ESTC Meeting 2016 – 11th of June, Prague, Czech Republic
Meeting minutes

People present
Rodolfo Saccani, Italy (FIVL), Chairman
Miroslav Vejt, Czech Republic (LAA), Host
Jens Voetmann, Denmark (DHPU)
Dave Thompson, UK (BHPA)
Runar Halling, Norway (NLF)
Laszlo Szollosi, Hungary (HFFA)
Laszlo Kerekes, Hungary (HFFA)
Ulf Martensson, Sweden (SSFS)
Arne Hillestad, Norway (NLF)
Marion Varner, France (FFVL)
Claude Bredat, France (FFVL)
Beni Stocker, Switzerland, (SHV)
Karl Slezak, Germany (DHV)
Ewald Kaltenhofer, Austria (ÖAeC)
Mark Shaw, UK (BHPA)
Andre Bizot, Netherlands (KNLV)
Luisa Slezak, Germany (DHV), Minutes Secretary

Opening
The meeting starts at 9:15 in the catacombs of the Hotel Martina in Prague. The chairman Rodolfo Saccani welcomes all the delegates, thanks the host Miroslav for organizing the meeting, thanks Luisa for the great work performed on the minutes last year and for offering to manage the minutes also this year.
Rodolfo Saccani informs the attendees that the EHPU AGM in January (Portugal) has confirmed his election as the chairman of ESTC.

1. Control of former decisions
1.1. Common flying rules, anti-midair-collision campaign
A decision was taken at the 2015 meeting that Karl should make a proposal for a pattern of the common European flying rules (thermal and soaring). This pattern is supposed to explain the rules easily and understandably and therefore mainly with drawings. It should be published in the member magazines and websites of all European Federations in the national language for a European-wide anti-midair-collision campaign.
Karl explains that he started but did not finish the work due to a legal problem concerning SERA, the new “Standardized European Rules of the Air”. SERA is responsible for paragliders and hanggliders. Yet, there are no rules for thermal flying and soaring included in SERA. Thus, it could become a legal problem to publish rules for that kind of flying as they will probably be contradiction to SERA. E.g. SERA allows overtaking on both sides for sailplanes, hanggliders and paragliders. However, the recommendation from ESTC is to overtake only on the right hand side. In case of crossing courses, SERA only knows “right has right-of-way”. This is a potentially dangerous contradiction to the common thermal rule “give way to the pilots circling in thermal”. Ewald explains that at the moment, Austria is without any official thermal and soaring rules because the statutory rules for hangglider and paraglider were completely replaced with the SERA rules. Against this background, Karl did not want to create a document which is a bit dubious concerning its legal validity.

After discussion and important input from Marion as a lawyer, the ESTC takes the following decisions:
- Karl is newly tasked with the job. He will prepare a proposal for a pattern with common European flying rules which are not in contradiction to SERA.
- As SERA is responsible for flying rules for hanggliders and paragliders, those rules should be part of SERA. EHPU should use their contacts to the European legislation in order to adopt common thermal/soaring rules in SERA in the long term. This step should be taken in coordination with the responsible bodies/federations for sailplanes.

1.2. Regular analysis of the European Accident Database
At the 2015 meeting, Karl was tasked to regularly analyze (2-3 times/year) the European Accident Database. Karl explains that he is not able to do this work properly because a lot of accident reports are incomplete. Particularly the French reports, which are hundreds, are not suitable for an analysis. This is due to the fact that the most important data as well as the short accident description in English are missing. Claude explains that there are two reporting systems in the FFVL. The pilots use the FFVL-system for reporting and there is an internal data transfer to the EHPU database. It seems that this data transfer does not work properly. Dave explains that BHPA had a similar problem in the beginning of using the EHPU database. He says that it was an effort to fix the transfer of data between both systems but now it is working well.
Decision: Marion will take that matter into his hands and will make the internet officer restructure the system in order to make sure that we will have the most important data in future accident reports. Karl will start making regular reports as soon as he receives the necessary information from the French federation.

1.4. Read-Only accounts (EHPU Accident database)
As wished, this point was discussed at the 2015 meeting and it is completed. The safety officer can now choose whether he gives a person a full account (with edit function) or a read-only account.

1.5. German annual accident statistic/analysis in English
Sweden and other smaller federations asked (at 2015 meeting) the DHV to publish its annual accident statistic/analysis in English. The 2015 report is available (and sent to all delegates by email) and the DHV will translate future reports, too.

1.6. Letter to WG 6 (Decision ESTC-Meeting 2015)
ESTC respectively EHPU were asked to write a letter to the WG 6 and the test laboratories with the clear demand to judge every correctly performed test flight maneuver. If a maneuver is valid, it has to be taken into account for the classification. That letter has been sent and it can be found here: http://www.ehpu.org/content/letter_to_wg6.pdf
The WG6 discussed the letter and stated that the current norm already bans what we called “best case testing” in paragraph 4.2 and therefore no action is required. This interpretation has been recorded in the minutes of the WG6 meeting held on 20 Oct 2015 in Berlin.

Here is a summary of the report to ESTC members sent by Rodolfo Saccani via email in Oct 2015:

Here is paragraph 4.2:
4.2 Classification of flight characteristics
When testing in accordance with the procedures 5.5.18.1 to 5.5.18.23, various aspects of the paraglider's behaviour are measured. These measurements are classified according to 4.4.1 to 4.4.23.
The class of a paraglider according to this document is determined by the highest classification obtained, i.e. by the highest level of pilot skill required (see Table 1).

According to the WG6 this paragraph does not only mean that the overall classification of the glider is determined by the highest classification assigned to the various tests, but also that the classification of each and every test is determined by the highest classification of each single execution of the maneuver prescribed for that test (should the maneuver be executed more than once), intending that best case testing is already banned and has always been.

