mindset

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.

Very needed. The sport raised from the outside world but now it's time for institution to catch back and define rulebook,guidelines and procedure. If the formats are left too open nothing of this will ever be possible

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

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 believe it raises many organizational questions but no doubt it would benefit the sport to have independent feedbacks from the air.

It would be very beneficial to improve communication between what’s happening in the air and the responsible Safety Director, as well as clarify the communication protocols.

We’re currently missing clear protocols on how to react to certain situations, for example:
- If 3+ pilots call Level 3 – Marshall, any Safety Committee members or the Meet Director must respond within ~2 minutes.
- Wind over 30 km/h (generally, with adjustments communicated in advance for specific tasks or locations) should trigger a task stop – maybe windspeed data could be retrieved from the trackers?

Appointing a Marshal could improve safety oversight, but it also raises several considerations:
- Potentially higher operational costs.
- The Safety Director, and any Marshals if required, should ideally remain independent from the Organizer.
- The Marshal may not be present where a hazardous situation occurs.

By the way, Chrigiel mentioned a similar idea during the last Couldbase Mayhem podcast.

Air Marshal, would/could improve safety. And I'm also in favour for that.
But it raises a question. How to get that person, for a competition? In reality, it would be hard to get one. (At least for CAT2).
It will also raise the competition costs.
Therfore, i would make this mandatory only for CAT1 events. And only a proposal (not mandatory) for CAT2 events.
Also, an Air Marshal, could have second role. To help in multimedia - filming in the air, etc...

What is wrong with having members of the task committee / safety committee plus all 120 pilots on safety freq reporting conditions directly to committee?