Institutional issue

Thanks Louis, I got it better. Definitly in favour of such a charter and to see it applyed in our way design the next reporting system.

Interesting proposal- in the implementation steps, could be worth adding the possibility to improve rules from lessons learned (more practicle than the step #4 about governance)

Great proposal and as Louis says this is normal in every risk based activity - the fact that it has not got to FAI/CIVL in 30 years is surprising.

Hi Louis, Build a working group for this charter please. We need it. Be it on CIVL or on the union.

I think your proposal refers to the FAI Sporting Code, Section 7A 8.5.4 - Ballast:
“Pilots must comply with the weight limitations set by the glider airworthiness standards. Weight can be measured at take-off or landing at the request of the organisers. Pilots may carry jettisonable ballast only in the form of fine sand or water. A pilot must avoid dropping ballast at any time or in a manner likely to affect other competing gliders or third parties.”

In my opinion, this rule is practically obsolete - neither enforced by organizers nor respected by pilots. In practice, it serves as a general allowance for using lead plates, weighted vests, and similar solutions.

That said, pilots shouldn’t be penalized for being small, light, or simply in good physical shape - and heavier pilots shouldn’t be penalized either. You can create as many categories as you like, but will that really encourage pilots to reduce excessive ballast, knowing it might hurt their performance and chances in the overall ranking?

I’m definitely in favor of addressing the ballast issue in some way, and I’m curious to see real-world testing of potential equalizers.

For genuinely lightweight pilots, an additional subcategory could make sense.
I’m not against creating sub-rankings, as long as there are enough competitors to make them meaningful. It doesn’t hurt anyone - but let’s be honest, if you weigh 50 kg and need 20 kg of ballast to fly an Enzo, it’s neither safe nor comfortable. Because of that, I’d rather see top-level events for pilots under 100 kg or for women, perhaps with D gliders, where they could compete under equal-ish conditions and wouldn’t feel pressured to over-ballast just to keep up with the heaviest pilots.

Most pilots don’t want to be the 70kg world champion, but want to be the world champion overall. Thus, equalizers would be a better solution than weight categories.

The biggest drawback of this solution is to dilute the tittles. If there are too much medals, the value of medals is degraded. When we have a big sport, like Judo or Boxe, it does not matter, but when if you divide our tiny sport, there is not much left remaining !
Few years ago, I did ask to female pilots and the vast majority was against replacing female medals by weight medals.
So in effect, you'd need to have at least two medals per weight category. And that's if we don't have the Junior category.

The other thing is that if you put only 3 categories, then pilots are ballasting up to the top of each one, so you have not really solved the ballasting issue !

I think this proposal will be addressed by the equalizer vs MRT debate however related matter - how hard is it for the takeoff marshall to check your weight vs number as you enter into the takeoff gate? no extra time/delay - should be mandatory check.

Let's gather some data; does this platform support complex polls ?

Initial thoughts are we ask for; naked weight, all-up weight (pilot and equipment) and ballast ? Ballast being weight carried for the purpose of performance.

We have debated for many months on the equalizers, we should at least tive an opportunity for real life testing, from what I heard, weather was not helping in the competitions it was supposed to be tested. Ozone did put an effort on it, testing, calculating, etc…
Real world testing could help a lot !

I think there is a lot of statements here that might not be true, and would like some statistics to back it up. I don’t think having weight categories waters down your achievements, if you watch boxing and someone wins a title, you know he is the best in the world in his weight class. Comps with 120 pilots in would easily have enough pilots to make each weight class competitive, you might have to group the weight class at either ends (XXS in to XS and XXL in to XL) for a slightly bigger pool of pilots, but I think this is a far simpler solution than equaliser. It would give the top pilots a new challenge of winning different weight classes and becoming world champion at different weights over the years.

I Agree with IvanHaas...

I had the same idea, expressed in a different way.

"Go tell Pinot that he will be the "Feather Category" champion, from now on in his life.

And, in the end of day, 'who are you' to force to other people how much ballast, risk, and challenge they are going to take in their life?

