Penalty if loosing (too much) height in collapse

By DusanO on
Discipline
Paragliding XC
What do we want ?
I'm thinking... how to "force" pilots to fly more carefully and not just blindly pushing full bar in turbulent conditions or in general fly in turbulent conditions (rather to avoid it, or be more careful), which would in general increase safety in flying?
More careful flying and not juts the fastest flying (les safe), would be rewarded. E.g. fast/dangerous flying would be risky and penalized if got in to a trouble. (like car/bike racing. Getting off the road ("exit sand zone"), doesn't immediately mean you will crash or end up, but it will slow you down. Or fully stop, if severe).
This would put pilots more into the safe mode flying, rather than dangerous flying.
This would be possible only if the trackers and GPS instruments are good enough? As I believe, we have possibilities to have (much) more than 4 points/s in tracklog resolution in mostly all newer instruments. Therefore, this should be possible.
How do we achieve that ?
To achieve that, we could implement a safety feature - sudden loss of altitude -> penalization.
Also, the scoring software must be able to recognize that sudden height loss without "much" horizontal speed .. (just an example: e.g. .. V =-5m/s & H<10km/h).
That would mean that you had a major collapse and you are recovering the glider. On top of that. If the time of descent would be grater than "e.g. .. 10s", you have 0 points. Not only to force pilots to fly safer (and prevent collapse/penalization), this would force pilots to throw the reserve earlier.
Issue category :
mindset
Racing format
Competition format
2
-6
8 votes with an average rating of -0.5.

Comments

Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 23:02
Markos Siotos

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....

0
0
No votes have been submitted yet.
Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 01:29
thibaultrohmer

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.

1
0
1 votes with an average rating of 1.

Disabled category in paraglider competition

By Craig Morgan on
Discipline
PG and HG XC
What do we want ?
I am a disabled pg pilot and have enjoyed some success in standard competitions. However, I do experience some difficulties in this discipline due to my disability and would like to have a disabled category considered and recognised.
How do we achieve that ?
Good question , which I need to consider and discuss with other like minded pilots .
Work in progress ….
Issue category :
Competition format
6
0
6 votes with an average rating of 1.

Comments

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 00:01
Julien Garcia

Hi Craig, this topic is seeking solution in France too. I believe an international competitive meeting could be considered. Another blank spot.

0
0
No votes have been submitted yet.
Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 21:48
Inese Subevica

I am interested to be part of this group: a) pilot since 2008, b) disabled since 2012, c) PGA cat 2 and cat 1 experience, d) advisor of NAC presidents, Paragliding federation president of Latvia, e) Latvian delegate at CIVL

0
0
No votes have been submitted yet.
Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 21:56
Inese Subevica

There have been such disscussion around 10 years ago at international scene. Can give a short overview... Maybe we can have some zoom to definied the "message"?

1
0
1 votes with an average rating of 1.

Tarnished 2018 Asian Games - Paragliding

By Moon Policarpio on
Discipline
Paragliding XC
What went wrong ?
Discipline: Paragliding Accuracy and Cross-Country (XC)

The effort of the Indonesian NAC, together with the Airsport Federation of Asia (AFA) and FAI, resulted in paragliding’s official debut as a full medal sport at the 2018 Asian Games in Jakarta–Palembang, Indonesia.

A total of six gold medals were awarded across two disciplines: Men’s Individual Accuracy, Women’s Individual Accuracy, Men’s Team Accuracy, Women’s Team Accuracy, Men’s Team Cross-Country (XC) and Women’s Team Cross-Country (XC)

Although the Asian continent has 45 member nations under the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA), only 18 nations sent delegations for paragliding. My country (Philippines) did not send a delegation for various reasons, aside from budget, the top reason was not enough pilots with the right skills. Subsequent Asian Games hosts opted not to include paragliding—primarily due to a mix of scheduling and logistical decisions in coordination with OCA, but also because of lingering issues revealed in 2018:

Accidents and Safety Concerns
Challenging Weather and Site Conditions
Limited Continental Representation
Rotation of Regional / Non-Olympic Sports and Host Popularity Preference

While paragliding’s inclusion marked a milestone, the event’s reputation was tarnished and viewed by many as unsuccessful due to significant safety incidents, inadequate venue selection, and uneven competitive quality.

