Steve Kroop of Flytec USA was the meet organizer for the Worlds
held at Quest Air in May, 2006. He received the secret and private CIVL
Steward's report on the meet (CIVL sends them to the meet organizer as a matter
of courtesy). I have specifically been told by the CIVL President that I may not
publish this report.


Steve Kroop responded to the CIVL Steward's Report, with his own Organizer's
Report, which took the Steward's Report and incorporated his comments. I have
Steve's permission to publish his report, but not permission from CIVL to
publish their portion of the report. So I put in "..." where the Steward's
report is:

CIVL SANCTIONED MEET ORGANIZERS REPORT


It is necessary to not lose sight of the fact that hang gliding is declining
world wide, as is hang gliding competition. It is also necessary to note that
there was only one bid for this event. The point is, that there are not an
abundance of organizations willing to take on this thankless task. CIVL, being
the only worldwide organization, should take a long hard look at how it conducts
itself. We understand the need to point out problems/deficiencies with the
running of a competition, however, it is detrimental to elaborate on the
negative aspects and not give equal time to the positive aspects. The Steward's
report paints a pretty negative picture of an event that was an overall success.
Many of the competitors, that have attended several world events, stated that
this was one of the best World events that they had attended with respect to
organization, safety and overall feel. If CIVL wants to increase the number of
Meet Directors and Organizers and wants the existing ones to continue, then CIVL
should endeavor to be more supportive.


Below are our responses (in blue) to the Steward's report.

...

Not quite sure why this was confusing. Dave Glover was always listed as the meet
director and Quest air was always listed as the meet Organizer. Steve Kroop was
one of the staff of Quest Air (not the event "organizer"). Quest had several
individuals working, as a team, to organize the event including, at times, David
Glover.

...

The online registration form was our early attempt to notify competitors that
they needed to be AT qualified (It still amazes us that pilots would show up to
a World Competition without having the necessary skills!). It should also be
noted that it was never our position that pilots should arrive a couple of days
early to "practice". Our position was that they were to be AT qualified at the
time of pre-registration and, if not, they would have months until actual
registration to become so. We do not believe it is possible (for most pilots) to
become fully qualified in a few days.

...

Out of practice!?! That is an understatement for sure. It became evident that
some pilots had NEVER aerotowed before this event. The tug pilots routinely put
themselves in peril to help competitors from locking-out. We are very thankful
for their skill and willingness to protect the competitors! CIVL needs to fix
this if there will be future AT launch competition. Competitors going to world
events need to have an AT endorsement on their rating and documents. It is
unreasonable for the meet organizer to try and determine a competitor's AT skill
the day(s) before a comp or worse on their first tow in competition. It is the
opinion of at least one of the Organizational staff that CIVL should not
sanction another World HG competition until such time that competitor AT
proficiency and currency can be proven with their rating documents. Considering
the poor overall competitor AT skill we were very lucky that there was not a
serious accident at launch.

...

This statement is unclear, is it the Steward's position now that the on-line
pre-registration was a good idea? It is our opinion that the pre-registration
was essential! It put pilots on notice that they needed to be AT qualified (for
all the good that it did), it reminded them to have their NAC approve them (many
pilots were unaware of this step), it let us know who was coming so that we
could work with CIVL to determine if they were qualified, and it let us know how
many tugs, tow pilots and volunteers to have. It should be noted that we
received several requests from CIVL staff for our list of "registrants" that
would not have existed without the pre-registration process. Pre-registration
prevented several pilots from being rejected at registration.

...

This is completely incorrect: at registration each competitor was provided
(through their team leaders) a 11x17" color map complete with the turn-points
and airspace. Additionally, the back of the map listed all the turn-points with
Lat/Lon, altitude, distance, bearing and description. Extra copies were
available for drivers, team leaders and pilots who lost theirs. Task committee
had ample maps and other resources for task planning.

...

Actually there were 10 tugs and 12 tug pilots and more on standby if we needed
them.

...

There were always highly trained crew in the key positions (probably the best
trained AT launch crew in the world). The helpers in the back were there only to
help pilots get on the carts. There was little need for a "push". Once pilots
decided that it was "time to go" any delays were caused by launch line leaders
waiting for launch conditions to steady or to wait for a tug. Competitors
"squatting" at launch was never an issue.

...

Actually this box was available full time and was how we distributed competitor
mail.

...

Yes we did change the launch staging, however, this is not how it happened. This
year Dave Glover and Steve Kroop worked the alternative that was proposed and
accepted by the team leaders. For the record, we have always been keenly aware
of the angst surrounding the Le Mans staging. Prior to this event we have been
reluctant to change due to the fact that no one that complained had a workable
alternative. It is correct that ordered staging was rejected as being
impractical, cumbersome and very staff intensive. This organization has done
more AT competition launches than any other in the world- I think we know what
works better than individuals that have not organized a single AT launch
sequence.

...

Every system has the possibility of problems but in 11 days of staging we didn't
experience any to speak of.

