Title & Location of Competition

8th FAI World Cup of Canopy Piloting & 3rd FAI European Continental Championship of Canopy Piloting

IPC Jury Meeting No:

Minutes Meeting #1

Time and Date:

1500, 25 August 2015

Subject:

Approval for Start of Competition.

Details:

1) Meet Director’s Report

The Meet Director, Buzz Bennett, reported to the Jury that he was ready to start.

2) Chief Judge’s Report

The Chief Judge, Björn Korth, reported to the Jury that the judges were ready to start the World Cup and that all the judging equipment is as approved by IPC and working properly.

3) Controller’s Report

The FAI Controller, Marylou Laughlin, reported that the deposit has been paid to the FAI on time, the provisional sanction fee has been paid to the FAI, and that the state of organizational readiness is satisfactory. Two notes:

• The jury approved the Controller’s plan for random weight checks.
• The Controller presented evidence of the calibration of the wind meter and the CJ’s chosen location (well clear of the tree line, to the north) and found it acceptable.

Decision:

The Jury decided that the conditions in SC5, 4.5.1 have been met and gave approval to start the World Cup. The organizer was informed of the Jury decision.

Title & Location of Competition

8th FAI World Cup of Canopy Piloting & 3rd FAI European Continental Championship of Canopy Piloting

IPC Jury Meeting No:

Jury Meeting #2

Time and Date:

1530, 25 August 2015

Subject:

Meet Director’s and Chief Judge’s request for rules clarification.

Details:

1) The MD requested interpretation of CR 4.5.1: “The jump order for the first round shall be determined from the results of the most recent FCE (WPC/World Cup).”

2) The MD requested clarification of the application of CR 4.5.4, “The order of exit passes will be rotated by 20%, rounded down, with the start of a new round on a later day and may be rotated also between events, applying the same procedure, at the discretion of the CJ.

3) The MD requested clarification of the decision-making authority over determining the manifest order. Do the rules of SC5, 5.2.2.2 and 5.2.3 take precedence over and invalidate the text in the CR, "at the discretion of the CJ".

4) The CJ requested clarification of the application of DR, even if a penalty occurred. Does the DR supersede the score with penalty, if the conditions of a DR penalty have been met?

5) The CJ requested clarification on the application of MX (“missed exit”) if a landing takes place short of the gate, on distance or zone accuracy.

6) The CJ requested clarification on the MS (“marker strike”) penalty.

7) The CJ requested clarification of the definition of OC (“off-course”).

Jury Meeting #2

Decisions:

Item 1: Interpretation of CR 4.5.1: “The jump order for the first round shall be determined from the results of the most recent FCE (WPC/World Cup).”

The jury concurs with the MD’s plan to start the competition with a reverse manifest order based on the combined result standings from the 2014 WPC at Zephyrhills—highest ranked overall competitor last; those competitors who didn’t compete at the most recent FCE first.)

Item 2: Application of CR 4.5.4, “The order of exit passes will be rotated by 20%, rounded down, with the start of a new round on a later day and may be rotated also between events, applying the same procedure, at the discretion of the CJ.

The jury interprets this rule to mean the MD must rotate the order of exit by 20% at the start of a new round on a new day of competition. This same procedure may also be applied after switching events on the same day of competition; i.e., transitioning from round #2 of speed to round #1 of distance.

Item 3: Clarification of the authority over determining the manifest order. Do SC5, 5.2.2.2 and 5.2.3 take precedence over the text in the CR, "at the discretion of the CJ".

The jury interprets SC5 5.2.3 (1) and (2) give final authority over the order of events and manifest order to the Meet Director.

Item 4: The application of DR, even if a penalty occurred. Does the DR supersede the score with penalty, if the conditions of a DR penalty have been met?

The jury affirms that except in the case of a missed entry or disqualification, if an OF (“out flying”), OC (“off course landing”), CD (“canopy down”), VE (“vertical extension”), ME (“missed exit”), or NW (“no water drag”) condition penalty is issued in a round after G1 has been scored, then a DR will be issued for that round.

Item 5: The application of MX (“missed exit”) if a landing takes place short of the gate, on distance or zone accuracy.

It is the opinion of the jury that as the rules are written, MX “missed exit” applies to all events. The lack of mention in each event’s specific rules does not preclude its application, including zone accuracy. A landing short of G5, for any reason, should trigger a missed exit penalty (MX).

Item 6: Clarification on the MS (“marker strike”) penalty.

It is the opinion of the jury that a marker strike does not result in the application of a penalty or default result.

Item 7: Clarification of the definition of OC (“off-course”).

The jury affirms that if there is contact on the surface outside the course, there must also be simultaneous contact with the inside of the course surface, else OC (“off-course”) applies.