Safety and Incident Overview of the 2018 Asian Games - Paragliding

Despite the historical significance of the debut, multiple accidents undermined confidence in the sport’s readiness for large-scale, multi-sport inclusion.

Afghanistan: A female athlete stalled mid-air after a sudden drop in wind and fell from ~15 m, suffering a spinal injury (reported as spinal cord damage / broken neck and back).
China: A male athlete’s canopy collapsed ~20 m from the finish area, resulting in a broken leg.
Mongolia: A pilot was blown off course and landed in a parking area near the venue (no serious injuries reported).

These incidents were widely publicised, emphasising the dangers of inadequate site and weather management. The crashes, visible to spectators and media, created negative publicity that overshadowed the sport’s debut.

Breakdown of Issues in Cross-Country (XC)

1. Inadequate XC Venue: The Puncak site was not an established XC flying area; its historical site record was only around 10 km. XC tasks ranged only 15–30 km, with an average goal completion rate of 25%, reflecting difficult or unsuitable conditions. The short task distances compromised the event’s competitive credibility and limited its international recognition as a true XC showcase.

2. Artificial Venue Modification: Organisers were forced to construct a new 500 m take-off ramp to supplement the original 300 m Accuracy site. This intervention was resource-intensive and symbolised the venue’s inherent unsuitability for high-level XC competition. Although the new ramp functioned, it highlighted the need for site feasibility assessments in future events.

3. Wide Skill Gap Among Competitors: A senior official reported a “huge range” of skill levels among participants—from world-class athletes to pilots who had never flown XC. The disparity compromised safety, fairness, and standardisation, as less-experienced pilots struggled with the technical demands of XC flying. This imbalance diluted the sport’s image as a credible elite discipline.

Breakdown of Issues in Paragliding Accuracy

1. Wind Inconsistency and Weather Volatility: The Puncak site experienced highly dynamic wind shifts, ranging from gusts to calm air.
One athlete’s accident (stall/fall) was directly caused by a sudden loss of wind, exposing the limits of site predictability.These conditions made controlled and safe landings difficult even for seasoned pilots.

2. Low Elevation and Limited Correction Space: The Accuracy take-off (approx. 300 m above landing) offered limited altitude for manoeuvre correction, especially under variable wind. This reduced margin of safety increased the likelihood of hard landings and stalls during competition approaches.

3. Public Visibility of Crashes: The Accuracy landing zone was positioned directly in front of spectators and cameras. Accidents were immediately visible, amplifying negative media coverage and public perception that paragliding is unsafe.

This created a public relations setback for FAI, AFA, and the Asian Games organisers.
What would you propose ?
1. Site Selection Reform: Future multi-sport paragliding events must prioritise safety, proven site performance, and meteorological stability over logistical convenience or proximity to main venues.

2. Separate Discipline Venues: Accuracy and XC should not share one site if the terrain and weather conditions clearly favor one discipline. Dedicated sites ensure both fairness and safety.

3. Qualification and Experience Standards: Enforce stricter pilot qualification requirements for major continental games to minimise wide skill gaps and associated safety risks.

4. Pilot Safety and Incident Transparency: Establish a formal incident reporting and investigation framework under FAI/AFA oversight to improve transparency and future preparedness.

5. Reputation Rehabilitation and Development Program: Introduce a long-term Asian Paragliding Development Program focused on safety culture, pilot training, and standardised venue evaluation to restore confidence in the sport’s inclusion in future games.

Issue category
institutional
Institutional issue
curriculum
Competition format
Governance
Safety
transparency
Organisers
Organisation Cat 1 Cat 2
c
2
0
2 votes with an average rating of 1.

