight.

But all this may be just codswallop!

For all we know, 70% of the competition field may be in front of both of these guys. They may both have been followers, they may have both been leaders. We just don't know. The guy that took of last may have been the only pilot to have flown all by himself. He may have "lead" the entire way, but again we have no way of saying this for sure. Anyhow we ignore him because we are trying to encourage pilots to get going early (point 2 in the first paragraph), so all we look at are the attributes associated with "getting going". We want to reward the guys that get of their bums and go!

What we can say is that the earlier a pilot is, the more likely he is to have been a leader (early on). The faster a pilot is, the more he has to lead-out (at any stage of the flight). These are both "good attributes" but we don't know which attribute any particular pilot has in his favor at any time (not until GPS track logs are studied in detail)

Giving points according to takeoff time.

This system assumes that the pilot that leaves first (out of the pilots that make goal) will have lead all the way, if he is also the first into goal. What a huge assumption this is! You are assuming that all the other pilots in the competition field simply did not exist. In the case of "Steffen" you say he must have lead for at least the first part. He may have, but in reality he had a bunch of others with him. The pilot that left first simply has to cruise along until the gun gaggle catches up, then just hang on! With a bit of luck, he may be first in to the goal, hence maximum departure points. If the system uses first out and fastest time to give the maximum departure points, then you are faced with the problem that it is very rare that the thermal conditions, at the time of the first person to launch, would support the fastest flight. Hence you would have to launch before optimum thermal time to get the maximum points (bad).

OzGAP

This system says that the person who arrived first must have either left early, or been fast.

We would like to give lots of points to the guy who left early, but he was most likely a lesser skilled pilot who flew very conservatively until other pilots came along, or he simply had other pilots to fly with all along, or he may have been a genuine leader. So we give him some good "attributes" towards his Dep. Points, but we cannot say for sure how much he should get.

Gerolf is early in to goal, and was quick as well. Because he was fast we know that he left behind most of the pilots that he may have flown with. He lead-out from these pilots, and because he was early into goal we assume that there was not too many pilots for him to follow (at least in the later part of the flight), so we give him some good attributes towards his Dep. Points, but again we do not know for sure how much he should get.

Manfred is first in and fastest. We know he lead for at least the last part of the final glide (may have only been a small part). We know that he left behind all the other pilots that he may have flown with, but he may have used people in front as thermal markers (especially in the early part).

How do we solve this dilemma?

Start with the information that we know. Manfred lead for at least the last part of the final glide (may have lead for longer) Being fastest, no pilot "left him behind" (not for long anyway). Being first in as well means he "left all the pilots behind" (at least all the pilots he came across during the flight) We give him maximum Departure Points (being fastest and first in will also mean 1000 points.)

We then draw a line on our piece of graph paper, the lead line (I'm sure you are familiar with what that is) and say that anyone who is ahead of this line, must have been early, or they must have lead-out from other pilots, or a combination of the two. We cannot say for sure what happened, we just know with reasonable probability that these pilots had considerable "good attributes" so we give them all, the maximum departure points. We cannot say exactly what happened, so we cannot split one from the other, because to do this we need to make assumptions (bad).

In many cases the attributes that form the lead line, (first in and fastest) will not be shared by one person. In this example Manfred has both attributes, hence 1000 points.

Unfortunately Gerolf took off at the same time as Manfred and was not able to get in front of him. Gerolf passed most of the pilots that he came across. But he still had Manfred in front (to use as a marker?). He is behind the lead line, but not by much, so he gets a reduced amount of departure points.

How does the average pilot relate to all this?

Easy. He knows that Gerolf and Manfred will be the ones that will most likely get fast times. He knows that if he gets going before them, he can be in front of the lead line for at least part of the way, and hence get some extra points. Manfred and Gerolf are looking at all these pilots getting ready to go and they think, well we can't hang around too long, we need to be at goal reasonably early, otherwise we will be losing points because of the departure system (but maybe gain more speed points by going later?)

The later Manfred and Gerolf go, the faster they must fly to overcome the loss of departure points. The faster they fly, the more pilots they need to leave behind, the more they need to lead-out. But, the later they go, the more other pilots will be in front to act as thermal markers.

But then, all these other guys who got going early, to get departure points aren't leading either! They have each other to keep company with.

So pilots go earlier, and they get points not because of some strange assumption (that all pilots that do not make goal do not exist), but they get points according to what information that we do know.

Hence, OzGAP is a practical solution to the complex problem that we face.

Both “traditional departure time systems” and OzGAP only look at the pilots that make goal, as that is the only group of pilots that we can currently measure. Both systems look at arrival time as part of the calculation. This is good because we look at 100% of the possible pilots. The “traditional” system looks at departure time, which is bad because you are only looking at (say) 10 - 30% of the possible pilots.

Problems with a “traditional system” Under the “traditional” system pilots get points simply for taking off and flying around launch until such a time that thermals start and cross country fly gets under way (but they will be losing potential speed points).

The “traditional” system makes no comparison between pilots that simply hang around waiting for the guns to get going, and the pilots that actually do get going.

Consider a situation......... Stable air, but launch is a good source of lift (probably why launch is sited there:-). Pilots launch early to get the departure bonus. They then simply hang around until conditions improve, and/or, the guns launch. Slower pilots know that their speed points will not be anything flash, so they go for Departure points instead. You now have the "death gaggle" that is so common, and very dangerous.

With OzGap, Launch time is irrelevant, so ridge soaring for two hours with all the other idiots gives no benefit.

Benefit is gained by being..... First in (early in). Being in front of the lead line.

You will not be first in or before the lead line if you launch late. You will not be first in or before the lead line if you waste the early (usable) thermals. You need to get going and not waste thermals.

The guns need to go early to be in before the other guns. The slower pilots need to get going early so they can spend as much time as possible in front of the lead line (in front of the guns).

OzGAP is simple to explain (as per previous two sentences) and promotes early departure. “Traditional” systems may promote ridge soaring as a means to get extra points for the slower pilots, and will increase congestion above launch, with a subsequent increase in the danger of mid-air collisions. A slow pilot may get little or no speed points anyway. It is in their interests to maximize departure points in this way.

OzGAP removes this temptation by a combination of means.

A: Once Maximum departure points are reached, there is no further benefit in going earlier. OzGAP works by looking at the pilots that make a difference in the competition, not some suicidal pilot that sacrifices what speed points he may have received, and not some pilot who has nothing to lose anyway (speed points). In “traditional” systems, if someone does take off very early, this diminishes the available points for other pilots, and hence diminishes the incentive for other pilots to use the departure points system (same problem that we have with the old GAP)

B: OzGAP has a built in safety function for the oddball possibilities made possible by some of our Australian rules (described in earlier)

The problems with the “traditional” system can be overcome if the start is far enough away from the launch so that the pilots cannot "do the start" then come back and sit on the hill. However history has shown that competition organisers are not good at designing tasks to suit the scoring system (which they should not have to do anyway!). In fact competition organisers often have trouble using appropriate parameters in competitions, and when they then get oddball results, they blame the scoring system, not their own ineptitude.

As it was, before OzGAP, slow pilots wait for the guns to go. By working backwards from arrival time, pilots are forced to have a rethink.