2. EHPU stops financing the AFNOR secretary work for WG 6
The agreement between EHPU and AFNOR concerning the financing of the AFNOR secretary work with money from EHPU has expired at the end of 2015. The EHPU AGM 2016 took the decision not to continue the payment for AFNOR. Instead it will enter into new negotiations with AFNOR or another national EN institution. This matter brought with it a long discussion in ESTC. Arne explains that the decision at the EHPU AGM was taken majoritarian with 8:5 votes.
The main reasons for the decision was the disaffection with the outcome of the WG 6 meetings in matters of safety as well as the massive influence from the side of manufacturers and test laboratories on the WG 6 work on the one hand and the lack of influence from the side of the pilot federations, which pay for that work, on the other hand.
Marion explains that the French Federation FFVL has sent a letter to all European Federations and EHPU in order to convince them to continue the WG 6 work and the payment to AFNOR. FFVL has decided to pay for the AFNOR secretary work themselves because they want to avoid a complete breakdown of the WG 6 work. In the letter, FFVL asks the other federations for participation on that payment. Marion and Claude appeal strongly to the ESTC not to bury the WG 6 work because developing a good safety standard is the keynote of EHPU and was the reason for the founding. According to Marion, neither EHPU nor the federations have answered the letter yet. Most of the ESTC-delegates did not know about a letter from FFVL to their federation.
Decision: FFVL should write a new letter to the responsible persons (political body and to safety officer) in the European federations.

3. Update on Austrian guest flight rules
Ewald explains that a new law is on the ministries table to sign. This new law contents a list of countries which licenses will be acknowledged in Austria. The problem is that the new law covers not only gliders, paragliders and hanggliders but also light aircrafts. As there are issues with the light aircrafts, discussions are continuing. Since 1st of May another law is in force which makes it easier for foreign pilots without Austrian residence to fly in Austria. They can take an easy test at an Austrian flight school. If they pass, they receive a temporary license for one year. This is a way for pilots from countries which licenses are not accepted in Austria to receive a license. We hope that next time the new law is in force.

4. European Accident Database
In the meantime, there are more than 2400 incidents and accidents reported to the database. Details see list below.

Country	Number reports	Quality of data
Czech Republik	2	high
Denmark	20	medium
France	706	low
Germany	989	high
Italy	65	medium
Netherlands	105	medium
Sweden	49	medium
Switzerland	263	high
United Kingdom	559	high
Belgium	0
Spain	0
Austria	0
Portugal	0
Hungary	0
Ireland	0
Norway	0
Romania	0
Slovenia	0
Serbia	0

 

4.1. Problem of partly blank reports

There are still some problems with disappearing data if the user makes a mistake during filling in the form. Dave and Rodolfo Saccani have identified one of the problems. If one types in an incorrect entry in a free field (not dropdown) e.g. “100 kg” instead of just the number “100”, the system informs you about the wrong entry. At the same time, it resets all the drop down menus (not the other fields) to default. Maybe this is the reason why there are many fields left blank even though the pilots report that they have definitely filled them out.
Decision: Report to the programmer Alex in order to fix this problem.

4.2. Participation of Austria
Ewald reports that there is currently no possibility to officially introduce the EHPU Accident Database in Austria. Incidents/Accidents have to be reported to Austrocontrol which offers an online reporting system. The Austrian Federation, ÖAeC, is not interested in an additional reporting system due to two reasons: Firstly, ÖAeC is not responsible for incidents/accidents. Secondly, the responsible body already has a working online reporting system.

4.3. Standardized response email to the reporting person
Most of those responsible for the EHPU database in the federations know about the following matter: Pilots send the report and if they do not receive any response from the federation, they are insecure whether they have filled out/sent the report properly. Sometimes, they are also disappointed because of the lack of interest in the report. Some safety officers do send a personal email to each pilot but that takes a lot of time. ESTC discusses about the possibility to add a function for a standardized response-email to the person who has reported the accident.
Decision: A function for sending a standardized email to the reporting person has to be adopted. A proposal for the text that could be used for this purpose can be found in Appendix 1 of this document.
There must be an additional field for the email-address that the reporting person intends to use for the communication between him and the EHPU database. This is necessary because the reporting person maybe wants to have email communication with the database only via a specific (confidential) email-address.

5. FLARM
Beni reports about incidents in Switzerland. Two helicopter nearly collided with paragliders.
Air space restrictions close to helicopter stations are possible. Best way: FLARM instead of restricted areas. But: Swiss flight instrument manufacturer Flytec has stopped producing the FLARM chip. Now there seems to be a solution. A lot of drones are flying in Switzerland and they may need some kind of FLARM as well. This could decrease the costs. SHV is thinking about supporting FLARM for paragliders/hanggliders again. Beni clearly states that only a passive FLARM, without a screen as a signal-giver to other aircrafts around, is meant. Beni asks about experience in other countries about FLARM or other devices.
In the following discussion it becomes obvious that there is no real experience with FLARM for paragliders/hanggliders. Dave warns about the use of active FLARM as this would lead pilots to fly into clouds. Also, from another point of view, this matter is interesting and requires observation: Drones! We have to expect increasing drone traffic in the near future. We also have to admit that drone traffic will take place in the airspace we frequently use. Karl reports that the DHV has visited the German Ministry of Transport in order to express their concerns regarding drone traffic in uncontrolled airspace. The ministry was full of understanding for their concerns and promised them to take them in consideration.
Rodolfo Saccani concludes this matter with the demand to all EHPU members to circulate any information on this issue. He and Jens express their concerns that additional restrictions will be introduced if paragliders cannot be seen, like drones, by other aircrafts.

6. New law in Italy
Rodolfo Saccani thanks all ESTC-members which participated in the survey on airsport restrictions in Europe (see: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-bc1N1rkwfvwt2rq33-amdcihhgzfWOaVPbPEXO_D0Q/edit#gid=0)
This contribution has been very helpful. Until now, nothing is been decided and a final decision on the matter will take time. There is a proposal from Italian Aeroclub with additional restrictions for paragliders/hanggliders. FIVL will keep on fighting for as much freedom as possible.

7. Safety Management System (SMS)
Raymond asks to collect feedback on the document circulated. Raymond is not present at the meeting so he cannot present the project. Andre reports from the SMS-System of the Dutch Federation. There are annual analysis about all reported accidents and even minor incidents and mistakes which happened in schools, clubs and to free pilots. The outcome is presented to schools and clubs at the end of every year. Andre says: “We can say that we got a lot of points out of it where it was easy to change something that similar things wouldn’t happen again or somewhere else. It really helps creating an environment that is not about errors but about avoiding them”.

8. Harness buckles
Karl introduces that matter and explains what has happened that finally lead to a safety note which concerns hundreds of paragliding harnesses (see: http://www.dhv.de/db1/source/technicdatareportnotes.php?lang=en&item=245)
There were several reports from chest strap buckles which opened unintentionally and one fatality in Italy end of January. Concerned are the Finsterwalder Clicklock and T-Lock buckles. But there are also buckles from other manufacturers which had problems in the past, mostly concerning production failures. A long discussion follows. At the end, there is a decision:
We have to admit that a technical system like a harness buckle can fail. Due to wearing, wrong operating, material or production failures, ice, snow, dirt in the mechanics. Therefore, we must accept that this systems can never work completely reliable and save. The ESTC recommends an additional rule and a suitable test (for EN and LTF harness standard) to make sure that the pilot cannot fall out of the harness in case one of the buckles breaks.
The following wording (thanks to lawyer Marion) is agreed upon: “The failure of any one single buckle used to secure the pilot in the harness must not allow the pilot to fall out the harness”.

