We awoke to a sky full of low clouds and light rain. It did not look like the start of a soaring day, but forecasts held out hope of clearing by mid-day, with thermal conditions possible by mid-afternoon. Late-day thunderstorm and wind warnings convinced many pilots to disassemble their gliders yesterday; they were now faced with having to re-assemble them in the morning rain. The optimists duly did; the pessimists decided to wait, reasoning that the interval between end of rain and start of lift should surely suffice.

The pessimists won: Satellite weather loops showed clearing skies well west of Tabor, but approaching very slowly. Rain was mostly gone before noon, but it was evident that soarable conditions could not realistically be expected before 16:00, and so the day was cancelled. (Skies did clear later, but definitely not in time for a task.)

Attention naturally shifted to the big evening event: International Night. All teams prepare food and drink typical of their country and offer it to all present. Counting pilots, crews, team captains, contest officials and assorted others, at 6 pm 200+ people gathered in the large hangar (where morning briefings happen) to enjoy this. Both the variety and quantity on offer were impressive.

The US Team offered chili plus Jack (Daniels) & Coke, which proved popular. Argentina had trays of empanadas looking sufficient to feed almost everyone; they were fried on the spot and went quickly. Croatia had a formidable cured ham and someone who knew how to carve it (very thin). Belgium offered what amounted to “waffle on a stick” and had eager customers lined up all night. France – always reliable in such events – had a selection that included wine, cheese, pâté de foie gras and multiple other delicacies. Switzerland offered fondue. Australia had grilled sausages and crackers with Vegemite (look it up). England scored with fresh strawberries & whipped cream.

There was, of course, also an impressive selection of beverages, only a few of which were non-alcoholic. The rest ranged from beer through wine and all the way up to such things as slivovitz, a type of plum brandy sporting a proof rating that can easily reach triple digits. Wise pilots approach these liquids carefully, especially when tomorrow has not been declared a rest day. A useful rule of thumb is that when offered a small amount of clear liquid, your level of caution should certainly take into account how far east in Europe is its country of origin. It appears the US Team heeded this advice; we’ll be on the lookout tomorrow for pilots who did not.

The Jury has issued its ruling on the protest brought by Great Britain against the imposition of a 100-point penalty on Tom Arscott (DW) for an incident on 12 June. This is presented in a document 22 pages long (which of course includes copies of all the documents previously submitted in connection with the incident and the protest). Here’s a summary (paraphrased) of the important points:

  • The maneuver in question did constitute flying dangerous enough to warrant being penalized.
  • The maneuver did not represent a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage, and thus was not unsporting.
  • Under the rules in effect here (The FAI Sporting Code, Section 3 Annex A, commonly referred to as SC3a), the only possibly relevant penalty category is Unsporting Behaviour – Dangerous or Hazardous Flying. This specifies a penalty of 100 points for the first offense, which was the penalty applied.
  • But because the pilot’s maneuver was not unsporting, it cannot be penalized under this rule. Accordingly, the penalty should be removed.
  • There should be a penalty category that applies to unsafe actions that are not considered unsporting, and its specified minimum should be less than 100 points. But none exists in the current version of SC3a. Because there is no way to penalize the pilot without the incorrect implication that his action was unsporting, no penalty should apply.

This close reasoning is clear, and appears to accurately conform to the rules as written. But its implication is obvious and troubling: The IGC has put Competition Directors in the very awkward position of having no effective way to discourage unsafe acts that are not actively malicious (the vast majority of such). The IGC should promptly act upon the Jury’s recommendation:
Create a new penalty for “Unsafe Operation,” and allow the Director to use his
discretion in its application. The new penalty should be applicable to any phase of
flight, and it should be less severe than 100 points for the first offense.

-John Good