OzGAP

Wed, Jan 23 2002, 2:02:04 pm EST

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tim Cummings

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Tim Cummings

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tim Cummings

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tim Cummings|Zupanc)

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Tim Cummings|Zupanc)

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Tim Cummings

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Oleg Bondarchuk|Tim Cummings

Michael Zupanc«zupy» writes:

Go to www.hgfa.asn.au "competitions" "technical matters" "OzGAP explanation."

You hit the nail on the head when you said:

"Pilots are continuing to whing about OzGAP as they feel that they don't have the option of starting behind and catching the slower lead gaggle (although Oleg already showed that this was possible in Deniliquin). Still perceptions are a part of reality and it is pilot perceptions that determine when pilots decide to start the race."

The reason why a departure point system was first introduced into GAP was to limit this behavior. It is easy to launch late, and then play leapfrog. Then, of course, other pilots do the same, then before long, pilots are launching too late to make goal. The departure points system in GAP was complained about with much vigor, however, the system does have some big problems (listed in the.pdf). OzGAP gets around these problems by looking at the situation from a different point of view.

One significant problem with OzGAP, is the towing format. If you are in a large towing team, you may not be physically able to launch early enough.

D Tim Cummings«timcu» writes:

Several pilots can get full departure points on any one day. The first one in to goal should get the full departure points. Anyone who started earlier can also get full departure points. If you are half an hour behind the lead line at the finish, but half an hour ahead of the lead line at the start you will still get full departure points because on average you were on the lead line. If you are first into goal by a minute or first into goal by an hour, you will still get the same departure points, however you will reduce everyone else's departure points if you are first into goal by a long time.

Remember, the lead line arrives in goal at the same time as the first pilot in, but travels at the speed of the fastest pilot, so it is usually starting later than that first pilot.

Reflections on the Australian Open

Tue, Jan 8 2002, 11:00:01 pm EST

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tove Heaney

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Tove Heaney

(Zupy|Zupanc)|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tove Heaney

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tove Heaney|Zupanc)

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Tove Heaney

The ever-thoughtful Michael Zupanc «zupy», Australia's representative to CIVL and the scorer at the Australian Open, writes:

Compe-GPS

The program is quite easy to use, and apart from some English/Spanish language glitches, setup very well. The program is able to download multiple GPS's at once and it displays the tracks on the screen for easy visual verification. You can then look at multiple tracks at once, replay tracks singly or select a number of tracks to display as an animation so that you can see the progress of different pilots during the flight.

It also has some impressive features that use 3-dimensional maps and 3-dimensional tracks. You can download from any number of different types of GPS units, you can setup a personal logbook for your flights, you can setup graphs to display different data from your tracks graphically. Simply put, the program has more features that you can poke the proverbial stick at!

However, I have been somewhat spoilt by the superb mathematics behind Tim's program (GPS Verify). Compe-GPS does not measure flights according the distance away from the edge of TP sectors, which is important if you happen to land near a TP. It does not extrapolate track points when measuring goal-crossing times (it does interpolate). This is important, especially for HG comps because of the very large speed difference in the glider's flight between the last track point before the goal line, the goal line itself, and then the part between the line and the next track point. I will be keeping in touch with Ivan to help sort these things out, so hopefully the program will get better soon!

Compe-GPS has a direct interface with the RACE scoring program database. This works extremely well and is extremely easy to use. However, there is a major problem with RACE in the way it handles Southern Hemisphere coordinates. This caused me some grief at the start of the competition and resulted in some 4 and 5am finishes to my working night. (The last day's scores were entered manually because this was quicker!). The problem should be able to be 95% fixed with a change to the way that Compe-GPS sends data to RACE (send distance not coordinates) so hopefully this should also be able to be sorted out.

In summing up, Compe-GPS is a very good piece of work and Ivan is keen to make it better, so I would definitely recommend it for others to use.

Australian Open Scoring

It was a bit of a mission handling 151 pilots, in four different categories using three separate competitions. I could download 5 GPS's at once, and I had a couple of keen and capable volunteers helping out when the "rush" was happening each evening. Thanks Grant and Vicki! Next time we will get better organized in terms of a proper a computer network which will make life easier, and scoring quicker. (That is if we can convince Tove to do it again!)

OzGAP

The system pays points to pilots who lead out. Whether that is leading out from a thermal, or leading out by flying with no one in front does not matter. Both cases mean that the pilot made decisions on their own and took risks. These people get rewarded.

Slow pilots need to get going very early, so they will tend to be leading for at least the early part of the flight (the fastest of the slow guys get more of this leading bonus). Fast pilots want to be in goal early, which implies that they will tend to be leading later in the flight. The only person who cannot be overtaken during the flight, hence the person who must have lead the most, is the person who arrives at goal first, and has the fastest time. This person gets 1000 points.

Pilots who take off late have problems.

Because with the towing format, it can be difficult to get your team's pilots launched early enough, I put the "first start" concept to use. This meant that the launch window was open as soon as the task was called, and the pilots then had 45min (or more) to get at least a couple of their team into the air so they can go with the first start if they wanted. For this to work properly, you need light winds (to make it easy to remain within reach of the start), and the "first start" time should not be too early. Of course this is a hard combination to call.

On another point, it would have been good if more of the top pilots had attended the OzGAP explanation session, but then, what the heck, that's their choice!

BTW, the temp trace for the Sunday (after the comp) was for thermals to somewhere in excess of 10000ft (the graph only goes to 10000) and the temperature was hotter than the forecast in the graph!

Alternative WPRS

Sun, Jan 6 2002, 12:00:08 am EST

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Zupanc)

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

The new WPRS database has started. You might have a glance at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/wpr.htm.

Australian Open – the final round »

Sat, Jan 5 2002, 7:30:00 am GMT

Aeros Combat|Australian Open|Bill Moyes|Bruno Metz|Chris Zimmerman|Davis Straub|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Kari Castle|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|Oleg Bondarchuck|Oleg Bondarchuk|Oliver Schmidt|Ricky Duncan|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor|Tascha "Tish the Flying Fish" McLellan|Wills Wing

Did I say how well Oleg Bondarchuck is doing on his Aeros Combat 2? What a difference a year (and a new glider?) makes. Yesterday, Oleg was the first flex wing in the Open Class into goal, winning the coveted yellow shirt. Today he would have been the first flex wing into goal, but for a little too aggressive final glide. He had to go back a bit and get up with the guys that eventually nipped him at the goal line.

The winds forecasted were finally a bit lighter then the previous seven days, so we were able to call tasks that actually brought us back toward the tow paddock. The forecast was for 8 knots out of the southwest (same direction as the last three days), about have the wind strength experienced on the previous two days.

We call a floater task straight to the northeast, and down wind. No need to try to get these guys and gals upwind. But, the king posted task is an out and return of 80 kilometers to the northeast.

We decide that the Open Class can handle a triangle task, cross wind to the north, northeast, cross wind to the south southeast, and straight into the wind back to the paddock next to the pub in Conargo – 124 kilometers. I've been using 40 kph as the speed for the fastest topless pilots on a good day with no help from the wind. Should be a three-hour task.

The OzGAP system is encouraging the pilots to leave as soon as possible. There are so many points available for early leaving (and if the good guys go early, for arriving early), that pilots are very much encouraged to go as soon as a likely bunch of pilots gaggles up by the start circle perimeter.