9. Project for disabled tandem passengers
Arne shows a video with a wheelchair developed for tandem flights. He says that there is still some work to do in order to make this tool really suitable for the purpose.

10. Location and date for the next meeting
Lazslo invites ESTC for the next meeting to Budapest, Hungary on June, 10. 2017

Closing
The meeting closes at about 6pm.

Rodolfo Saccani   Luisa Slezak
Chairman             Minutes Secretary

Meeting annuale European Safety and Training Committee di EHPU

ESTC Meeting 2016 – 11 giugno, Praga, Repubblica Ceca
Minute del meeting

Presenti
Rodolfo Saccani, Italy (FIVL), Chairman
Miroslav Vejt, Czech Republic (LAA), Host
Jens Voetmann, Denmark (DHPU)
Dave Thompson, UK (BHPA)
Runar Halling, Norway (NLF)
Laszlo Szollosi, Hungary (HFFA)
Laszlo Kerekes, Hungary (HFFA)
Ulf Martensson, Sweden (SSFS)
Arne Hillestad, Norway (NLF)
Marion Varner, France (FFVL)
Claude Bredat, France (FFVL)
Beni Stocker, Switzerland, (SHV)
Karl Slezak, Germany (DHV)
Ewald Kaltenhofer, Austria (ÖAeC)
Mark Shaw, UK (BHPA)
Andre Bizot, Netherlands (KNLV)
Luisa Slezak, Germany (DHV), Minutes Secretary

Avvio dei lavori
Il meeting inizia alle 9:15 presso l'Hotel Martina di Praga. Il chairman Rodolfo Saccani dà il benvenuto ai delegati, ringrazia Miroslav per aver organizzato il meeting, ringrazia Luisa per l'ottimo lavoro fatto con le minute dello scorso anno e per essersi offerta di gestirle anche quest'anno.
Rodolfo Saccani informa i partecipanti che il general meeting di EHPU a Gennaio in Portogallo ha confermato la sua elezione a chairman di ESTC.

1. Verifica delle decisioni precedenti
1.1. Regole di precedenza comuni, campagna anti-collisioni
Nel corso dell meeting del 2015 è stato deciso di assegnare a Karl la redazione di una proposta per un set di regole europee comuni per il volo, incluso il volo in termica e in dinamica. Lo scopo era quello di spiegare le regole in modo facile e comprensibile principalmente attraverso diagrammi e disegni. Questa guida andrà pubblicata all'interno delle riviste e dei siti web delle organizzazioni di volo libero europee, ciascuna nella sua lingua, così da avviare una campagna anti-collisioni di portata europea.
Karl spiega di aver interrotto i lavori a causa di problematiche legali legate a SERA, le nuove “Standardized European Rules of the Air”. Sebbene SERA coinvolga anche parapendio e deltaplano, non prevede regole specifiche per il volo in termica e in dinamica. Questo rischia di porre problemi di tipo legale qualora si pubblicasse regole di precedenza che contrastano con SERA. A titolo di esempio SERA consente il sorpasso a destra e a sinistra per alianti, parapendii e deltaplani, mentre la raccomandazione ESTC è di sorpassare a destra. In caso di rotta di collisione l'unica regola SERA è “chi viene da destra ha la precedenza”. Questa è una contraddizione potenzialmente pericolosa rispetto alla comune regola del volo in termica “dai la precedenza a chi sta girando in termica”. Edwald spiega che in questo momento in Austria non ci sono regole ufficiali per il volo in termica e dinamica proprio perché le regole relative al volo di deltplani e parapendii sono state completamente rimpiazzate dalla regole SERA. In questa situazione Karl ha preferito non rischiare di produrre un documento la cui validità legale poteva essere dubbia.

Al termine della discussione e grazie all'importante input di Marion in qualità di legale, ESTC prende le seguenti decisioni.
- Karl viene nuovamente incaricato di questo compito. Preparerà una proposta di regole di precedenza comuni europee che non constrastino con le regole di SERA.
- Dal momento che SERA definisce regole che si applicano a deltaplano e parapendio, le nuove regole dovrebbero entrare in SERA. Come obiettivo di lungo termine EHPU dovrebbe attivare i propri contatti per far si che la legislazione europea adotti (in SERA) regole comuni per il volo in termica e dinamica. Questo passo dovrebbe essere fatto coordinandosi con le organizzazioni che si occupano di volo a vela.

1.2. Analisi periodica del database europeo di incidenti
Al meeting del 2015 Karl si è preso l'incarico di analizzare periodicamente (2-3 volte l'anno) il database europeo di incidenti per evidenziare trend degni di attenzione. Karl spiega di non aver potuto eseguire questo compito in modo adeguato a causa del fatto che molti report di incidente sono incompleti. In particolare i report della Francia, che sono centinaia, non sono adatti ad una analisi perché i dati più importanti, inclusa una breve descrizione in inglese della dinamica, sono assenti. Claude spiega che ci sono due sistemi di segnalazione incidenti in FFVL. I piloti usano il sistema FFVL e poi c'è un trasferimento dati automatico verso il database europeo. A quanto pare questo sistema non funziona correttamente. Dave spiega che BHPA ha avuto un problema analogo quando il database EHPU.
Decisione: Marion si fa carico del problema e farà in modo che l'internet officer di FFVL ristrutturi il sistema perché i report nel database EHPU abbiano tutti i dati. Karl effettuerà report periodici non appena riceverà queste informazioni da FFVL.

1.4. Accesso in sola lettura al database
Questo punto, discusso nel meeting del 2015, è stato completato. Il safety officer può creare account con permesso di modifica o per sola lettura.

1.5. Statistiche annuali in inglese su incidenti avvenuti in Germania
La Svezia e altre piccole associazioni hanno chiesto nel corso del meeting del 2015 al DHV di pubblicare le proprie statistiche annuali in inglese. Il report del 2015 è disponibile ed è stato inviato ai delegati via email. DHV tradurrà anche i report futuri.