...

As it was stated in the Lrs, once a pilot was in the launch line his only option
was to stay in his position in the line or to step back into the staging line-so
there was no need to "go around".

...

Clarified!?! Actually it was repeated ad-nauseum. It was in the Local Rules, it
was stated at the team leader meetings and it was told to all the competitors at
multiple pilot briefings.

...

Yes the crew could have been stricter about this but it has always been our
opinion that it is better to tell them what they did wrong and then assist them
so that they do not hold up the line. It should be noted that a pilot stepping
from the staging line to the launch line without being completely ready never
delayed the actual launches.

...

Yes the launches were fast but it is very unlikely that a partially ready pilot
held up a ready pilot because the staging line started at least 12 gliders back
from the actual take-off position.

...

Towing height is a complicated issue and strict adherence to tow height limits
is not a good idea. First of all, altitude really is not the issue- ask any
competitor if they would prefer to be towed a few hundred feet higher than the
2000' limit and let off in sink or a few hundred feet below the limit in a
decent thermal. The tug pilots try to take competitors to the first good lift.
This is good for competitors and good for launch staff. We feel that competitor
complaints on this issue are more likely a reaction to the stresses of
competition since minor tow altitude differences will not effect task outcomes.

...

Yes, the opening and closings were less formal than other events but it is our
opinion that hang gliding is a pretty informal activity and our events should be
fun and not be made boring by local officials rambling on about an activity that
they do not understand and do not care about. Prior to this event we asked
pilots about this and they told us that they preferred to stay on site with a
fun socializing event and skip the "pomp and circumstance". The next time we
host a World event, we'll dress it up :-)

...

Seems reasonable.

...

We have hosted numerous international events for years now, the media has turned
out in the past but interest has been declining. We informed various media for
this event and received little interest.

...

Sounds like a rule change is in order. Even with the few pilots that competed it
was an excellent race.

...

I think the Steward is confusing us with the Oz Report. We only posted the Local
Rules after the request for date change was denied and the rules that we posted
only had the actual dates and were marked as unofficial until they were
approved.

...

Seems reasonable.

...

The team leaders were talking to Drew by phone. Drew and Dave were with each
other when the decision to stop the task was being considered and when the
decision to stop the task was made.

...

Dave Glover can comment about this.

...

Drew, took his position as Safety director very seriously, We do not believe
that refused to listen to anyone regarding safety!

...

Drew, Dave and Steve were all together either in person or via phone/2-way radio
the entire time the stopping of a task was being considered. He was not alone!

...

The safety committee in this case did not communicate with the safety director.

...

The towing skill level demonstrated by many of the competitors was deplorable.
The conditions at launch were never any more demanding than we would expect from
an intermediate pilot. Many of the weak link breaks were caused by this lack of
skill.

...

A. The meet Organizers and crew were stunned by the competitor's lack of
self-responsibility. While Drew Harris did an excellent job as Safety Director
there was a mean spirited and rancorous outburst by about ½ the competitors, at
one of the pilot briefings, with respect to stopping the task due to weather on
course line. It was their opinion that we took too long to stop a task (about 11
minutes from first report to stopping the task) and that we were putting them in
danger. The fact that we (Safety Director, Meet Director, Launch Marshal and a
tug pilot) were all working together looking at conditions and in contact with
several team leaders, multiple competitors and up-to-the minute radar was not
enough for them.


The implication of their outburst was that they were not going to make any
judgment about their safety with respect to the weather (i.e., they were going
fly into danger unless we told them not to). Dave Glover and John Aldridge tried
to explain to them that the competition staff will do their very best to monitor
conditions and stop a task in a timely manner if conditions deteriorate but that
it was essential for pilots to be responsible for themselves and always fly away
from danger. This point was argued and a significant number of pilots believed
that it was not their responsibility and that the responsibility lied solely
with the Safety Director.


It is our opinion that this lack of self-responsibility is significantly
detrimental to the ability to run a competition. If pilots do not accept
responsibility for their own safety they put themselves and others in danger.
Furthermore, if pilots can pick and choose when they are responsible for their
actions (or inaction) then a perilous liability situation arises for Safety
Directors, Meet Directors, Organizers, Sponsors, etc. It should be noted that
competitors agreed to assume all risks associated with the competition in the
waiver that they signed when they registered, as well as in the pre-registration
form they filled out on-line (we do this so they cannot claim that they did not
know this before they arrived). However this is not enough, CIVL should adopt a
policy for competition that: while competition staff will endeavor to make the
competition as safe as possible, the pilot is solely responsible for his own
safety.


B. In general we found the CIVL personnel to be helpful but some of them were
initially adversarial, possessing a "lets watch and see what you will do wrong
attitude" rather than "let's help you get it right the first time" attitude.
Organizers at sites that routinely hold major competitions do not need
operational help, however, procedural/administrative help with respect to CIVL
regulations and expectations would be welcome.