People, I think we are loosing it in here... In our attempt to go "safer", as a reaction to what has recently happened, we are messing with 'personal freedom' and this is not a good path to follow...

The definition of Competition Sport Class should encompass harnesses as well, not only wings. There is no definition of a competition harness at the moment, that should be a topic for a separate entry in "what went wrong" or "what do we want".

What is wrong with EN-C? Why is necessary to create a new class of gliders?

I share a statment provided earlier, which might be of help.

Concerns Regarding the Use of EN Certification for a Sports Class World Paragliding Championship / 15 December 2023
Dear CIVL Bureau (and Delegates),
We, the members of WG6 (the authors of the current EN926-2 standard which describes methods for classifying the flight safety characteristics of paragliders in terms of the demands on pilot flying skills), are writing to express our deep concerns regarding the recent announcement of the Sports Class World Championship based on EN-C certification.
While we acknowledge and appreciate the initiative to create a new competition category, we believe that using the EN classification as a criterion for glider selection raises considerable risks and challenges that require more careful consideration.
Our primary concerns are as follows:
1.Safety vs. Fairness: The EN test criteria are designed primarily to ensure the safety of paragliders, not for establishing fairness in competition. Implementing EN certification as a criterion for glider selection in a high-ranking competition like the proposed Sports Class World Championship may compromise the safety-oriented nature of EN certification.
2.Lessons from the Past: Reflecting on past experiences from 2011 to 2015 when EN-D was used as a competition class, gliders not originally intended for classic “EN-D pilots” were certified as such for competition pilots. We anticipate a similar scenario with the EN-C class, and we are concerned that this would impact a broader spectrum of pilots.
3.On-site Issue Resolution: During a competition, it is crucial that all questions related to equipment compliance can be resolved on-site. Unlike the EN classification, which relies mostly on flight tests, scrutineering at the Sports Class World Championship will require a process to verify any equipment-related queries on-the-spot. The current CCC has proved superior as a competition class in this regard, compared to relying on EN-D.
In light of these concerns, we strongly urge the CIVL Bureau to reconsider the decision, and follow the CCC class example to develop a more suitable set of rules for defining Sports Class competition equipment. (Measurable parameters might include aspect ratio constraints, and limits on the variable elements of speed systems, for example.)
We suggest that our concerns and recommendations be discussed during the upcoming CIVL Plenary meeting. To facilitate this discussion, we request that our letter be shared with the CIVL Bureau and Delegates in advance of the meeting to ensure a thoughtful and informed consideration of these critical issues.
We appreciate your attention to this urgent matter and look forward to collaborating for the ongoing success and safety of paragliding competitions and promoting a healthy leisure paragliding activity.
Sincerely, Angus Pinkerton / Convenor, TC136/WG6

a very valid argumentation, it`s appreciated

I think it's a very nice project, and it might be necessary.
EN C on its own would be a disaster for the reasons explained by many.

The trap is to think without anticipation, just by referring to the existing state. An example:
"EN C wings are nice. SRS is a nice competition. Let's do all competition with EN C. "
If you do so, EN C for competition becomes a design constraint and manufacturer will produce a specific EN C wing with an aspect ratio close to 8, only suitable for top level competitors. And the situation would be worse than with current CCC.

However Sport Class definition is not a simple project. It requires a good team of collaborating designers trying to anticipate the resulting winning design. It's not as simple as, for example, saying the wing should be EN + have a flat Aspect Ratio below 6.6
In this case, due to the rule constraint, the optimum design, I mean the model that will win, will have a very flat arc. Flat arc is not desirable because it comes with bad handling and high rotation after asymmetrical collapse. The model will win, pilots will have to buy it and it could be a disaster.
Each rules comes with some effect in the optimum design adapted to the rules and that's the reason why writing these rules needs some expertise.

Also, as of today, I'm not sure we can come up with a good class on its own if nothing is done about the way we score final glide. If we only rely on EN C to limit maximum speed, there would be a lot of problems and conflicts. Maximum speed is not well defined in EN C. It's only indirectly limited, with too many gray, unobjective criteria's. But it's a major criteria with today's competition scoring system.