1.6. Lettera al WG6
ESTC aveva chiesto a EHPU di scrivere una lettera al WG6 e ai laboratori di test con la chiara richiesta di tenere in considerazione ogni singola manovra eseguita durante i test di certificazione. Se l'esecuzione di una manovra è corretta, la reazione deve essere presa in considerazione (senza ritentare nel caso la reazione non rientri nella categoria voluta).
La lettera è stata scritta ed è disponibile qui: http://www.ehpu.org/content/letter_to_wg6.pdf
Il WG6 ha discusso questa lettera e ha stabilito che la norma attuale vieta quello che abbiamo chiamato “best case testing” nel paragrafo 4.2 e pertanto non sono necessarie ulteriori modifiche. Questa interpretazione è stata registrata nelle minute del meeting WG6 che si è tenuto il 20 ottobre 2015 a Berlino.

Segue un riassunto del report ai membri ESTC inviato da Rodolfo Saccani via email a ottobre 2015:

Questo è il paragrafo 4.2:
4.2 Classificazione delle caratteristiche di volo
Quando testati in accordo con le procedure da 5.5.18.1 a 5.5.18.23, vari aspetti del comportamento del parapendio vengono misurati. Queste misure sono classificate come definito nei paragrafi da 4.4.1 a 4.4.23.
La classe del parapendio è determinata dalla più alta classificazione ottenuta, cioè dal più alto livello di capacità del pilota richiesto (vedere Tabella 1).

Secondo il WG6 questo paragrafo non significa solo che la classe finale assegnata al parapendio è determinata dalla più alta classe assegnata a ciascuna manovra, ma anche che la classificazione di ciascuna manovra è determinata dalla più alta classificazione di ciascuna esecuzione della manovra stessa (nel caso la manovra sia eseguita più volte), intendendo quindi che il best case testing è già vietato e lo è sempre stato.

2. EHPU interrompe i finaziamenti ad AFNOR per i lavori di segretariato del WG6
L'accordo tra EHPU e AFNOR riguardo il finanziamento dei lavori di segretariato con soldi di EHPU è scaduto alla fine del 2015. Il general meeting di EHPU del 2016 ha deciso di non continuare questo finanziamento. Si avviano invece negoziazioni con AFNOR o altra istituzione EN. Questo argomento ha avviato una lunga discussione in ESTC. Arne spiega che la decisione di EHPU è stata presa con una maggioranza di 8 voti contro 5.
La principali ragione all'origine di questa decisione è l'insoddisfazione nei confronti dei risultati dei meeting WG6 riguardo la sicurezza e la pesante influenza che i produttori e i laboratori di test hanno sui lavori del WG6, oltre alla sempre più scarsa influenza che esercitano i rappresentanti dei piloti, che pagano per questi lavori.
Marion spiega che la federazione francese FFVL ha inviato una lettera a tutte le organizzazioni europee e ad EHPU per convincerli a continuare i lavori del WG6 e i pagamenti ad AFNOR.
FFVL ha deciso di pagare lei per i lavori del WG6 e chiede alle altre organizzazioni di contribuire a questo pagamento. Marion e Claude si appellano a ESTC perché il lavoro del WG6 non sia abbandonato perché sviluppare un buon standard è uno degli obiettivi di EHPU ed è stata una delle ragioni per fondare EHPU. Marion riferisce che né EHPU né le altre organizzazioni hanno risposto alla lettera di FFVL.
Decisione: FFVL scriverà una nuova lettera al responsabile politico e al responsabile della sicurezza di ciascuna organizzazione europea.

3. Aggiornamento sulle regole per gli stranieri in Austria
Ewald riferisce che la nuova legge è sul tavolo dei ministri in attesa della firma. Questa legge consente il riconoscimento automatico delle license di un certo numero di paesi. Il problema è che la nuova legge non riguarda solo alianti, parapendio e deltaplano ma anche aviazione leggera. Dal momento che ci sono delle problematiche sull'aviazione leggera, ci sono ancora discussioni in corso.
Il 1 maggio è entrata in vigore un'altra legge che rende più facile il volo in Austria agli stranieri. E' richiesto un test presso una scuola di volo Austriaca. Se il test viene passato si riceve una licenza temporanea della validità di un anno.

4. Database europeo degli incidenti
Sono oltre 2400 gli incidenti e inconvenienti inseriti nel database europeo.
La tabella che segue riassume i dettagli.

Paese	Numero di report	Qualità dei dati
Czech Republik	2	high
Denmark	20	medium
France	706	low
Germany	989	high
Italy	65	medium
Netherlands	105	medium
Sweden	49	medium
Switzerland	263	high
United Kingdom	559	high
Belgium	0
Spain	0
Austria	0
Portugal	0
Hungary	0
Ireland	0
Norway	0
Romania	0
Slovenia	0
Serbia	0

4.1. Problema con report parzialmente compilati
Ci sono ancora problemi con dati che spariscono se l'utente fa errori durante la compilazione del form. Dave e Rodolfo Saccani hanno identificato uno dei problemi: se si digita un valore non valido in un campo libero (non drop-down), ad esempio “100kg” invece del solo numero “100”, il sistema informa l'utente dell'errore ma allo stesso tempo resetta tutti i meno drop-down al default. Questa è probabilmente la causa di alcuni report incompleti.
Decisione: Riportare il problema ad Alex (lo sviluppatore) affinché sia corretto.

4.2. Partecipazione dell'Austria
Ewald riferisce che attualmente non è possibile introdurre ufficialmente il database EHPU in Austria. Gli incidenti e gli inconvenienti devono essere segnalati ad Auscontrol, che offre un sistema di segnalazione online. Questo limita l'adozione del sistema EHPU che richiederebbe un doppio inserimento. Non è possibile collegare i due sistemi in quanto la federazione non ha il controllo sul sistema di Auscontrol.

4.3. Risponsta standard via email ai report di incidente
Molti dei responsabili del database EHPU sanno che quando viene inserito un report il pilota che non riceve feedback non è sicuro di averlo inserito correttamente e spesso anche deluso dalla mancanza di interesse nel loro report. Alcuni responsabili mandano una mail personale a ciascun pilota ma questo prende molto tempo. ESTC ha discusso della possibiltà di inserire una email automatica in risposta alle segnalazioni di incidente.
Decisione: Deve essere inserita una email automatica a chi ha inserito il report. Una proposta per il testo della mail è nell'Appendice 1. Ci deve essere un campo adizionale per l'indirizzo email attraverso il quale il pilota vuole diaolgare con EHPU. Questo è necessario perché chi inserisce il report può desiderare che queste comunicazioni avvengano solo via uno specifico e confidenziale indirizzo.