This is exactly what the OzGAP system was designed to do, get the pilots out on the course and not waiting around for the last moment. It really encourages a bunch of pilots to leave together, so the gaggle aspect works out also.

Everyone in launching earlier each day also. The waiting around of the first day is a by gone and pilots get in line to take off soon after they are ready to go. This makes it a lot easier on the tug pilots (and Bo needs to get us out of there so he can fly).

About twenty pilots take the 2:45 after Conrad and Tish (flying fish) take the 2:30 PM start window. It's totally blue with a forecast for thermals to 7,000 or higher if it gets to 32° Celsius.

I'm worried that with so many in gaggle it will go too slow. The next gaggle could catch us if we get slowed down. Of course, the first few kilometers are slow.

I'm racing and pulling the gaggle as fast as I can worried about the next one. Thankfully there are a bunch of racier with me, so the center of gravity moves along smartly.

Gerolf in his Litesport is in the thick of the action unlike the last couple of days and is doing every well against the topless and the ATOS-C. He hasn't been showing the Litesport's best face on the previous days, but now he's got it wired and its going very well indeed.

We catch up with Conrad and Tish at the northern turnpoint a third of the way into the race. I'm sure hoping that the same fate doesn't await us. All the extra pilots in the ggale do help find thermals, so that isn't so bad.

Conrad shows us a few before we catch him. It's hard for a guy alone to stay alone.

I head out after getting over Conrad and go on a long glide in front while the rest of the gaggle works the lift that got too light for me. Finally I hit something half way to the next turnpoint and they all come and join me, even Gerolf, and Oleg, and Jerz in his Combat 2. Lots of French pilots in their Litespeeds also.

Meanwhile, back at the paddock, Gordon and Johnny who were in the tight contest with Mike Barber for first place (Gordon was in first) are having a tough time getting up and out. I took a thermal from 700 feet at 900 fpm to 6,000', but not everyone was so fortunately. Those of us who got the good lift over the tow paddock got out early, but some guyrs were hurting.

Kari got out early with us, but Paris had to wait also. Kari made sure she got an early tow today which gave her time to get up and get ready to take advantage of the OzGAP system.

No one knew exactly how things stood going into this last day as Zupy included the rigid wings in the scoring in Open Class, thereby distorting the scoring when I came in second and first on the previous two days. No one knew how many points they had to make up to take Gordon.

Still Gordon was now stuck at 3,000' over the tow paddock, and the guys in the lead gaggle were racking up the departure and arrival points on him and Johnny.

The gaggle has reformed (and become a column) as we approach the second turnpoint, getting high in preparation for the 30 kilometer upwind leg into goal. We can see a few of the king posted gliders, some on the ground at the turnpoint, and some heading back toward the goal, which is also our goal at Conargo.

As soon as we turn upwind it is a game of making sure that you stay up going into a head wind. Lift that you would have ignored on the first two legs suddenly takes on a brighter glow. We huddle together in the first weak thermal and work out way back to 6,000'.

As about five of us top out I keep to the upwind side and then head more upwind than the rest of the pilots. Like on the previous day, I'll be on my own upwind of the gaggle.

I can penetrate a bit better especially with all the ballast I'm wearing. The ATOS-C is definitely superior, so the pilot gets lots of extra options.

The winds a bit stronger than predicted especially as you get over 4,000'. With the weaker lift and the strong winds we are only slowly moving forward. I can keep an eye on the gaggle 3 kilometers to my north as I try to get over the trees and the creek making for a straight cross wind into goal.

I have to dig out from 1,300' but there is a 700 fpm thermal there as I've scooted cross wind to get to it, trying to up my changes of finding a thermal when I get low. It takes me to 5,600' and it looks like there will indeed be enough lift at 5:30 PM to get us into goal.

I'll continue to work weak lift, taking 100 fpm that will turn into 400 fpm just to be sure that I don't get caught low again. The gaggle has disappeared to the north so I've got no way to judge how fast I should be going. I'm on the radio to Kari who's in the gaggle so that gives me some idea of what is going on with them.

I make it across the tree line and now it’s a 9 kilometer cross wind to goal in a lifty section. I come in first but way too high.

Within five minutes Gerolf, on the king posted Litesport is the first flex wing into goal. Oleg was in the lead but took too much of a chance going to goal and had to come back for a little lift. Gerolf was higher and was able to beat all the topless gliders into goal.

So now I'm writing this at the Deniliquin RSL (returned serviceman's league) Club, while we wait for Zupy to complete the scoring. No body showed up here until almost 10 PM, so it's a late night for the staff. Zupy says that the scoring won't be completed until 1 AM. We'll see.

Gordon was still in first going into today. Jon Durand and Mike were right behind him. I realize now that the latest results haven't been placed up on the web site in a timely fashion, and of course, I was only reporting what little results I knew. I'll get a bunch of results tonight to send out.

The scores may not get here in time as the RSL closes at 1 AM, and it is almost midnight and we won't get today's scores for another twenty minutes. Then Zupy has to put out the final scores. Real time reporting here.

There was a driver award for the driver who blew out three cars during the meet and an award for the driver who towed Lukas Bader's wagon 90 kilometers back to Deniliquin.

Gerolf wins the Drama Queen award – a tiara to wear. The American team won an award for the best story telling. Oliver Schmidt won the mosquito award for being left out all night and the next day (he did stay at the farmer's house). He got a tow at 5 PM the next day.

Lukas Bader won the Fabio award and the best-undressed award. Bill Moyes won the dirtiest t-shirt award. Kari Castle won the Boomerang award for not quite making it to goal. Ricky Duncan kept missing the turnpoints with his GPS, so he won a camera.

Provisional Open Results for the Fourth Round (including class I, II, V):

Davis Straub, AIR ATOS-C
Gerolf Heinrichs, Moyes Litesport
Oleg Bondarchuck, Aeros Combat 2
Antione Boisselier, Moyes Litespeed
Chris Zimmerman, Wills Wing Talon
Bruno Metz, Aeraine Swift Light
Bob Baier, Moyes Litespeed
Rohan Holtkamp, Airborne Climax
Jean Francois Palmarini, Moyes Litespeed
Jean Francois Gerard, Moyes Litespeed

Notice that today, at least, the Moyes Litespeed is not dominant (as it was last year). But overall…? We'll see in a minute. Or is it a half hour? It's already 1 AM.

Open Class I:

1st – Oleg Bondarchuck, Aeros Combat 2
2nd – Mike Barber, Moyes Litespeed
3rd - Gordon Rigg, Moyes Litespeed
Open Class I - first female - Tish, the flying fish, Moyes Litespeed
Floater Class winner - Allan Beavis
King Posted Class winner - Tony Giammichelle
Class II winner - Davis Straub

I don't have all the results in Class I. Chris Zimmerman, WW Talon, USA, came in ninth, Jon Durand in fourth. The first three places were within about 33 points. Oleg got $1,500 and Mike $750, which they could all use. Gordon lost because he didn't get out of the tow paddock in time.

Results may be up at: http://www.cool-ether.net.au/australianopen2002.