Comments

Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 14:39
christiaandurrant

Great info @Moon and should go into the Professionalisation working group - very unfortunate outcome for all. Lets fix it.

2
0
2 votes with an average rating of 1.
Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 17:30
Nicky

Hi Moon, unfortunately the Asian Games were a promised land that failed to deliver due to the insistence of the Indonesian competition manager and his financial relationship with a certain emerging federation in the Asian continent.

Here is the text of a letter ( one of very many) that were sent to the organisers and the Indonesian federation while we tried to advance the organisation of the event.

01 August 2017
For the attention of:
Mr Chairman INASGOC
Mr Chairman KOI

Dear Sirs,

As Technical Delegate for the paragliding disciplines I must inform you that I cannot accept the site of Puncak as the venue for the paragliding cross country event on the grounds of safety for the competing pilots from all nations.
I understand that the organisers of the paragliding disciplines are insisting on Puncak in spite of its unsuitability for cross country flying. This is a mistake. The site is not safe for cross country flying.

Paragliding cross country competition is a tactical and strategic discipline where 100 pilots will be competing in 3 dimensions moving through the sky in close proximity to each other. The risks of collisions and accidents in a venue with no thermic activity, no separation from the terrain and a congested environment at ground level will be extremely high.
Cross country flying relies on the currents of warm air to lift the pilots to altitudes above the level of the terrain allowing them fly safely with adequate separation between each pilot and the ground.
A site with no thermic activity condenses the game into a small area close to the terrain - trees, houses, cables, roads etc – limits room for safe manoeuvring and drastically increases the risk of accident and injury to the competitors and 3rd parties.

In addition to the adverse meteorological conditions for cross country flying in the Puncak area, which include little thermic activity, low cloud base and a predominant wind direction from the back of the launch area, the launch area at Pasir Sumbul is dangerous.
There is no space to allow pilots to make the necessary preparations and safety checks before flying.
The metal launch ramp is unprotected, with a 5m drop to the ground below and obstructions alongside.
The area has been partially cleared below the ramp leaving sharp trees stumps and obstacles that could potentially be fatal. The lives of pilots are at risk in the event of a failed launch or problem at the time of inflation of the glider.
I will not allow pilots to launch from this ramp.
The lower launch at Gunung Mas is not suitable for the event due to the low altitude and risk of congestion close to the terrain.

The traffic and access conditions that we have personally witnessed at the site prejudice the safety of the pilots since it will be impossible to guarantee a rapid response and evacuation in the event of injury.
I have stated on numerous occasions during the previous months that Puncak is not a suitable site for a cross country paragliding competition and that an alternative venue should be sought.
The Competition Manager and Venue Manager have chosen to ignore my technical advice, based upon my many years of experience in paragliding competition organisation and competition flying, in order to follow their own personal agendas. I will not risk the safety of the pilots from many nations who will compete in the events (Test Event 2017 and Asian Games 2018) by approving rules and venues that are unsafe and unfair.
Safety and fairness for competitors of all nations are the fundamental principles of the Olympic ideal. That the organizing committees of the host country in a prestigious international event will actively manipulate and impose unsafe rules to prejudice the international competitors is negligent and unethical.
I will not put my reputation and that of my team in jeopardy by supporting this event should the venue remain as Puncak.

I respectfully request that you seriously reconsider the venue for the paragliding cross country discipline in order that the event can be properly managed and organized to promote the future of Indonesia as a venue and location for international paragliding competition and tourism.
Proceeding with an event in Puncak will demonstrate that the organizing committee have little respect for the Asian paragliding pilots and will damage the image of Indonesia amongst pilots worldwide.

Please be assured that I as TD and my team are fully committed to continue with the project once the venue is changed and the rules and technical books are updated.