5. FLARM
Beni riferisce di incidenti in Svizzera in cui due elicotteri hanno di poco evitato una collisione con mezzi da parapendio. E' possibile che vengano introdotte restrizioni al volo in prossimità di eliporti. Il sistema migliore per gestire il rischio è il FLARM, piuttosto che restrizioni al volo.
Il produttore svizzero Flytec ha smesso di produrre strumenti con FLARM. La soluzione può arrivare dal fatto che ormai molti droni stanno volando in Svizzera e potrebbero avere anche loro bisogno di un sistema di questo tipo. Questo potrebbe portare a soluzioni dai costi e pesi contenuti. SHV sta intanto valutando di supportare nuovamente il FLARM. C'è da specificare che si parla di FLARM passivo, senza schermo, solo per essere visti.
Nella discussione che segue appare evidente che non c'è una grande esperienza di uso del FLARM nel volo libero. Dave avverte che l'uso del FLARM attivo andrebbe ad incoraggiare il volo in nube, cosa da evitare. Dal momento che i droni saranno sempre più presenti negli spazi in cui voliamo, è sempre più utile trovare una soluzione comune. Karl riferisce che il DHV ha incontrato il Ministero dei Trasporti per esprimere preoccupazioni rispetto al trafico di droni in spazi aerei non controllati. Il ministro ha dimostrato di condividere le preoccupazioni e promesso di tenerle in considerazione.
Rodolfo Saccani conclude con la richiesta a tutti i membri EHPU di far circolare ogni informazione sull'argomento. Lui e Jens esprimono la preoccupazione verso la futura possibile introduzione di restrizioni al volo qualora i mezzi da volo libero (così come i droni) non abbiano un modo per rendersi visibili agli altri aeromobili.

6. Nuova legge in Italia
Rodolfo Saccani ringrazia tutti i membri ESTC che hanno partecipato alla raccolta di informazioni circa le restrizioni al volo libero in Europa. Questo contributo è stato estremamente utile.
Fino ad ora non ci sono state decisioni di sorta e in ogni caso qualunque decisione richiederà ancora molto tempo. La proposta di legge di AeCI prevedere restrizioni per mezzi da volo libero e FIVL continuerà a battersi per quanta più libertà possibile.

7. Safety Management System (SMS)
Raumond chiede di raccogliere feedback sul documento che ha fatto circolare. Raymond non è presente al meeting quindi non può presentare il progetto. Andre riferisce circa il sistema SMS della federazione olandese. Si tengono sessioni annuali di analisi di tutti gli incidenti segnalati, inclusi incidenti minori ed errori avvenuti nelle scuole, club e piloti. Il risultato è presentato alle scuole e ai club alla fine di ogni anno. Andre dice che in molti casi è facile cambiare piccoli comportamenti affinché gli incidenti non si ripetano e che è molto utile creare un ambiente in cui si discute di come evitare gli errori.

8. Fibbie delle sellette
Karl introduce l'argomento spiegando quello che è successo e che ha portato ad un avviso di sicurezza che coinvolge centinaia se non migliaia di imbraghi.
Ci sono stati diversi report di fibbie del ventrale che si sono aperte ed una fatalità in Italia. L'ultimo avviso è relativo alle fibbie Finsterwalder Clicklock e T-lock ma anche fibbie di altri produttori hanno avuto problemi in passato. Segue una lunga discussione da cui deriva la seguente decisione.
E' necessario contemplare che un sistema tecnico come una fibbia può fallire a causa di uso, errori, difetti del materiale o di produzione, ghiaccio, neve, sporcizia nei meccanismi. Dobbiamo accettare che questi sistema non possono essere sempre affidabili. ESTC raccomanda un ulteriore test per i test di certificazione che miri ad assicurarsi che il pilota non possa cadere fuori dall'imbrago nel caso una fibbia si apra.
Si suggerisce la seguente definizione (grazie all'avvocato Marion): “Il cedimento di una singola fibbia usata per assicurare il pilota nell'imbrago non deve consentire al pilota di cadere fuori da esso”.

9. Progetto per passeggeri tandem disabili
Arne mostra un video di una sedia a rotelle sviluppata per il volo in tandem. Segue breve discussione su esperienze analoghe.

10. Località e data del prossimo meeting
Lazslo invita ESTC a Budapest, Ungheria, il 10 Giugno 2017

 

14 Setpember 2015

Dear CEN/TC 136/WG6 member,
during the last meeting of the European Safety and Training Committee of EHPU (European Hang-gliding and Paragliding Union), the committee took the following decision:

"ESTC, as the technical emanation of EHPU, should write a letter to the WG 6 and the test laboratories asking that every test maneuver, when properly executed according to the test protocol, is taken into account for the classification. If a maneuver has been executed more than once, the worst result should determine the certification. No "best-case-testing" anymore. For upcoming modifications of the standard EN 926-2, it should be clearly written in the test flight rules that every valid maneuver has to be taken into account for classification."

As the chairman of ESTC I am therefore bringing to the attention of the WG6 members this recommendation coming from the safety officers of the major European free flight organizations.

At the meeting the following nations were represented: Norway, Denmark, France, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Sweden, Romania, Netherlands, UK, Austria, Germany, Italy.

The motivation behind such recommendation from ESTC is the fact that with current gliders, in many cases, small changes in the execution of a maneuver may lead to a wide range of reactions some of which fall within the acceptable reactions for one category and some in a different category.

The current EN926-2 norm does not specify what happens, for example, if the same maneuver is executed twice, both times executed properly and according to the protocol, and two different reactions are obtained, and these two reactions fall into two different glider classification classes, for example B and C.

Which classification should the glider get for such maneuver? B or C?

Given that the EN926-2, probably assuming a repeatable behavior (same test maneuver, same reaction every time), does not specify what to do in such situation, ESTC is worried that this might lead, in some cases, to mis-categorization of gliders.

The suggestion from ESTC is that, whenever different reactions leading to different classifications happen, the worst reaction should determine the glider classification.

In the example above the glider should be certified as a C glider, not B.

A request for clarification (02-2015) has been filed this year by Italy about this issue. The request for clarification has been discussed at the previous WG6 meeting on 2016-05-29/30. I wasn't present at that meeting and I see from the minutes that the result of the discussion is "No action".

