Racing format

I see the good intentions behind this idea, but I believe is trying to micromanage a situation that from its nature is the most chaotic in our sport, and some times not a pilot's fault at all....

At lot of collapse do not happen when going straight on speedbar, but when thermaling or prospecting. That would penalized those people even more, when they didn't even took a particular risk, but got a surprise collapse (and they are always a surprise, unwanted!). This would be unfair.

Pilots fly in their confidence zone. They don't want a collapse! When there is a collapse, it's unexpected and sudden.
We use speedbar and 99.9% of time everything's fine because we use it in our confidence zone.
If it's turbulent, we release speedbar and adapt. Because if we get a collapse, we'll loose altitude and take time to recover direction. In the meantime, other pilots will pass in front. So having a collapse is already a penalty in itself. Giving points penalty on top of that is not helpful.

Your idea of "careful flying" starts on the principle that pilots are "blindly pushing full bar". I think that they are not idiots, but are overall in there confidence zone... because usually no collapse. See: risk homeostasis theory.
So we won't fly slower because they might get a collapse in 0.01% probability.

Pushing your idea further would be to remove speedbars, but that would be way less fun. Also they could be helpful for security in case of wind increase so we need them.

You don't throw rescue because you risk 0 point, but because your life is in danger and you're not in control anymore.
You don't give 0 points because rescue took time to open. Pilots already have way less points than others anyway when task is not finished.

We should encourage people to fly well like the best pilots : without collapse and making use of speedbar appropriately. That will give you more points.
Not the fact of being afraid of losing points.
We should also train pilots how to react in case of collapse (SIV). And maybe that should be mandatory on some comps.

From what I know, I believe level homogeineity is indeed a first class safety parametrer. Thank for bringing this up.

I feel like the issue isn't the length of the event, but how many consecutive days we fly or stand on the launch preparing to maybe fly. It feels like there is no proper rest on Cat 1 event, which then translates to many pilots being tired and making stupid mistakes, which wouldn't have happened.
I would rather have 4 100km+ tasks in 8 days then 7 50-70km tasks in 8 days.

I think too, changeing the S7 to have more rest days, this will be easier to achive. This years HG Worlds, we were happy to have that number of days, since the weather was very unstable.

And yes, most pilots in HG love long tasks, where you have to hurry up to make goal cause the day ends.

HG pilot here !

I'd rather go for more rest days (or less flying days) with longer, more interesting tasks than shorter CAT1 events. This year at the worlds, we flew only 2 tasks between July 18th and July 24th. I think we need those 2 weeks in case the weather is tricky. 3 to 4 consecutive tasks max.

2 weeks is a safety feature, because it allows the organisers only to pick only good weather conditions and have a high chance for a valid competition.

Panamericans are already a 7 day event
I agree with reducing the Worlds.
Maybe max. 8 tasks with rest day in the middle.

In south america, cold fronts tend to have a weekly frequency in the spring and autumn seasons.
So 9 days with a rest day planned (and preferably located in one of this cold pulses), can give a high chance of having at least 5 good days

Other places might have other typical weather patterns to be taken into consideration.

It’s already such a massive strain on the pilots to take days away from work and family 2 weeks for Cat1s, 2 weeks for Superfinal plus 2 or 3 weeks more for normal events. Most of us don’t earn a living from competitions. In reality you only need 4 tasks to have a sportive fair event, 8day Cat 1 should be enough!

Totally agree with shorter overall duration. 7 days with 7 task.
With MINIMUM preparation /ceramony days, etc...!!
It could be from Friday to Sunday. 10 days in total.

Not a HG pilot here but this seems so natural. Typical "hard to adopt" proposal when the institution is more positioned as an organiser than a ruler and a representative of the sport. It's clear lowering to 80 pilots represent less fee.

another approach would be to have a higher minimum ranking request to qualify (to CAT.1) - also in PG XC ?
Also both approaches are not contradictory.

Hi,

I don’t think reducing the number of pilots will result in less stress or fewer dangerous situations.

When did we last have a mid-air collision in a large group before the start? The last HG Cat. 1 incident was just a wing-to-wing touch, and I think it wasn’t even in a big crowd (ask Gordon).

When we thermal before the start gate in a Cat. 1 competition with 110 registered pilots, there are usually a maximum of 70–80 pilots in the air under one cloudbase— not everyone is there at once. At any given altitude or proximity level, there are about 20–30 pilots.

If we cut the maximum number of participants to 80, the start gaggle will still have the same stress and density. We’ll just be cutting out the pilots who aren’t even part of the dense gaggle.

What can actually be improved by reducing the number of participants in Cat. 1 HG competitions?

We could be in the air sooner (especially considering mixed Cat. 1 Flex and Rigid Wing categories), giving us a bigger window for the task. Longer tasks are, in my opinion, safer — pilots have more time to correct errors and feel less pressure to push too hard. This year, we had too small a flyable window (too many pilots + mixed classes).

How can we create less crowded/dense situations before the start?