Discuss "Australian Open – the final round" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

WPR

Wed, Jan 2 2002, 1:00:03 am EST

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Zupanc)

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael Zupanc «zupy» sends in the following URL for the alternative World Ranking System (he's demonstrating it for Class I). He hasn't got all the 2001 competitions up yet. Check it out at: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/wpr/wpr.htm

WPRS ranking

Tue, Dec 25 2001, 10:00:03 pm EST

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

CIVL|John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

CIVL|John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

(Zupy|Zupanc)|CIVL|John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

CIVL|John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme|Zupanc)

CIVL|John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

After I reported in the Last Oz Report on the WPRS system and the relevant agenda items for the CIVL Plenary (all taken from CIVL notices), I spoke with Zupy (Michael Zupanc) the Australian CIVL representative, and CIVL Bureau member. He said that the whole business in the agenda regarding the alternative ranking system was bogus, wasn't happening, and that what was really happening would be up on his web site with a few days.

He'll have an alternative to the present WPRS system up on his web site that will take 2001 results and re rank every one according to a new system. We'll all then get a chance to see how we like it.

When it's up I'll provide the URL.

Dragonflies – no longer protos »

Fri, Dec 7 2001, 7:00:03 pm EST

Dragonfly|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Ricky Duncan

(Zupy|Zupanc)|Dragonfly|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Ricky Duncan

Dragonfly|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Ricky Duncan|Zupanc)

Dragonfly|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Ricky Duncan

Ricky Duncan «RickD» writes:

Here's the deal. From Airborne's point of view we would prefer that there are more tugs available at the comps. It is good for hang gliding and as we are a hang glider manufacturer it is good for business. The fact is that we have absolutely nothing to do with drafting the legislation.

In Australia the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) require a two seat ultralight or a tug to be certified before it can be operated legally. To my knowledge the only other certification standard which is acceptable to CASA is the British section S. This means that the British trikes can legally tow.

The problem Moyes have with the Dragonfly is that they were operating under a permit to fly (Two aircraft). There were more than two planes but I think they may have had the same rego numbers. A permit to fly is issued to allow certification flight-testing. My understanding is that after 10 years CASA refused to extend the permit. The Dragonfly then became illegal to fly.

Michael Zupanc «zupy» writes:

Moyes had a "prototype approval" (or words to that effect) that allowed them fly two aircraft for developmental purposes. Our regulatory bods then decided that there were too many flying or it was taking too long (not sure of the details here), and they pulled the approval.

Last year at Hay, the Australian boss of the sport aviation regulatory authority was in the tow paddock when the tugs were flying around with passengers on board! (highly illegal) I suspect that that might have had something to do with their change of attitude. (Only a suspicion)

As far as I am aware, the governing bodies are not too worried if we are "not quite legal" as long as we are out of harms way, like in some isolated paddock in some isolated part of the country where we cannot do any damage

Discuss "Dragonflies – no longer protos" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Highlights of the latest ⁢CIVL⁣ Bureau meeting »

Fri, Nov 9 2001, 6:00:01 pm EST

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Olivier Burghelle|PG|record|Worlds

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Olivier Burghelle|PG|record|Worlds

(Zupy|Zupanc)|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Olivier Burghelle|PG|record|Worlds

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Olivier Burghelle|PG|record|Worlds|Zupanc)

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Olivier Burghelle|PG|record|Worlds

Minutes in blue, comments in black:

The Bureau wanted to reiterate that CIVL require Cat 2 competitions to follow section 7 particularly the safety rules.

The CIVL recommends that cat 2 events have a meet steward (technical delegate) who ensures the section 7 rules are applied. This steward can be chosen by the organiser, and needs to have familiarity with section 7.

Gliders (at the 2001 Worlds) were randomly checked at goal regarding conformity to CIVL safety rules. It took around 5 mins per glider and nearly all pilots supported the checks. It was agreed these checks should continue in competitions

The Bureau wants to make sure that organizers of CIVL Category II sanctioned meets apply the new safety rules including the 2-mm wire rule. They indicate that this has always been the case but that we may need to be reminded. This may also represent the Bureau's desire to emphasize that the CIVL Class definitions that aren't explicitly restricted to Category I competitions and world records apply to Category II competitions. I've also asked the Bureau for clarification on this issue.

Olivier Burghelle will pursue the FAI for payment of WAG sanction fee. The Bureau will propose to the Plenary that unless the sanction fee for 2001 WAG is paid, Spain will not be able to hold a Category 1 Championship for 5 years nor a Category 2 competition for 2 years.

Looks like the (hang gliding or paragliding or both) organizers of the 2001 Worlds didn't pay their CIVL sanction fee. I'll ask Juaki, who was the hang gliding organizer.

Some of the structural limit rules are not relevant or are hard to interprete for class 2 gliders.

Rewrite Annex 22 to clarify class 2 gliders.

I believe that this refers to the issue of the wire location on the non-load bearing down tubes of rigid wing gliders. I will ask for clarification from Michael Zupanc who is tasked to come up with the clarification.

At the FAI ASC Presidents meeting it was agreed not to hold the World Championship at the same time as the World Air Games. Instead, each commission was asked to provide a format to satisfy criteria that in summary were to make a spectacular air show/competition.

The constrictions imposed on the World Championships by the politics of the World Air Games were perhaps a bit too much.

A complaint had been received of a pilot in a competition hitting the launch official, using abusive language, and threatening behaviour. It was agreed to seek advice for the FAI. Subsequently it was suggested to ask the NAC to obtain the pilot's explanation and to ask the NAC to retain his FAI sporting licence until January 2004.

I sure wish we'd get the details. Oz Report readers may remember my links to the Steward's report on the PG Worlds (https://OzReport.com/Ozv5n171.htm).

The Bureau confirmed the forthcoming championships would be; 8th Women's Worlds, the 9th Swift Class (Class 2) and the 1st Class Atos-like (Class 5) Championship subject to naming.

I think that they won't include the names outside the parenthesis in the actual meet names.

There is a lot more interesting news in the latest Bureau minutes. Hopefully you'll find them up on the CIVL web site (http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding). Seems like there were some bad boys last year.

Discuss "Highlights of the latest ⁢CIVL⁣ Bureau meeting" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

2001 Worlds (Championship and Air Games) »

Mon, Jun 25 2001, 10:00:00 pm GMT

Bobby Bailey|Brian Porter|calendar|CIVL|Jamie Shelden|Jim Lee|Manfred Ruhmer|Mark Bolt|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Robert Reisinger|Rohan Taylor|Vicki Cain|Worlds 2001

Last two days have been called due to stability. Out of nine days, four have been flown for points. The Worlds calendar called for 6 days of flying, one day of parades and then a second 6-day leg. They flew on the day of the parade (all right!).

No word yet about the fact that Mark Bolt is missing from the USA scoring as is Jamie Sheldon from rigid WAG scoring.

Vicki Cain <vix001@hotmail.com> writes:

Task 4: Saturday 23rd June Super hot today, about 43°, a 84 km task is called with 4 turnpoints and the goal back near Algodonales. We head down to the goal paddock to arrive there about 7 pm, as we figure they will get the 5pm start gate, a 2 hour course and be there by 7 pm as the last 2 days. We stopped for lunch at headquarters at about 6 pm and to escape the heat for a bit. When we get to goal it's hot, hot, hot. The goal paddock is a ploughed dark brown field, like Forbes, and at 8 pm it's still 40°.

The day is way stable and tough going on the course, we hear there are about 20 pilots just 5 kms from goal and just need to get enough height to get over the last hill before goal but there is a thin cloud cover that has come over. Then we see them circling above the hill, scraping to get up enough height to get there, there are about 8 in the gaggle, one heads off then they all straighten up for final glide.