As I wrote on the CIVL forum, I find the WG6 position alarming.
If the EN test criteria are designed primarily to ensure the safety of paragliders, yet still allow "dangerous" gliders to pass the EN-C tests, the obvious conclusion is that the standard itself is not defined correctly. The solution should be to update the standard’s definition, not to introduce a separate list of additional rules for specific competition categories.

In other words, the EN certification system falls apart when it's really put to the test. It turns out it doesn’t actually define a glider’s safety - which is supposed to be its main purpose.

Technical criteria always lead to loophole hunting and pushing definitions to their limits.
I was thinking of a different approach to defining the class:
Leave the definition of the “spirit of the class” to the pilots. Every wing model could be subject to an ongoing vote - any active Sport Class pilot can vote for or against it at any time. If a wing receives 67% votes against, it would be banned from the ranking from that point onward.

I find the idea of setting restrictions based on some simple numbers such as Aspect Ratio and in particular to a single length of speed limiter for the class, and even a broad "EN C" requirement to have several issues, many of which have already been mentioned on this topic, and in the Designers Report.

As stated the EN rating system was never designed with competition in mind. But aside from safety my larger concern is how much such regulations will limit and slow innovation. thereby delaying the much needed advancements by forcing regulation and limits based on simple numbers fails to address the source of the problem. Perhaps dare I say it is the simple or easy way to say "We did something".

My own personal opinion and it is just that, my opinion. Is that we should be targeting and limiting specific dangerous wing behaviors, not putting an arbitrary limit on something such as blanket speed limiter length that applies to all wings in the class. just because there is a correlation to dangerous wing behavior with some or even all current wing designs, same for aspect ratio. I know its easier to say don't exceed this limit and that limit, than it is to actually have each sports class competition wing design pass a specifically designed set of tests based on actual wing behavior.

Some people might say well doesn't the EN C rating do that, and in someways it does, but the testing needs to be taken even further and perhaps without some of the limitations that the EN or even DHV systems currently have.

Wing design has come a long way over the last 20 years, and both speed and safety has been greatly improved in that time. and I think most if not all of us would like to see that continue. we did not know then what we know now about wing design, and we don't know now what we will in 10 or 20 years. but we must not limit innovation, and the ability to have as many brilliant minds coming at the problem from every angle, and not restrained by blanket numbers that have been labeled as bad, when if you change something else in the design, then that number is fine, and the collapse and recovery behavior are within acceptable limits.

I believe the limits should be placed on behavior or in other words on the design as a whole, not just small parts of the design that prevent finding solutions to those limitations.

Some might say won't designers just find ways around the limits, and yes they will, they will find ways around the limiter length, or the aspect ratio, and they are not violating the rules to do so. If the rules are don't exceed this aspect ratio, don't exceed this limiter length, don't exceed this EN rating, etc... if those are the values being measured, then they have the freedom to sacrifice safety, for speed. Because none of the limits proposed are about how the wing actually behaves.

If we are to achieve improved safety, then the metric we use, must be Safety itself. Not things that may correlate to safer wings with designs as they are today, anything else is like tying our hands behind our backs while trying to get to the faster and yet safer designs of tomorrow and beyond.

So in summary I think the best solution, but not the easy solution is more to grade the each wing design as a whole, and to be used in the sports class it cannot score lower than a certain threshold for each test. similar to the EN and DHV systems but redesigned, and without the current limitations, which can and have limited some advancements in design from making it to production just because the way their testing rules are written.

A new testing system or standard is needed, something comprehensive and with both competition/ performance and above all safety in mind, not reward designs that are less safe for the sake of increasing performance.

A testing system that can adapt to allow new safe designs to come forward, not deny them just because the way their rules are written, If a new design can be proven to be safer, and perform as good or better, or be proven to be as safe and perform better than current approved designs, but the rules don't allow it, then the rules themselves are now the problem and not the solution, and therefore the rules must now change to allow for safe progress.