CWG Process Overview 5/08CWG formed to investigate comp issues – Philosophy: Small, intentioned group = more progress 10/08CWG Draft report to BoD – Next Step:Get member feedback 11/08-10/09Feedback initiative – Online web form – Focus groups – One-to-one interviews 9/09-11/09Feedback assimilation, BoD communication/education, Present findings and conclude CWG effort

Why Competitions? Builds a sense of community Enhances knowledge transfer between pilots Increases pilot skill Keeps pilots in the sport Visibility for the sport (Slide information taken from Fall, 2008 CWG presentation)

Meets in Decline Probable contributing factors: Membership decline Being addressed through marketing Current system does not engender participation Needs to be addressed (Slide information taken from Fall, 2008 CWG presentation) Proportion of membership that has participated in at least one USHPA competition across 2 years. (Repeat attendees measure less than half.) 2.6%

Analysis: Key Issues Identified 1. Ranking and validity system is divisive 2. Only intense, high-end events are sanctioned 3. Sanctioning process unstructured No quality assurance for pilots Potential USHPA liability 4. No USHPA support for meet organizers (Slide information taken from Fall, 2008 CWG presentation) Board Directive: Review current system and recommend revisions in support of strategic goals including development of new system for regional and national sanctioned events

2009 Recommendations to Address Key Issues 1. Ranking and validity system is divisive 2. Only intense, high-end events are sanctioned 3. Sanctioning process unstructured No quality assurance for pilots Potential USHPA liability 4. No USHPA support for meet organizers Recommendations: Divide the ranking and validity systems into new divisions accommodating different types of competitions. Also suggest Comp Committee consider race-to- goal rule changes (conferred to Comp Comm.).

2009 Recommendations to Address Key Issues 1. Ranking and validity system is divisive 2. Only intense, high-end events are sanctioned 3. Sanctioning process unstructured No quality assurance for pilots Potential USHPA liability 4. No USHPA support for meet organizers Recommendations: Develop program for Accredited Competitions and Events

2009 Recommendations to Address Key Issues 1. Ranking and validity system is divisive 2. Only intense, high-end events are sanctioned 3. Sanctioning process unstructured No quality assurance for pilots Potential USHPA liability 4. No USHPA support for meet organizers Recommendations: Adopt unified sanctioning process using criteria developed with legal counsel

2009 Recommendations to Address Key Issues 1. Ranking and validity system is divisive 2. Only intense, high-end events are sanctioned 3. Sanctioning process unstructured No quality assurance for pilots Potential USHPA liability 4. No USHPA support for meet organizers Recommendations: Implement optional Meet Director training program and appointment. Consider rule changes which support Meet Directors

Recommendation #1: New Framework Board Approval Vote: Approve New Framework

Recommendation #2: Reorganize Competition Committee Board Approval Vote: New Comp Committee Structure Competition Committee Race-to-Goal Subcommittee Accreditation Subcommittee Aerobatics Subcommittee Open Distance Subcommittee Events Leagues Training comps Unranked comps

Recommendation #3: Go-Forward Plans to Develop New Divisions 3-day symposium objectives: Create development plan and criteria for Accredited Events and Competitions Create a development plan for Aerobatics Create a development plan for Open Distance

Recommendation #3: Go-Forward Plans to Develop New Divisions Proposed symposium participants 1 each (HG, PG) recognized open distance competition pilot 1 each (HG, PG) recognized aerobatics competition pilot 1 recognized meet organizer/director of entry level or league meets 1 Comp Committee chair 1 USHPA President and/or one member of the EC 2 former CWG members 1 USHPA FAI delegate 1 neutral facilitator 4 division sub-chairs (Aerobatics, Open Distance, R2G, ACE) 13 total Nominations accepted and approved by Comp Committee

Recommendation #3: Go-Forward Plans to Develop New Divisions USHPA to reimburse expenses Up to $500 per participant Total amount not to exceed $6,000 Tentatively scheduled for January, 2010 Board Approval Vote: Approve and Fund Symposium

Recommendation #4: Unified Sanctioning and Accreditation Process Review Tim Herrs legal review of comp exposure Review and approve Sanction Application, Sanction Manual (board decisions contained therein) Board Approval Vote: Approve New Sanctioning Manual

Motion #1 Motion to reorganize effective immediately USHPAs competition framework into 3 parallel divisions of Sanctioned Competitions for (1) Aerobatics, (2) Open Distance, and (3) Race-to-Goal, each with their own ranking systems, world teams, rules unique to their respective race formats, and championship and qualifying meets. And, to create a 4 th new division for Accredited Competitions and Events (ACE) of any format not meeting the criteria of the aforementioned 3 divisions.

Motion #2 Motion to reorganize the Competition Committee to eliminate the Paragliding and Hang Gliding subcommittees and their respective chair positions, and to form instead 4 new subcommittees of (1) Aerobatics, (2) Open Distance, (3) Race-to-Goal, and (4) Accredited Competitions and Events, each of which will serve both Hang Gliding and Paragliding for their respective domains. And, to direct the Competition Committee to develop, document and report to the Board of Directors for approval specific processes governing the criteria for selection and participation in those subcommittees not later than 12/31/09.

Motion #3 Motion to direct the Competition Committee to organize a Symposium for Competitions and Events as soon as practicable and not later than 4/30/10 as said symposium is described in the Competition Work Group Presentation to USHPAs Board of Directors in its presentation of 11/12/09. And, to authorize up to $500 per participant and $6,000 total for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses of its participants associated with attending this symposium.

Motion #4 Motion to accept and enact the unified Sanctioning and Accreditation Process presented by the Competition Work Group to USHPAs Board of Directors on 11/12/09 and as amended by the board. And, to direct the Competition Committee to complete any remaining development required, and with approval of any such changes from the Executive Committee to begin utilizing the new Sanctioning and Accreditation Process in the evaluation of applications for sanctioning or accreditation as soon as practicable and not later than 4/1/10.