Just at that time Steve calls to say that he has landed about 10 kms from goal. He says stay to watch them come in. It's really exciting, Claudia (Manfred's girlfriend) is sitting with us. Manfred was first, then Nene, Gerolf, Betinho and Robert Reisinger. 3 Austrians and 2 Brazilians, 3 Litespeeds and 2 Laminars.

Class 2 there are 4 rigid wings. Alex, the pilot in first place comes in first then another Atos, then a Top Secret then Brian Porter. (Sorry I don't know their names) I spoke to Brian this morning in the internet cafe and he said that the first day he was flying too aggressive for the light conditions, day two he got stuck low and day 3 he was too aggressive again. Day 4 was his first best day. Nene Rotor- Brazil won the day.

We find out later that there are another 10 pilots that couldn't get enough height to get over the last hill, Bob, Attila, Antoine, Guido amongst them, they landed just outside Algodonales. So we head off to get Steve, then Attila calls, he is closer so we get him first as I can't get the GPS working properly and I'm not confident to head out for Steve without a GPS.

By the time we get to Steve and Brett it's been 2 hours since he landed and they are cooked and exhausted. I'll have to pick my game up or I'll get the sack! There are pilots all along this road just before the last turnpoint. We get back to town about 11pm and head out for dinner.

Task 5: Sunday 24th June Yesterday the temperature was a lot easier to handle, with a bit of a breeze on the top of the hill. We have not been heading up the mountain until a bit later, leaving about 1pm, get there at 2pm, set up by 3pm. By the time we arrive most everyone is set up. Yesterday the early bird window started at 3.15 until 4 because of the stable air. No one was getting above hill height.

The organizers believed the inversion would lift around 4.30 so they started the ordered launch at 4 pm. Steve was first off as he placed 30th the day before and they reverse the launch order for the top 30 for the previous days results! He sat on launch not wanting to go as there was no where to go except up with the other 15 early bird pilots that were just hanging around the mountain.

He didn't have to go unless someone made a push, about 4.15 Jim Lee made a push so he had to go in 1 minute, which he did. Steve radioed back " make sure Jim Lee gets off"! 15 minutes later at 4.30 pm the task was cancelled, everyone was relieved as the day was so late and going nowhere. There were already about 50 pilots in the air when the day was cancelled.

Gerolf made a low fast pass over launch which started off a little aerobatics show. Luis Niemeyer did some real fast close passes then the young Aussie, Adam, did a real nice loop out in front. That bought some ohhhs and ahhhhs out of the crowd. It was Sunday so there was quite a local crowd on launch and they were treated to a great show!

Steve and Brett were already in the air and flew to the landing area at the back of the town, the landing area is a strawberry patch next to the river. Just near the landing area along the river there is a gypsy camp, which looks pretty sad. Molly didn't come up the mountain today as Bill went to Portugal to pick up Bobby Bailey so we only had one car and just enough room for Steve, Attila, Brett and me.

The plan was for Bill to meet us at Goal, which was about 20 kms from Seville, on his way back from Portugal but when the day was cancelled he just headed back to Algodonales, he got back to town about the same time as us, 7pm The gaggles are huge, there have been 3 mid air touches already, none too serious thank goodness.

Just some notes to your questions: A few days before the start of the competition it was announced that about 30 of the entered pilots would not be allowed to enter the competition, Jamie was one of these. There is apparently a new rule just passed that you have to have competed in a category one competition in the last 3 years or a category 2 comp and placed in the top ⅔rds of the field. The pilots protested on the grounds of lack of notice, all but about 5 were eventually allowed to fly the comp.

(editor's note: We heard that this was the case when the meet organizers realized how much money they would be out if these pilots didn't get to fly. I'll just bet that Jamie is not very happy having flown to Europe and then not being allowed to fly.)

Rohan did make goal that day but had some GPS problem, there was no signal over launch for some time, and lots of other pilots had the same, his points have been revised. He still holds 3rd.

Juaki the meet organizer wrote to complain about my long and loud complaints about PDF files. First, he is very nice to tell me that he will send me the results of the Worlds in HTML at the end of the meet (the only results I'll need for US pilot ranking). I really appreciate this, because it makes it much easier to determine the US pilots ranking if I get the results in this web standard format.

I have complained long and loud because PDF is not a standard. It is proprietary format. It does not play well with others. You can't take data from it and put it into other programs with any ease. (I'll just bet someone has written a shareware program that will convert PDF to HTML, but I don't have time to look for it.)

Juaki is unhappy that I have complained and blames his PDF usage on the Spanish National Aero club. Well, if someone doesn't complain then how is any one to know that there is a problem? There is a very big problem. PDF sucks big time. There is no need what so ever to use it on the web. The Race 2000 program produces HTML just as easily as PDF. PDF requires a separate reader, it is very slow to download. PDF is not compatible.

HTML is an internationally agreed upon standard maintained by a standards body. It formats just as well as PDF for the Race output.

Australian CIVL representative, Michael Zupanc, wrote in to complain that Juaki isn't publishing the complete Race output, including the statistics. With those statistics we would have some idea of what was going on with the poor scoring – low validity.

Juaki also complained that I published Steve Blenkisop's complaint that the team scoring was not using the daily pilots scores, but the overall pilot scores. I don't have access to other than a smattering of team scores at the moment, but unless the same top two guys score all the points for the four member team (quite possible), then Steve is right. I'll check with him again and hopefully get access to the web soon to see what the problem is (if any).

WAG Hang Gliding web site: (http://www.wag2001.org/Hang%20Gliding/Main%20Frame.htm):

You can find results (if and when) at:

http://resultados.wag2001.org/hg_c1.asp
http://resultados.wag2001.org/hg_c2.asp

or

http://www.algodonales.org/hgwag2001/resultadosing.htm
http://www.algodonales.org/hgwag2001/resultados.htm (Spanish)

or

http://www.theleague.force9.co.uk/worlds/worlds.htm

Discuss "2001 Worlds (Championship and Air Games)" at the Oz Report forum   link»

GAP and early leavers

Thu, Mar 1 2001, 5:00:03 pm EST

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

(Zupy|Zupanc)|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Zupanc)

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael Zupanc«zupy»the Australian CIVL representative writes:

I notice you mention some stuff concerning the departure points in GAP. As soon as I get around to it, we hope to make an Oz scoring module in RACE that looks at the departure points in a completely new fashion.

It will deal with and reward pilots according to their "position" (i.e. first to leave and/or first to arrive) and their speed, hence paying points for pilots who spend lots of time in front.

A big problem with the current system is that if a pilot leaves early, but flies slowly, they get the max percentage of bonus points (a high percentage of a small number because they were slow), when in fact they:

1 did not lead for very long as faster pilots soon overtook them.
2 they effectively drill the fast pilots' potential to earn bonus points, simply because they were the first to leave (and still made goal)

Clear as mud? Tim is also working on further improvements to his GPS program.

Safety issues

Wed, Feb 28 2001, 3:00:06 pm EST

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

(Zupy|Zupanc)|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Zupanc)

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

It was decided that issues concerning costs are not part of the discussion of the safety subcommittee. This is the realm of “level playing field” which has to be discussed in the CIVL plenary. The Plenary subsequently took no action to make changes.

