Discipline
Paragliding XC
What do we want ?
We talk about ESS changes, CCC and EN-C speed limiters, equalizers, harness protectors, and IAS airspeed limits in separate topics and somehow cannot find enough agreement to back up any of those individual proposals.
So we go with the least resistance and don't change anything.
Or we do something which feels-good, like the CCC 14 cm limit, but which in turn might have contributed to a large number of incidents/accidents in the last few years, as it forced all CCC manufacturers to use unstable profiles.
If we keep looking at individual pieces of the puzzle, nothing will change. One example: "Do we have data about accidents in final glide?" No. So we don't change the ESS.
Like, how many accidents do we need to have so that we can say we've got enough data? Luc has shown extremely detailed data about glider profiles proving that we are already on the limit of instability and we would need to fly even faster gliders if we don't change the rules now.
We need to explain to pilots why we need to stop the speed-maxing development in CCC and EN-C; otherwise, there'll be more and more fatalities if this continues.
We need equalizers; we need protectors. But these should be interconnected. The best equalizer would be a thicker protector on our back, not foams on our B-lines. (Yes, I imagine a world where a pilot can buy a Submarine with a choice of a 10, 12, or 14 cm protector and have that accepted as an equalizer.)
If we introduce ESS changes and ask pilots to vote on them, I'm 100% sure pilots will vote them out.
Maybe if we'd raced with a new ESS for two years, pilots would have adapted, but I don't think we'll reach that point.
We'll always choose the least resistance and wait until more people die, then we come together and ask what went wrong. And the circle starts again.
Every dangerous sport went through a maturing phase, usually after a shockingly tragic season. In all these sports, fans of the old game were vocally upset. Just a few examples, but the list is really long; I can give 20+ examples:
Rallying: A top crew burned to death & spectators were killed in one season => The FIA banned the ultra-fast Group B cars, and purists cried, “Rally died in ’86.”
Boxing: A fighter died on live TV after 14 rounds => Championship fights were cut to 12 rounds, with critics claiming it “ruined the test of a true champion.”
Pro Cycling: A rider died from a head injury in the Tour de France => Hard-shell helmets became mandatory, upsetting traditionalists who missed the bare-headed look.
Alpine Skiing: Decades of fatal crashes => Courses were tamed with nets and slowed down, which many veterans called too “manicured” and predictable.
Big-Wave Surfing: A series of high-profile drownings => Inflatable safety vests became standard, which purists initially dismissed as “training wheels.”
Somehow in our sport, we do everything to avoid such maturing.
I'm not saying it's an easy task, and what doesn't make it especially easy is that many pilots have lost trust in manufacturers and look at any change coming from them as suspicious.
So I'm not saying it's easy, but we need to at least try to solve this complex problem if we ever want to get out of this circle.
So we go with the least resistance and don't change anything.
Or we do something which feels-good, like the CCC 14 cm limit, but which in turn might have contributed to a large number of incidents/accidents in the last few years, as it forced all CCC manufacturers to use unstable profiles.
If we keep looking at individual pieces of the puzzle, nothing will change. One example: "Do we have data about accidents in final glide?" No. So we don't change the ESS.
Like, how many accidents do we need to have so that we can say we've got enough data? Luc has shown extremely detailed data about glider profiles proving that we are already on the limit of instability and we would need to fly even faster gliders if we don't change the rules now.
We need to explain to pilots why we need to stop the speed-maxing development in CCC and EN-C; otherwise, there'll be more and more fatalities if this continues.
We need equalizers; we need protectors. But these should be interconnected. The best equalizer would be a thicker protector on our back, not foams on our B-lines. (Yes, I imagine a world where a pilot can buy a Submarine with a choice of a 10, 12, or 14 cm protector and have that accepted as an equalizer.)
If we introduce ESS changes and ask pilots to vote on them, I'm 100% sure pilots will vote them out.
Maybe if we'd raced with a new ESS for two years, pilots would have adapted, but I don't think we'll reach that point.
We'll always choose the least resistance and wait until more people die, then we come together and ask what went wrong. And the circle starts again.
Every dangerous sport went through a maturing phase, usually after a shockingly tragic season. In all these sports, fans of the old game were vocally upset. Just a few examples, but the list is really long; I can give 20+ examples:
Rallying: A top crew burned to death & spectators were killed in one season => The FIA banned the ultra-fast Group B cars, and purists cried, “Rally died in ’86.”
Boxing: A fighter died on live TV after 14 rounds => Championship fights were cut to 12 rounds, with critics claiming it “ruined the test of a true champion.”
Pro Cycling: A rider died from a head injury in the Tour de France => Hard-shell helmets became mandatory, upsetting traditionalists who missed the bare-headed look.
Alpine Skiing: Decades of fatal crashes => Courses were tamed with nets and slowed down, which many veterans called too “manicured” and predictable.
Big-Wave Surfing: A series of high-profile drownings => Inflatable safety vests became standard, which purists initially dismissed as “training wheels.”
Somehow in our sport, we do everything to avoid such maturing.