We should encourage pilots to take the second or third start gate. Nowadays, with “leading points” scoring, pilots who take later gates are significantly penalized. Possible solutions:

• Keep the current HG formula but reduce the time between start gates (e.g. 15 minutes instead of 20–30).
• Develop a dedicated formula that includes some kind of “leading points restart” for later gates.
• Be prepared for resistance from experienced pilots — they’ve mastered observing and controlling their surroundings and may not like being overflown by pilots from a later gaggle.

Cheers,
Robert

Hi Robert, hi Tony
I am the first one to vote against so many pilots in a category 1 competion.
The more pilots in a comp, the more risks of accidents and incidents. Not only mid-airs, overcrowded starts and stress on launch.
It is simply a statistical problem, it is something that I have personally verified in Ager.
Most of the accidents at Ager have not been due to errors on task setting, nor due to unlandable areas, most have been due to bad decisions made by the pilots themselves and others have been unfortunate accidents.
I have been in hang gliding for over 42 years, I've been through competitions with similar and even higher number of pilots and we never reached these high number of accidents and fatalities.
When many of the accidents have been, let's say unfortunate, maybe we have to consider other factors.
The average age of our athletes is getting higher and higher, and we no longer react the same way we did when we were 20 years old and in aviation,
anticipation is very important. If you react in time, nothing happens, but if you react late, it can end in a scare or severe damage.

But there is another factor that is really important, let's say that it forces us to have many pilots in the competitions and it is just a bureaucratic and/or financial problem.
In sports like ours where the CIVL fees and requirements for category 1 competitions are so high it is really difficult to run a competition with a short number of pilots it is not economically viable. This has been the reason of why class 1 and class 5 pilots have been jointed again.

Category 2 competitions are really much easier and cheaper to run.
But what happens when there is a World or Continental Championship, eveybody wants to participate.

I beleive that it would be much easier to run category 2 competitions League type as preliminar rounds.
From these smaller comps we could select the higher ranked pilots that would be selected for the final round that would be the World or Continental Championship.

I would like to respond to Juaki's comments. I flew in the Words for the first time in Ager this year. I thoroughly enjoyed the flying. At 63 I don't think the age is an issue. I would like to see some analysis of the incidents/accidents/fatality to make a better informed decision about the factors contributing to these unfortunate events that otherwise have marred a great Comp. The 'statistical' argument that too many pilots in the air at once doesn't appear to stack up, spreading out the comp over a few 'leagues' will make it impossible for some of us to participate, and the number of pilots flying may be less in any particular comp/'league' , but you will need to run more comps to short list the top pilots for a final round (Worlds) thus equating to more 'airtime' per pilot, at least equal to or more airtime per pilot , which is therefore equal to or even a higher probability of accidents/incidents, not less. From what I observed, I can only say that I saw good pilots pushing themselves to limits that increased their individual risk taking in the given circumstances on the day, ... I might call it the 'Do or die' thinking, and therefore individual pilots making decision to push themselves to or beyond what they might otherwise consider a safe limit (not wanting to be disrespectful to anyone given the fatality.

Hey guys,

I completely agree with Toni and Juaki : less pilots = less accidents. It's a statistical fact. There would be also less pressure on the organisation and the rescue teams, who can concentrate on the special cases, like Toni said. I would even say, less pressure on the pilots as well. Also less pressure for the task setting, as less pilots gives can use fly in a shorter time window if the weather is tricky.

Ideas to reduce the number of pilots (not considering the financial aspects, which belong to another discussion I would say) :
- Separate class 1 and class 5 (I think everyone would agree on this one)
- Not allowing teams more pilots than they are normally allowed (for example, GBR, JPN and USA teams had 7 pilots this year)
- CAT1 selection based on WPRS ranking
- CAT1 selection based on past performance (for example, 6 (random number) goals achieved in the past 2 years in a CAT2 or CAT1 event, a top 20 in a CAT1 event in the past 4 years, etc).

I don't think, that we need a general limit.
The capacity is depending from flying site, cloudbase, lift and crossing zones of the task.

Hey everyone,
Less pilots = less chance of problems, that's for sure. There is a beneficial effect for everyone
- better for the organization team : less people top take care of and maybe the ability to provide better services
- Medical assistance
- Less stress for the pilots on take off, in the air, in goal
- and so many more advantages...

One of the problem is the selection of the pilots, WPRS is not very representative, performance as well... We all know some pilots going to a CAT1 comp and doing their 1st flight of the year overthere.
A lminimulm number of flying hours could be an idea, an HG-SIV mandatory...

When you look at aviation, to be allowed to fly, you need to keep current with mandatory training, you need a minimum of 3 take offs and 3 landings within the last 3 months, etc...

I also believe that significantly reducing the number of participating pilots is one of the most effective ways to improve both safety and the overall quality of competition flying. A smaller field naturally decreases the risk within gaggles, allows for longer and more technical tasks, lowers the likelihood of accidents, and opens up more potential event locations – after all, very few sites can still accommodate 140 hang gliders. In my view, a field of around 80 pilots would be ideal. Of course, this needs to go hand in hand with financial solutions such as those Toni suggested and/or additional sponsorship.