The proposal to implement a minimum width for uprights was rejected by 2 to 5 votes. There was discussion about whether there is a problem. The majority was of the opinion that there was no known safety issue in this regard. If there is there a need for rules to be made in this area for reasons other than safety, then it is the realm of “HG/PG competition” However, there are performance issues which affect safety. If one pilot has “thin something”, then everyone is forced to follow suit because of performance. The proposal as tabled by Michael Zupanc is accepted with reservations about the control cables and downtube measurements. Some amendments to the wording of the basebar controls were made, but the concept of downtube thickness measurement is rejected.

The purpose of these standards is to insure a certain minimum level of structural integrity and pilot safety in class 1, 2 and 4 Hang Gliders. In general hang gliders should comply with the load test certification standards of, the HGMA, BHPA or DHV, or similar testing body. Where dimensional limits are applied to structures, these have been chosen such that adequate strength is achievable with materials currently in use. Reduced strength due to use of unconventional materials meeting these dimensional limits is the competitor's responsibility. Where relevant the conventional material is stated.

Minimum diameter of any structural external wire cables is 1.9 mm or 5/64 inches.
Where an external compression strut is braced with rigging wires they must attach within 10cm of the point were the compression load is applied.
If a control bar (basetube) is made of material other than metal, it must have an internal steel rigging cable that serves as a structural backup.
The pilot suspension must include a non-metallic load bearing webbing of minimum 25 mm width (normal material Nylon woven webbing of over 1000kg breaking strain). The attachment loop must have a backup, which bypasses any mechanical devices and either the main, or backup must be non-metallic.
A rescue parachute must be capable of deployment by each of the pilot's hands in a normal flying attitude is mandatory.

Penalties The normal penalty for non-compliance is a 20 % reduction in score for the last round flown. If during a subsequent round the glider is again found to be non-compliant a zero score will result for that round. At the discretion of the Meet Steward a lesser penalty may be applied in rare cases due to extenuating circumstances.

Time - virtual goals vs. goalies

Sat, Feb 3 2001, 1:00:01 am EST

Øyvind Ellefsen|Attila Bertok|Barry Bateman|Brett Hazlett|Conrad Loten|Davis Straub|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Kari Castle|Kraig Coomber|Mark Dowsett|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|Nichele Roberto|Oleg Bondarchuk|Oliver Barthelmes|Paris Williams|record|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor|Steve Rewolinski|Tascha "Tish the Flying Fish" McLellan|Tim Cummings|Tove Heaney

Tim Cummings «tim» writes:

Here are the results of the survey I did comparing manually recorded goal times by goal officials vs. automatically calculated goal times from GPS track logs.

All values are in seconds, and represent manual time minus time calculated by the verification program from pilot's GPSes (gpscalc). Negative numbers indicate manual time is earlier than the gpscalc time and positive numbers indicate manual time is later than gpscalc time.

Name

RND2

RND3

RND4

RND5

RND6

Average

Ujhelyi Balazs

-65

-1

7

1

-14.5

Collin Patrick

-3

-3.0

Sturm Herbert

-6

1

-2.5

The Flying Fish Tish

-3

-5

1

-2.3

Boisselier Antoine

-3

-1

-2.0

Heinrichs Gerolf

-1

-7

-1

1

1

-1.4

Mocellin Francoise

-1

-1

-1.0

Durand Jon Snr

-2

1

-0.5

Hikobe Junko

+

0.0

Walbec Richard

0

+

0.0

Ohnuma Hiroshi

0

0.0

Dieuzeide Francoise

3

-2

0

0.3

Metz Bruno

1

0

0.5

Mathurin Didier

3

*

0

1.5

Dowsett Mark

2

1

+

1.5

Guillen Bruno

2

1

1.5

Sunama Takashi

2

2.0

Williams Michael

2

2.0

Tomihara Jun

2

2.0

Becan Victor

-8

13

2.5

Pritchard Philip

9

0

4.5

Ellefsen Oyvind

5

5.0

Schmitz Betinho

-3

13

1

2

14

5.4

Durand Jon Jnr

-3

1

22

+

6.7

Speight Daryl

12

4

8.0

Williams Paris

15

1

8.0

Marshall Gordon

8

8.0

Zupanc Michael

15

1

14

10.0

Gerard Jean-Francois

1

19

10.0

Itagaki Naoki

+

13

8

10.5

Sakai Takafumi

14

9

11.5

Ward Geoff

12

11

*

11.5

Moreno Fernandez Alberto

11

13

12.0

Osborn Tim

11

13

12.0

Davidson Miles

12

12

12.0

Bader Lukas

13

11

12.0

Rewolinski Steve

12

12.0

Holtkamp Rohan

+

12

13

12.5

Bertok Attila

11

13

14

12.7

Barber Mike

13

13

13

12

+

12.7

Straub Davis

10

14

14

14

12

12.8

Bateman Barry

13

13.0

Coomber Kraig

14

12

13

13.0

Rigg Gordon

15

11

13.0

Moyes Stephen

11

15

13

13.0

Loten Conrad

11

14

13

15

13.3

Weber Bernd

14

*

15

11

*

13.3

Weissenberger Tom

14

+

+

13

13.5

Heaney Grant

15

12

13.5

Salvenmoser Seppi

14

14

13

13.7

Balembois Jean-Charles

14

13

14

13.7

Ohlsson Andreas

14

*

14.0

Hirabayashi Kazuyuki

14

14

14.0

Ohta Shougo

14

14.0

Castle Kari

14

14

14.0

Bondarchuk Oleg

17

14

12

13

14.0

Mcloskey David

14

14.0

Hubbard Guy

14

14

14.0

Wohrle Roland

14

14.0

Hazlett Brett

15

12

15

14

15

14.2

Hagewood Robert

13

15

16

14

14.5

Barthelmes Oliver

13

*

11

21

15.0

Rees Ian

15

*

15.0

Zwahlen Bernie

15

15.0

Nichele Roberto

+

15

15.0

Takahashi Motoki

15

15.0

Heaney Tove

15

15.0

Sangster Trevor

15

15.0

Yasuhiro Noma

15

15.0

Thompson Mark

18

13

15.5

Gordon David

17

15

16.0

Macleod Glen

39

39.0

De Nicola Paolo

70

70.0

* No GPS Time + No Goalie Time - although Goalie confirmed line crossing.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. It looks like the time difference is related to the actual gps unit and is consistent throughout the competition. I was not expecting this. It could mean that at time of download, one has only to compare current time in GPS to a standard time and a fix could be applied to all times. (Such a fix would not apply to start times if they are being rounded, say, to nearest 15 minutes)

2. The turning off of selective availability has improved the accuracy of GPS times.

3. The goal officials at Forbes (Rob van der Klooster and Gen Rebbechi) did an exceptional job at recording accurate goal times.

DATA INCONSISTENCIES:

1. Some pilots (eg Betinho) showed changes in the time error during the week. They could have been using alternate GPS units on different days. I was not checking for this.

2. All differences greater than 17 seconds were checked and found to usually be due to difficult approaches by pilot making manual time inaccurate (eg too high, too wide, or at a congested time).

OTHER INFO:

1. All GPS times were calculated by first extrapolating the last two points before the goal line, and then interpolating the two points either side of the goal line and taking the best time. This allows for pilots who fly across the line then quickly turn back and land before the line, or who slow down significantly after crossing the line.