I suggest to re-open the discussion on that request for clarification based on this input from ESTC, in the agenda of the next WG6 meeting.

For further details, the minutes of the 2015 ESTC meeting are available on the EHPU website:

http://www.ehpu.org/content/2015_ESTC_Minutes.doc

 

I am available to provide any clarification. I can be contacted by email at sicurezza@fivl.it and by phone at +39 3355844936.

 

Best regards
Rodolfo Saccani

ESTC Meeting 2015 – 13th of June, Herrsching am Ammersee/Germany

Meeting minutes

Persons present:
Arne Hillestad, Norway (NLF)
Jens Voetmann, Denmark, (DHPU)
Jean Pierre, France, (FFVL)
Claude Bredat, France, (FFVL)
Marion Varner, France, (FFVL)
Miroslav Vejt, Czech Republik, (LAA CR)
Martin Kinzl, Switzerland, (SHV)
Beni Stocker, Switzerland, (SHV)
Hans-Peter Fallesen, Sweden, (SSFF)
Valentin Popa , Romania, (AZLR)
Andre Bizot, Netherlands, (KNVvL)
Dave Thompson, UK, (BHPA)
John Lovell, UK, (BHPA)
Ewald Kaltenhofer, Austria (ÖAeC)
Karl Slezak, Germany, (DHV)
Luisa Slezak, (Minutes) Germany, (DHV)
Roland Börschel, Germany (DHV)
Horst Barthelmes, Germany, (DHV)
Rodolfo Saccani, Italy, (FIVL)

After killing as much mosquitoes as possible in the meeting room, the meeting starts at about 9:30 AM

Greetings to John
As announced at the last meeting in Nice, John Lovell lays down his function as the chairman of the ESTC after 15 years. On behalf of the whole ESTC, Karl thanks John (and Yvonne for keeping the minutes in all these years) for his long voluntary commitment.
Long applause from the participants.

Elections of new chairman
Rodolfo Saccani was appointed chairman by Rasmus Rohlff, former EHPU General Secretary. He asks for a formal election of the new chairman by the ESTC members.
It has been determined that no other candidate is available for the election. An open election took place, unanimously voting for Rodolfo Saccani.
At 11:00 AM, Rodolfo Saccani took over the temporary chairmanship of ESTC. The chairmanship has to be confirmed by the EHPU Presidents Meeting in January 2016.

Acknowledgment of tests for airsports devices carried out by the test laboratory Aerotest from the French Association FFVL
Marion presents a letter to Karl, sent from the German Ministry for Transport and Traffic
to the lawyers of the French federation (but Karl already was aware of this letter). In this letter it is confirmed that certifications according to EN 926-1 and 926-2 (paraglider load and flight tests) issued by Aerotest are fully acknowledged in Germany, in the same way as certifications from the DAkkS-accredited test laboratories. Background is that every certification issued by a governmental representative from an EU-Member country has to be acknowledged according to the German air traffic law.
Discussion:
Karl: How will the French association proceed?
Marion: Open for anything, there is a cooperation with Air Turquoise, but even cooperation with DHV is thinkable.
Andre: Which paragliders tested in France can be used in Germany?
Karl: Only those with certification issued by Aerotest

EHPU Financing ESTC
Rodolfo Saccani and 2015 EHPU Chairman Arne informed the ESTC that EHPU took the decision, at the last annual meeting, to finance the ESTC-Meetings with an amount of € 2000/year. The organization hosting the annual ESTC meeting can issue an invoice to EHPU up to this amount to help covering the costs.

Pilot survey
Rodolfo Saccani asks for the real number of active pilots in the single countries. Problem: In some countries the licenses are valid unlimitedly, in others they are limited and must be renewed in a certain period of time. Some of the numbers therefore will be estimations.

A try:
Norway: 2150 PG, 210 HG
Denmark: 850 total
France: 23000 PG, 1200 HG
Czech Republic: 2500 PG, 200 HG
Switzerland: 15700 PG and HG
Sweden: 1500 PG, 150 HG
Romania: 1300 PG, 17 HG (problems to control licences, unknown number of active pilots without licences)
Netherlands: 1526 PG, 327 HG (difficult estimation of pilots)
UK: 4600 PG, 1500 HG
Austria: 4000 PG, 500 HG (valid licences 26000)
Germany: 34000 PG, 3000 HG
Italy: 9000 PG, 1000 HG

Austrian guest flight rules
Ewald stated that there will finally be guest flight rules in Austria. They will not be based on the IPPI-Card rating from FAI (like e.g. in Germany) but on acknowledgement of the national licenses. The Aeroclub and the Austrian Ministry of Transport are currently working on a list of the acknowledged licenses.
In order to proof whether the foreign licenses are at least equivalent to the Austrian licenses, the Austrian Aeroclub has send a letter to all European Federations/Aeroclubs asking for information about the training requirements for the national licenses. By the end of the summer there should be a list of acknowledged licenses. At the moment, the following licenses are positively proven by the Austrian Aeroclub and proposed to the Austrian Ministry of Transport:
Australia
Denmark
Germany
France
Italy
Croatia
Lithuania
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Switzerland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Ukraine
Hungary
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Development of accident numbers
Karl presents the paragliding accident statistics for Germany (German pilots at home and abroad) since 1997. It shows that the number of paraglider pilots has increased during the last 15 years from 20.000 to 34.000. The number of reported incidents and accidents has increased too, but compared to the increasing number of pilots, the curve of the increasing incidents/accidents is flatter.
The number of fatal accidents per year has been roughly stable during the last 15 years, between 8 and 12 on average.
Carefully spoken, that means that during the last 15 years paragliding has become safer.

Rodolfo Saccani: the number of fatalities in Italy stayed almost the same over the years, with a constant number of pilots. Knowledge of techniques and weather-conditions, passive safety of gliders in lower classes have increased greatly over the last 15 years but today we can see two different types of pilots: those who take advantage of all these improvements and fly much safer than 15 years ago and those who fly gliders in higher classes, have a more competitive approach (also related to online competitions) and take more risks. The final result is a constant rate of fatalities.
Question: Why is the number of the pilots in Germany increasing?
Karl: The main reason is probably that DHV promotes supervised flying intensively (magazines, internet): Pilots who don´t fly frequently should fly only class A gliders or max. low level B-gliders (less serious accidents, statistically) and should fly supervised by flight schools.