With best regards,
GSS
Technical Delegate Paragliding Asian Games 2018
Secretary General Asian Continental Paragliding Association
______________________________________
& here a Basecamp post from ACPA:

ASIAN GAMES TEST EVENT 2017
Over the last 3 months Mr Gin has been trying to agree the rules and technical handbooks for the Asian Games but has had considerable opposition from the Competition and Venue managers.
The site that they are proposing to use at Puncak is not suitable for an XC event.
The local XC pilots are in agreement with this assessment. The meteo conditions are such that there will be no chance of Race tasks, the predominant wind is over the back, the humidity means there are few thermals and the daily ´flyable window´ is extremely short. The metal take off ramp is dangerous (unprotected, with a 5m drop to the ground below and suitable in size for 1 glider only) and there is insufficient space for 100 pilots to prepare. The competition cannot be run safely and sportively at this site.
Mr Gin has been fighting for a move to a suitable site at Batu Dua which will give the chance of running a safe, fair and sportive event.
The Competition Manager has opposed this and has now had Mr Gin removed as Technical Delegate for the event.
To remove Mr Gin, who as we all know is probably the most respected pilot/organiser/designer in the world shows a lack of respect to all Asian XC pilots.
Unfortunately, it is possible that the organisers will insist on running the test event at Puncak.
We are sorry that this notice comes so late but we have been trying our best through all available channels to have the event moved, unfortunately time is running out.
________________

Here, the end of Mr Gin as Technical Delegate in a mail from the Competion manager citing CIVL as the proposing party for an alternative:
"Herewith we'd like to inform you about the letter from Asian Federation, regarding the approval to FAI-CIVL proposal, on expertise personnel as TD for AG.
As you may know that AG is multi event. The related parties are many. We have to consider many aspects, and we have to deal with many elements.
The movements that you have made, without prior notice to CM, are trigger for uncontrollable problems. The pressure was arising in order to solve the problem immediately, and it was coming from many parties, including OCA, INASGOC, FAI, etc.
At this point, we can not protect you anymore, and we have been forced (by situation) to accept the proposal from FAI-CIVL regarding personnel, and we have to discontinue the works with you as TD for AG.

____________________________________________
The reply to CIVL about the above email:
I got a mail below from Wahyu (Competition Manager) and it is hard to understand logically.
I just inform you about my version.
The biggest issue is the Venue for the XC competition and technically it is not so easy to manage the XC competition for 180 pilots there, it is too small TO and low altitude.
Wahyu said this is only place for the Asian Game which is not true. FASI said we can move the venue called BATU DUA where is very good place for the XC and Accuracy.
I had a big pressure to design the competition safe and fairness but Wahyu and Djoko does not care for that and saying " we just have to distribute the medals" which I cannot accept.
There are tones of rumors of them about money and etc.
I hope you know what you are doing now with him.
I believe that it is such a important event for Paragliding sports and whole world would like to see successful and continuing in Asian game, even the Olympic.
You never ask me any information and send others to replace me. Are you sure CIVL will take all the risk?
I really disappointed what you are doing.
I really do not understand logically.
‐--------------------
These are just a few samples of the very many emails that went to & fro between the TD, MD, CIVL and the local Competition organiser before the test event. The full saga remains documented.

Unfortunately, sometimes you just have to give up the fight in the face of overwhelming adversity! We tried very very hard, but we failed in this instance.

0
0
No votes have been submitted yet.

No Ballast and Mutli Radius Turnpoint

By BruceG on
Discipline
Paragliding XC
What do we want ?
Flying heavy is an advantage in XC competitions. This leads to heavy equipment and pilots forced to fly with ballast.
Ballast reduces safety and
Effectively light pilots are excluded from top competition. The average adult human is 62Kg worldwide so most people are excluded!
I have been working on how to overcome this issue for many years and tested many scoring systems to solve this.
How do we achieve that ?
The best solution I have found to solve this issue is MRT competitions.
MRT stands for Multi Radius Turnpoints.
We have been evolving this system for some years and now it works well.
The last event using this system was the Weightless in Laragne in August 2025.
The system is still exxperimental, but with each even we make big progress forward.
Issue category :
task setting
Competition format
Link
http://facebook.com/flybgd/videos/723453743805740/
4
-7
11 votes with an average rating of -0.2.