HINTS ON GPS USE:

1. Ensure GPS time is functioning. Three GPS units (including Mike Barber's backup) were showing the incorrect date and time on the System page. For these units no start or goal time could be calculated.

2. Ensure track log is turned on. Barry Bateman flew a wonderful flight to goal on the 228km day, but scored bomb out as no track log was recorded and the first turnpoint was quite close to the start.

If you are using your GPS for retrieves, then turn off track log recording after landing. On the same day, Jon Durand Snr (10km short) and Olli Barthelmes (goal) both had only 3 minutes of track log left before first turnpoint, because they had left GPS on after landing and the start of their track logs was being overwritten.

3. Do not use Garmin Etrex. These units cannot set a time interval for track log recording, and so will record too many data points in thermals thus filling the track log too early (less than an hour of flight).

4. Set track log time interval consistent with the days conditions. On short tasks, especially for out and returns when you will spend the least amount of time possible in the turnpoint sector, set time interval to 20 seconds. This gives about 5.5 hours on a Garmin 12. If your flight is going to be longer than this, especially for straight-line tasks, or slight dog legs when you will be flying in one side and out another side of turnpoint sector, you can set interval to 30 seconds. This gives 8.5 hours on a Garmin 12.

5. Set track log to wrap, not fill. Tom Weissenberger repeatedly missed getting a GPS goal time because his track log was full.

(editor's note: I checked whether the Garmin 12 XL gave a different GPS time than the 12 or 12 MAP. Nope. Note, that goalie was using a Garmin 12 XL as did Gerolf. Still, there may be a problem in reading the data stream from a 12 XL correctly, as Gerolf experienced problems with his Garmin 12 XL GPS when it was read by Tim's verification program.

The differences between the goalie's times and the verification programs determination of the goal time from the pilot's GPS were quite small when considered relative to the point differences they would actually account for. This is especially true considering that in most cases the difference in time discrepancy between pilots was on average less than 6 seconds. Also, other than in cases of difficulties experienced by the goalies, the range for all pilots' average discrepancy was +-9 seconds, which is almost negligible over the course of a contest.)

Discuss "Time - virtual goals vs. goalies" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Forbes Flatlands – Task four »

Fri, Jan 19 2001, 3:00:00 pm GMT

Barry Bateman|Belinda Boulter|Bo Hagewood|Davis Straub|dust devil|Forbes Flatlands|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|Oleg Bondarchuk|Rohan Taylor|Tascha "Tish the Flying Fish" McLellan|USHGA

At Hay this year a 265-kilometer task was called, but not made. Still, Rohan and I flew within 17 kilometers of goal, so those were the longest flight in a race to goal competition.

Today, even though there weren't but a very few of those little white puffy things, unlike the day before, the task committee decides to call a long task to the north, northwest – 228 kilometers. The wind is quite strong out of the east, so this will in addition, be a cross-wind task.

The wind is about 10 mph steady out of the east at the tow paddock, with gusts to 15 mph. You have to be careful, but it is not a problem to setup and launch in these conditions. Given this steady wind, I will foot launch and forget the dolly.

The towing order continues to get jumbled up, but the rigids get their own trike (actually it tows up every one else also, but gives our totally separate line priority). We have to set up in the corner of the paddock, while every one else now is setup in the middle. They (Stumpy, the meet director, and Bill, the towing director) just can't agree on how to do the towing.

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to report on harnesses or get pictures as many have asked, as we are so isolated. When Bogong starts, I'll have a chance.

With the strong winds, many people are flying back to the paddock and relaunching. The weaklink at the trike breaks on my first tow, and I drop the rope in the tow paddock. It takes the trike pilot a while to find it as he doesn't go far enough up wind to look.

On my second tow, he first takes me up wind, then downwind to the downwind edge of the paddock. I haven't hit a thermal and he waves me off at 1,500'. Next time I will bring the rope back to the launch spot. J

The thermals are smooth in the strong winds, but not so strong. It takes a group of us a while to drift down wind, with a slow thermal, head back to the paddock, get the next thermal, drift down wind with it, etc., etc. After a while we are able to climb to 7,000' and about 15 pilots make the 2:15 PM start gate.

The task is a turnpoint to the west, northwest, to keep us away from the airspace in Forbes, and then north, northwest, a 200-kilometer straight line. Since we all got the start gate high, we head right for the turnpoint spreading out to find lift. I get it and we climb enough to make the turnpoint and head up crosswind toward goal.

In the lead, I find a little patch of lift as we get a bit low under 3,000'. I decide to ignore the lift and follow a bird that is flying a lifting line to the north and see if he catches something worth turning in. My mates behind me(Tomas, Oleg, Betinho, etc.) get in the light lift that I left and start slowly climbing out.

The bird does me absolutely no good, and now I'm down to under 2,000' and starting to run down wind to find something. I will spend the next 10 kilometers under 1,500' chasing bits of lift, and trying to get back up, while almost all the guys behind me get up in the lift I left.

Mike Barber doesn’t get the start gate quite as high as the rest of us and he is soon in the same situation that I find myself after getting the turnpoint at 1,500'. He will drift downwind almost 30 kilometers not able to get over 2,500', while his buddies are climbing back up (all be it slowly) to 7,000'.

I finally find some steadier lift after assuming that I would be landing, and get up to over 2,000'. There is a dam just half a kilometer a way, and I've seen three dust devils form behind it. I slide over to it, and climb out at 600 fpm.

Feeling pretty good, but way behind my former good buddies, I make a stab at catching them. I run into big sink and run a short ridge line which produces even more sink. The flat paddocks and dams are producing the lift today, especially along the trigger points like tree lines.

I get hammered and end up less than 1,000' and right over Paris who also got hammered on the ridge and has landed at the north end of it. I make a 90° downwind turn and sprint across a dry, bare, flat paddock for the tree line at the western edge. I get there with 600 feet to find 50-100 fpm.

I'm immediately joined by four other pilots who've just gone through the sink street that I hit. It takes a while to get back up, and by the time I do, I've been caught by the 2:30 start gate guys, Berndt, Gerolf, Oleg, and others. Ooh, I want to get back to my original gaggle. I can't stay with these guys, as they will beat me.

I climb up to them, and then get in the lead often switching on and off with Gerolf. Berndt can't lead as there is too much bar pressure on his ATOS. Soon Gerolf and I are out in front of the gaggle, and then I'm able to shake off Gerolf as I run to the north to get in a thermal with three other pilots. I've caught some of my original gaggle – the slower ones.

I climb up, and leave them also trying to move ahead. I know that Betinho is just ahead of me about 10 kilometers and I want to catch him. I assume that he is the leading edge of the 2:15 PM gaggle.

Betinho gets very low before I get there, but I find Bo Hagewood, and another pilot and we stay high and move fast. We're 80 kilometers out from goal and it looks like we might have a chance to make it. Kari has already gone down 115 kilometers from goal. She got a late start in a bad towline. It will be five hours before we can get back to her.

I see Bo in a desperation move heading directly down wind at 90° to the course line. I'm staying above 5,500' and continuing along the course, so it doesn't look that bad to me. I've left behind all my help and I don't see anyone in front of me.

I keep catching lift from the paddocks to my right, up wind. If I drive up wind a bit, I can find the better cores. I'm working tree lines on the downwind side of the warm paddocks.