Anti-midair-collisions
Karl stated out that mid-air-collisions are a serious problem – several fatalities – a lot of dangerous situations, that could have developed into serious accidents. DHV has started a humorous campaign in his members magazine in order to remind the pilots to the rules of the air.
Proposal: EHPU should create an information flyer (with simple design) which shows the common rules of the air in the European countries and even informs about differences. This flyer (maybe double-side) should be published once a year in the member-magazines of all the European federations and even on their websites.
DHV would work on it and will send a first proposal as soon as possible. It is agreed that, apart from the specific rules, a main-rule should apply: It is the duty of all pilots to maintain a safe distance to all other pilots.

Dave and Marion remind that there should be a careful use of the wording "right of way" because pilots who think they have right of way “don´t think” at all. In almost every case there is a duty to "give way". For the common EHPU-information about the rules of the air, this should be taken into consideration. Dave explains that there is a difference between law and rules. E.g. the regulations for overtaking or thermaling in the UK are not law, but rules, given from the federation.
Marion reports that in case there are no legal regulations for specific mid air encounters but rules from a responsible body (federation) are available, a court will always refer to these rules. Therefore, even the rules should get as much attention as laws legally in force.
Decision: DHV work on a proposal for common EHPU rules of the air for paragliders and hanggliders.

On behalf of the DHV-Board, Karl asks for a common rule for flying at a ridge. It has to be defined more precisely whether the rules are valid only while flying at a slope or even in case of flying above a ridge.
A long discussion with several proposals for a definition took place. For details, see record of the meeting. Finally, the ESTC agreed the following common rule for ridge soaring.
Decision: Approaching head on when ridge soaring or near a slope or an obstacle: The glider with the ridge/slope/obstacle on his left hand side has to give way and has to change his course to the right.
In order to make both situations clear, near the slope and above the ridge, the EHPU information side of common rules should contain clear drawings of the different situations.

Thermal rule: "While thermaling, the slower climbing pilot has to give way to the faster climbing pilot".
Legal situation concerning this rule: In most of the countries it is unknown. But in Switzerland it is part of the law and in Germany it is part of the specific rules for paragliders and hanggliders, issued by the DHV as representative of the Ministry of Transport.
After a long discussion the ESTC took the following
Decision: When thermaling, neither the faster climbing nor the slower climbing pilot has the right of way. Both are responsible for a safe distance.
Switzerland and Germany are asked to work for changing their national rules.

Overtaking
According to the new SERA (Standardized Rules of the Air), gliders (sailplanes) can choose the overtaking-direction. Both sides, left and right (former, only right) are allowed now. Question: Should this rule also be valid for paragliders and hanggliders?
Decision: There is no need to change the existing rule: Overtaking only at the right hand side.

Landing approach
It is a common law in whole Europe that during landing approach, the higher flying aircraft has to give way to the lower flying aircraft. In spite of that, it is agreed that this rule should be part of the EHPU rules of the air:
During the landing approach the higher flying pilot has to give way to the lower flying pilot.

Alcohol, Drugs
After a long discussion about the question, whether the EHPU rules of the air should contain something about flying under influence of alcohol or drugs, the majority votes against that proposal. The common rules should be limited to the essentials with the clear emphasis of avoiding collision. Apart from that, flying under influence of alcohol and drugs is forbidden by law in every single country.
Decision: No rule about alcohol/drugs should be in the document, the document is about collision avoidance

EHPU-Accident database
New database-member
France has joined the database, the week before the ESTC-Meeting. Everybody is happy now, because France is one of the major paragliding/hanggliding countries in Europe. The more data from accidents and incidents can be found in the database, the better is the profit for research and analysis.

View-only function
Karl explains that the programmer is currently programming a view-only function. This means, there will be the possibility to give database-accounts to people who are then able to see the data but not to edit the data.

Database-access for pilots
Hans-Peter: All pilots/federation-members should be able to get the information from the database with the view-only function. In Sweden, only few accidents happen and only a part of them are reported. It would be a better motivation for reporting incidents/accidents, if the pilots could see the benefit for all pilots- public accident reports. A survey in the Swedish magazine showed that there´s huge interest in information about accidents. Due to the small amount of accidents in Sweden, European database is fantastic tool to use to help pilots.

Karl: In Germany, the DHV doesn't want to make the data public to all pilots. More than 250 incidents/accidents a year – it is not possible for the DHV safety officer to investigate every accident thoroughly. Partly accident reports are incorrectly filled out by the pilots themselves. The DHV only publishes fully investigated accident reports on his website. Another problem might be faked accidents that are only reported to harm producers/brands.

Beni: Pilot might blame behaviour of glider even though he himself made a mistake – publishing untrue facts can cause trouble with manufacturers.

Martin: We have to take into consideration, that possible identification of the accident pilot, in case of publishing the accidents, might stop pilots from reporting.

John, Dave: The BHPA publish main data from UK accidents on the BHPA-Website. There is a tool, which automatically takes the data from the BHPA national accident database into a form on the BHPA-Website with the following informations: Date/sex/age/licence/location/condition/wing, launch type/glider/short summary/injury. Of course, every federation can do the same with the own national data.

After the following discusssion the ESTC took the following
Decision: Every federation is free to publish the national data for public purpose. But the EHPU data are furthermore confidential. Because the smaller federations have a well-founded interest in an analysis of the European data (because they have too few accidents for an own analysis), ESTC ask Karl to make a overview analysis 3 or 4 times a year. Karl agrees under the reservation of an approval of DHV-Board and DHV-CEO.

Analysis tool for the database
Currently, there is no analysis function programmed on the database. Only the search-function allows an analysis. It is consensus, that a statistic function, which generates diagrams on the base of the data, would be a useful tool. Karl will go in contact to the programmer in order to find a reasonable solution.

WG6, EN standard for paragliding equipment
Arne starts this topic with the question "What has to be updated? How shall we look into the WG6 and contribute to get a good safety standard? Is there a need for an improvement of gathering information?"
Beni: Work is finished on gliders and parachutes standard, work in progress on harness-standard and connecting elements.
In the following discussion (for details see record of the meeting), it gets obvious that inside ESTC there is lack of knowledge and information about the questions:
Who has the right to participate in WG 6? Who finances the work of WG 6? Who puts the WG 6 together? How often does that group meet? What is the space of time to review the EN-standards? Who can control WG 6?
Rodolfo Saccani, Marion and Arne explain the open questions.
It gets even obvious, that there is a certain dissatisfaction concerning the results of the certification by the test laboratories (classification of paragliders A-D). The criticism from a part of the participants is that it seems that the test laboratories partly work under the principle of "best case testing" which means that only the best results of the test flights are taken into consideration and the worse ones are ignored. Evidence for that is a number of certifications, particularly in EN-B, which appear to be clearly misplaced. Rodolfo Saccani determines that it is unacceptable that when the test manoeuvres are repeated multiple times, only the good outcomes may be used to determine the classification category of the glider. EN 926-2 is not totally clear in this regard and this should be fixed.