I'm not saying it's an easy task, and what doesn't make it especially easy is that many pilots have lost trust in manufacturers and look at any change coming from them as suspicious.
So I'm not saying it's easy, but we need to at least try to solve this complex problem if we ever want to get out of this circle.
Comments
So you're saying we need smart leadership? 🤔
In reply to So you say we need smart… by Kuba Sto
Having a strong leader with the support of the pilots would be one solution. But it is more complex, as we'd need to explain to the pilots why are some decisions necessary, at least temporarily.
👏🏼thicker/ more efective protection instead of noodles 👏🏼
Maybe We’re Focusing on the Wrong Things?
I’ve been following the discussion on gagglereport.org and Basecamp. It strikes me that we’re stuck debating gear rules and individual pilot actions but barely touching the preconditions that actually set these accidents in motion.
We talk about harness protectors, wing classes, pilot mistakes…
But almost nothing about:
Where we’re choosing to fly comps (geography, terrain traps)
When we’re flying (seasonal conditions)
Launch conditions and quality of the launch itself
Task design and group pressure that shape pilot decisions before the flight even starts- this is being discussed but not as extensively
These factors often predetermine the level of risk long before the pilot clips in. If we ignore them, we end up arguing endlessly about symptoms instead of causes.
We are also stuck in a philosophical loop that makes it hard to get agreement. I built this to surface the idea.
https://preview--sky-whispers-view.lovable.app
It helps reveal the underlying assumptions we each carry about freedom vs. protection, nature vs. skill, acceptable vs. unacceptable risk. Until we see those clearly, we’ll keep circling around on philosopy.
Take 30 seconds, see where you land on the slider and different proposals, it might shift how you see the whole debate. The world view might not be exact but you get the broad idea. It would be interesting to survey along these lines.
Sky Whispers Worldview Slider
Whether one like it or not, every ship needs a captain to point everybody in the right direction.
If we are not smart enough now, insurance companies and then local regulations will soon be in charge of the direction.
But lets be honest about all of this for a minute, to me it just looks like too many people are just looking to be entitled to their weekend warrior ticket.
Jumping from the desk chair to an F1 seat and play in a game that needs to train everyday of the week to be in shape for.
Before thinking about changing the whole system, one should start looking in the mirror and be honest regarding his actual level compared to his expectations.
Not everybody is shaped or capable to put the work to become an F1 driver, and that’s fine, that’s why top level is so special.
IMO, gear evolution in all aspects has made it a long way, but pilots haven’t. It just looks like the safer the gear gets, the less humble the pilot become. Safer gear will bring more complacency, eventually ending up in accidents anyway. It doesn’t mean that gear should stop to improve, just that pilots should start to wake up regarding the true issues of the sport and, when we’ll have only true athletes across the table, we’ll be able to talk about details.
Until then, only strong leadership will straight things out.
In reply to Whether one like it or not,… by Antoine Post
I totally agree that Cat1 should require pilots to put in the work before attending the comp. Being able to do full-stalls on their glider should be a requirement.
But I don't agree with "Safer gear will bring more complacency, eventually ending up in accidents anyway." In all those sports I've given as example safer gear made the sport safer. Putting helmets on bikers, life-vests on surfers didn't end up in more accidents.
In our sport having airspeed limited races and more collapse-resistant wing-profiles would make everything safer, without any downsides.
We'd race with the same speed as we do today, except with better wings.
In reply to I totally agree that Cat1… by zsoltero
I totally agree with you, I just insist on the fact that, in my opinion, your equation only works if pilots are keeping up. Because usually, the better the gear gets, the higher the level goes.
Your exemples points to the paramount level of those sports where competitors reaches a level far from what most of us will ever achieve and safety improvement becomes a major factor, because causes becomes well identified and ressources to resulta ratio becomes really interesting.
Considering nowadays tech, I’m just not sure what we could reasonably do gearwise that would make that big of a difference and I’m convinced that, in a world where ressource (time) is key, some investment are worth more than others while technology evolve in conjunction.
To put this in perspective: I think it would be a better safety investment for some to do some core strenght training compared to buying next year top of the art glider or wathever harness with new butt protection.
Knowing that the goal is to eventually get both.
I think it's both. We should be having nice gliders which are not optimized for max-speed AND we should be training ourselves.
On my first two Cat1 comps I realized I'm 100% mentally and physically exhausted after around 6 tasks. Afterwards I started exercises, mostly running and gym. I'm probably doing 1% of the effort as the Hike and Fly top pilots do, but even that effort made a big difference to my flying, and I can definitely handle longer comps better.
But I think it's orthogonal to the fact that we need proper back-protectors and gliders which are nice to fly and are made for XC conditions, not max-speed into flatland ESS.
I completely agree with Louis here.
Pilots mindset will barely change over the time, gear improvments are a very good thing and for sure there's a need to talk about it, but it will not solve the problem. You can have the safest CCC glider ever but if you set a task with 50kmh of wind flying through CBs and no landing zones, you will end up with many accidents.
As Louis, I am convinced that safety should be pro active : where, when, how are the questions to be asked.