At fifty kilometers out and after six o'clock, I'm starting to work anything that I run into. I keep getting small climbs in 100 fpm or so always working the tree lines facing huge paddocks to the east of the course line.

At 6:30 PM I figure that the day is about done. I've been working light lift for half a hour and I am assuming that every thermal I take will be the last one. I don't see anyone around. I don't know if any one has made goal. All the people I passed are gone.

At 6:44 PM as I keep working down the tree line toward goal, and staying in the light lift, I hit 500 fpm. I'm totally amazed that this late in the day I can get such good lift. I'm only 25 kilometers from goal, so it looks like I have a chance to make it.

Unfortunately there are fifteen kilometers of trees in front of the goal. Up to now we've been working over paddocks, but we've gone so far north and west that we are in wild country where the farmers haven't gone.

At 20 kilometers from goal I climb out in 400 fpm to over 6,000' so that I know that I can make it to goal As I thermal I am also drifting toward goal, so I leave high from 16 kilometers out.

Belinda tells me that there are five pilots are goal. I will be the sixth pilot to make goal. The goal paddock is a sea of thistles, so I will land in a paddock just behind it.

Thirteen more pilots will make goal after me. The day lasts much longer than I originally assumed. Mike Barber, the last pilot to goal, will get in at 8:15 PM.

Attila, Betinho, Gerolf, Bo, Tomas, Seppi, Zupy, Barry Bateman (without turning on his GPS), Conrad, Tish, Grant, Tova, and numerous others will make the second longest made goal in Australia competition history. The task will take a bit less than five hours for the fastest pilots. Mike will be on the course eight minutes less than six hours.

We will all wind up at 11 PM at the only open take out place in Condoblin, the only town on the way back to Forbes. The scorers will have another late night.

After three tasks, Mike Barber was in second and Betinho in third. They will drop down a bit after this task as they were slow to goal. Betinho came in a half-hour after me at 7:39 PM.

Full results can be found at http://homepage.mac.com/chgcnews/forbes2001.

Discuss "Forbes Flatlands – Task four" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Australian Hang Gliding Nationals – the rest day

Wed, Jan 10 2001, 12:00:00 pm EST

Attila Bertok|Australian Nationals 2001|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Kraig Coomber|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|photo

Steve Moyes, Kraig Coomber, and a number of other folks including Gordon Rigg spent the afternoon under the gum trees here at the RV park replacing the bent pieces to Gordon's Litespeed. This evening, Mike Barber and he are working on carbon fiber repairs to his harness back plate.

I took the opportunity to get Betinho's and Ollie's computers operating on the Internet. In return I got some copies of a few of the photos that Ollie took last year at Hay. Ollie hadn't made an electronic version of his most famous photo though.

This is a classic shot of a pilot flat on the ground (he was unconscious for a few seconds). He had just come off the dolly and broken a weaklink. The glider is nose down on top of the pilot with its nose planted on the pilot's helmet. On the top of the glider it states next to a large line drawing of Albert Einstein with his tongue out: "Are you going Litespeed?" The obvious retort was, "Who's going Litespeed, now?" Ollie was strongly discouraged from ever publishing this photo, for obvious reasons.

Here is a more flattering, but not nearly as funny shot that Ollie took of John Durand, Jr. while Ollie was flying in one of the Moyes tugs. You can see the Hay tow paddock with it's mowed lanes below:

Ollie is a professional photographer and does very interesting work. You can contact him at «OliverBarthelmes».

The unofficial mixed Class I and Class II results from the sixth day are now up on the Dynamic Flight web site. You'll find lots of photos there also as Zupy goes wild with his digital camera.

Results after six days:

1

HEINRICHS, Gerolf

MOYES Litespeed 4

AUT

5202

2

BERTOK, Attila

MOYES Litespeed 5

HUN

5182

3

STRAUB, Davis

AIR Atos 145

USA

5063

4

RIGG , Gordon

MOYES Litespeed 4

GBR

4837

5

BARBER, Mike

MOYES Litespeed 4

USA

4771

Two more days of flying to go.

The full results can be found at: http://www.dynamicflight.com.au/Nationals/results.htm.

Discuss "Australian Hang Gliding Nationals – the rest day" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Zupy was sick

Wed, Nov 15 2000, 6:00:02 pm EST

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|record|USHGA

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|record|USHGA

(Zupy|Zupanc)|CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|record|USHGA

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|record|USHGA|Zupanc)

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|record|USHGA

Michael Zupanc informs us that he had pneumonia, which is why he was unable to make the recent CIVL bureau meeting, some of whose motions he disagreed with. We're sorry to hear about Michael's illness.

Regarding publishing Microsoft Word documents on the web he says:

I'm suprised this is not more common. I could simply save the files as html, but Word 2000 makes the files really huge when they are saved as html. Word 97 did a much better job, producing files that are smaller than the .doc file.

If your computer can open a Word document, then it should fire up automatically. The Word document is easier for most people to do edits if they wish to chop and change my ideas, hence I left it as a .doc.

Michael goes on to state:

An ongoing problem with "rule making" within the rarefied atmosphere of CIVL is a lack of (maybe a perceived lack of?) discussion with the general pilots. This is my attempt to get the ball rolling on some issues, and I would be most happy if anyone else with views of how things should or should not be done would do the same.

The Oz Report shares this view with Michael, and we encourage more open discussion of CIVL issues. We are not sure that CIVL delegates outside of Canada and the US follow the discussion that occurs on the rigid wing or hang gliding lists, and we have seen only sporadic contributions from pilots to the CIVL discussion forums. We have seen very little discussion from actual competition pilots.

I will be happy to publish any input from competition pilots regarding current CIVL or USHGA competition or record issues.

Zupy has his own ideas re CIVL issues

Sun, Nov 12 2000, 11:00:03 pm GMT

CIVL|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

Michael Zupanc <zupy@ozemail.com.au>, the Australia CIVL delegate and CIVL Vice President, saw the CIVL bureau minutes (which he failed to attend)and points us toward his own thoughts on some of the issues discussed by the bureau:

GPS. My views differ significantly with those of the rest of the Bureau. My discussion paper can be found at www.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/civl/gps.doc.

Hang glider safety standards. Some general issues, and some potentially contentious ones! Check out www.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/civl/safety.doc.

World Pilot Ranking System. Some suggestions for amendments to the existing system and an idea for a major revamp in the form of introducing a new level of competition. www.ozemail.com.au/~zupy/civl/wprs.doc.

You might have to have Microsoft Word, or maybe just WordPad to read these documents. I know that you can view these documents through Internet Explorer with Word operating behind the scenes, but this is the first time I've seen someone actually posting documents formatted in this manner on public web sites.

Michael suggests that pilots use the CIVL forumshttp://board.fai.org/ to voice their own opinions (and perhaps influence the discussion at the CIVL plenary next February).

Discuss "Zupy has his own ideas re CIVL issues" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Cylinder starts

Wed, Aug 23 2000, 3:00:01 pm EDT

Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc

(Zupy|Zupanc)|John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc|Zupanc)

John "Ole" Olson|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Michael Zupanc

Michael Zupanc, «zupy», writes:

Cylindrical starts, with the radius being the bombout distance (or whatever appropriate distance) will be used. Also have been toying with the idea of distance away from next TP as a start gate. This really opens up a whole new can of worms!