Karl explains that the DHV-retesting of A-and B-paragliders (DHV-safety tests) originates from the dissatisfaction with the results of the certification. More than 60 A and B gliders have been retested, partly with huge differences to the results of the EN-tests. The English version of the Safety Class database is currently a work in progress.

Beni says that testing according to the DHV-safety tests would be the better way to check a paraglider seriously. Because they allow the test pilot, to check the glider closer, if he thinks there is a weak point in the glider behaviour. For certification, the test pilot has to check the glider exactly according to the rules of EN, for example regarding the size of a frontal collapse (40%), even if he has clear evidence that a bit greater deflation would lead to a critical behaviour.

The ESTC then discussed whether the review of the test-flight videos by a group of experts involved in paragliding safety could represent a useful tool to share the knowledge about the difficulties of the certification process and at the same time to add some transparency and control over the operation of the test laboratories.
Marion asks for consideration of the fact that the test-flight videos are property of the manufacturers. He even says that no decision should be made at the ESTC level concerning the standard without the advice of the test laboratories and WG 6.

A long discussion follows and at the end, there are the following common
Decisions:
ESTC, as the technical emanation of EHPU, should write a letter to the WG 6 and the test laboratories asking that every test manoeuvre, when properly executed according to the test protocol, is taken into account for the classification. If a manoeuvre has been executed more than once, the worst result should determine the certification. No "best-case-testing" anymore. For upcoming modifications of the standard EN 926-2, it should be clearly written in the test flight rules that every valid manoeuvre has to be taken into account for classification.

Request to test laboratories and manufacturers: Please share certification videos with experts of ESTC and WG 6. This will both improve knowledge among the experts involved in safety decisions and also will provide a healthy super-partes control over the operation of the test laboratories. Upcoming modifications of the standard EN 926-2 should contain a duty to publish the test-flight videos.

A closer communication between EHPU/ESTC and WG 6 is absolutely necessary. The safety experts from the European Federations, who have a deep knowledge of the safety issues and their evolution over time, are willing to provide contributions to the development of the EN standard and EN should take advantage of this willingness.

During next year ESTC meeting this topic should be discussed again with a better preparation of the participants in advance.

EN standard for helmets CE-EN 966
Marion informs that the American organization allowed their pilots to use skiing helmets. Andre completes: CIVIL allowed skiing and snowboard helmets in competitions because there are more head shapes available.
Karl: For professional use (training, tandem) the use of EN-966 certified helmets is mandatory in Germany and probably in whole Europe.
Decision: ESTC will not make a recommendation to the pilots that they should use only EN-966 certified helmets.

Better communication from the ESTC committee
Rodolfo Saccani proposes to publish ESTC minutes, decisions and other documents on a publicly accessible section of the EHPU website.
Decision: ESTC asks EHPU to provide a public section on the EHPU websiste for publishing an edited version of the ESTC meetings minutes (specially edited for the public reading) and to also publish relevant news and updates about the committee operation.
Rodolfo Saccani is available to host this portion of the EHPU website on the FIVL webserver (maybe under the domain estc.ehpu.org). Technical details will be arranged between Rodolfo Saccani and the EHPU website maintainers.

Winch-Towing
Horst Barthelmes, towing expert from the DHV, gives a presentation about winch-towing in Germany. His research highlighted a problem with weaklinks. Main reason for breaks is that weaklinks aren't changed regularly, but used up until they break. In Germany it is mandatory to use 150-kg weaklings for towing single-paragliders. Horst proposes to change that requirement to 200-kg in the future, except for mobile winches and steel-ropes, and he asks the ESTC group about their experience with weaklinks.
France: Plastic weaklinks are normally in use, frequent replacement is necessary. Marion will report the matter to the committee in FFVL.
Norway: No standard for weaklinks
Denmark: Weaklinks are still used, won´t stop using them, started using weaklinks of greater strength (200kg instead of 150kg)
Switzerland: almost no winch towing, not a lot of knowledge
Sweden: A lot of towing is done; Chief instructor's statement about weak links: No standard for weaklinks. Rarely used nowdays. Very dangerous when weaklink releases below 30-40 meter above ground. Weaklinks are mandatory when towing with steel ropes.
Romania: Two schools use winches – no rules.
Netherlands: No weaklinks are in use at all.
UK: A lot of winching, weaklinks are used on everything, for paragliders usually 125 kg, sometimes 150 kg. Dave: the videos we have wathced showed human errors, not problems with weaklinks. Suggests huge foam ball around the weaklink, so pilot would not be hit by metal.
Austria: Only one school and two clubs have winches.

Symbol for paragliding/hanggliding-sites on the ICAO-Cards
Jens was asked by his safety chief, to bring up a new symbol to the ICAO Card . Sites should get a paraglider symbol not the hangglider symbol any longer, because there are ten times more paragliders in the air then hanggliders. Most of the participants agree, but Andre sees the danger, that the paraglider symbol could be confused with the already existing parachute symbol.
Recommendation: The matter should be discussed by the competent committees.

Place and time of next meeting
It comes clear that Herrsching is not the optimal solution for the wish of a central meeting point. Too far from the Munich airport (and too many mosquitoes). There are proposals about next year meeting to be held not too far from the Munich airport, which is easy to reach from all European countries, hoping to additionally motivate the participation of other EHPU members which have not participated the ESTC meetings until now. It is noted, though, that a more central location didn't improve the participation to this meeting. The current 2015 meeting has the same number of represented EHPU members as the previous year's meeting in Nice (Romania + Hungary -). Karl explained that a meeting closer to the Munich airport would generate much more costs for accommodation and the meeting room.
Miro proposes to hold the 2016 meeting in Prague, at a place near the airport. Everybody agrees.
Date: June, 11, 2016
Place: Prague, Cech Republic

No further topics

Rodolfo Saccani: Thanks to the DHV for the organisation and Luisa for taking the minutes.
Dave under applause of all participants: Thanks very much to Rodolfo Saccani for guiding his first ESTC Meeting as the chairman in an excellent way.

End: 6 PM
Minutes Secretary: Luisa Slezak