Any news from IGC?

In article , Robert Danewid
writes

snip

Our delegates report that our proposal was not defeated.

Well, it was not accepted by the Plenary!

The principle that was accepted came from the IGC Bureau. Definitive
wording is being prepared by the Bureau because the Plenary allowed them
to tidy up the loose ends of wording. The revised wording will go in
Annex B to the code in due course. When the wording is agreed I have no
doubt that it will be announced so that people will know what is to
happen.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

Ian

Well, the short summary I received from FAI today says that it is not
for the GFAC to take the final decision on this in the future.

Now we can discuss wording - which you certainly is better at - but as
far as I and Göran Ax can interpretate the document "we won".

Cheers
Robert

Ian Strachan wrote:

In article , Robert Danewid
writes

snip

Our delegates report that our proposal was not defeated.


Well, it was not accepted by the Plenary!

The principle that was accepted came from the IGC Bureau. Definitive
wording is being prepared by the Bureau because the Plenary allowed them
to tidy up the loose ends of wording. The revised wording will go in
Annex B to the code in due course. When the wording is agreed I have no
doubt that it will be announced so that people will know what is to happen.

Robert Danewid wrote:

Ian

Well, the short summary I received from FAI today says that it is not
for the GFAC to take the final decision on this in the future.

Now we can discuss wording - which you certainly is better at - but as
far as I and Göran Ax can interpretate the document "we won".

Cheers
Robert

And what about the gps+PDA combinations? Are they included in your
proposal?

/Janos

In article , Robert Danewid
writes
Ian

Well, the short summary I received from FAI today says that it is not
for the GFAC to take the final decision on this in the future.

GFAC did not take "the final decision" as you put it, last year either.
Last year, when the announcement was made on the application of the "all
badges" IGC-approval level, it was with the agreement of GFAC, the GNSS
Committee (chaired by Bernald Smith) and the IGC Bureau. The date of
effect was personally chosen by the then IGC President, Tor Johannessen,
although I understand that the new IGC Bureau are looking at this at the
moment, perhaps with a view to giving more time before certain older
types of recorders take up the "all badges" level.

What IGC decided last month was to confirm the general procedure adopted
last year. That is, changes of IGC-approval level have to have the
agreement not only of GFAC but also of the GNSS Committee and the IGC
Bureau. As with all Bureau and other decisions between full IGC Plenary
meetings, the Plenary (as the highest IGC body) confirms (or otherwise)
those decisions made on its behalf during the year.

As you say, detailed wording is being worked out at the moment which
will go into Annex B to the Sporting Code in due course. It will be
announced to all when the IGC Bureau (the highest IGC body between
Plenaries) has agreed it.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:24:49 UTC, Ian Strachan
wrote:

: What IGC decided last month was to confirm the general procedure adopted
: last year. That is, changes of IGC-approval level have to have the
: agreement not only of GFAC but also of the GNSS Committee and the IGC
: Bureau. As with all Bureau and other decisions between full IGC Plenary
: meetings, the Plenary (as the highest IGC body) confirms (or otherwise)
: those decisions made on its behalf during the year.

Thank goodness gliding is a hobby, eh? I'd hate to see it tied up with
lots of committees like the rest of aviation.

Ian


--