Comments

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 16:30
Julien Garcia

Thanks Bruce !
Before stating this solution won't work for tactical or strategical concern (advantage of gaggle flying, leading points escarmouche...), I'd like to think some more and get more detailed datas about radius compensation and total distance flow. It is something we used a lot in comp training and that indeed allow to keep the pack together when done correctly. Much better than the nothing at all currently done since years.

1
0
1 votes with an average rating of 1.
Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 18:32
Toni Crottet

If optional, this is ok. I guess in the Alps, where you want to have that exact turnpoint there and not bigger (also because of safety) to guide pilots around an obstacle (like we do with our lake) it is not useful. Or much more headache for a tasksetter.

Haveing different radi for different glider types (we tried in HG) does in our area (alpine and sub-alpine) completely change the task and the tactical thinking behind.

Also, I am a bit against makeing tasks / tasksetting and scoring more complicated as it already is. Important that the pilots in the air understands what is going on. The case: If you are a number 1-5 pilot at the ranking, you don't race against the whole field, you just race against the 3-8 pilots around you in the ranking. Now imagine you have to know which radius your oponents has to take in order to have a idea on what is going on.

3
0
3 votes with an average rating of 1.
Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 22:21
Jonas Prüssing

I’d like to return to a solution we had in the past — offering different harness sizes for pilots. There’s already a strong correlation between body weight and harness size, but we could take this further by developing harnesses that provide additional protection for heavier pilots.
Simply put: the heavier I am, the more protection I need installed under my seat plate. This approach would not only help balance the aerodynamic advantages of larger wings but also increase safety for heavier pilots, who experience higher impact forces due to greater energy in the system.
In the past, we had different harness sizes for bigger pilots, so this topic wasn’t much of an issue. However, since modern “submarine” harnesses have become similarly efficient across sizes, it has turned into a real concern.
From my point of view, the solution is straightforward: a smart harness design that allows adjustable protection — and possibly drag — depending on the pilot’s weight.

0
-1
1 votes with an average rating of -1.
Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 23:42
Gianni Profiti

I'm a bit concerned about safety in case of MRT.
In nowadays PG high level comp pilots are not spread along the course but moving in a gaggle.
Therefore, let's imagine that pilot A flying an L size and pilot B flying an M size are flying next to each other towards TP1 and the next TP2 is on the right, there are two cases.
Case 1: pilot A is on the the left of Pilot B. Once pilot B reaches his radius he turns right while pilot A continues to reach his radius (shorter) and then turns right. No problem at all.
Case 2: pilot A is on the the right of Pilot B. Once pilot B reaches his radius he turns right while pilot A continues straight to reach his radius. Pilot B most likely would crash into pilot A.

1
0
1 votes with an average rating of 1.
Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 00:17
Luc Armant

I don't see how MRT can deal with a well controlled fairness.
Pilots are flying different task depending on their weight. But how do we set them so they compensate fairly the difference of performance.
Even if we find a ratio of total optimized distance to apply, it does not work very well in practical because the MRT can send the pilots in different places. For example, in heavy sink for the heavier pilot.
The other big problem is that it messes up the group dynamic also bringing unavoidable unfairness. For example, if there is just one heavy pilot on a group, the MRT will leave him out of the group dynamic which we know is a huge part of the performance.

6
0
6 votes with an average rating of 1.
Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 08:05
magdalenajanaway

Two high level competitions only this year showed me that certain people should not be in charge of making tasks for XC PG competitions if i want to be safe flying them. I can only imagine what would have happen with added complication of MRTs.

1
0
1 votes with an average rating of 1.
Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 09:42
BruceG

We have been working on this subject for 10 years and the solutions have evolved a lot over that time.
Much of the discussions on the Whatsapp have already been tried and put aside over this long testing period (like Weight classes).

The latest version of MRT worked as follows:
- Pilots are weighted at registration and can fly at any weight they want (spot checks later also).
They are then divided into the 10 weight categories.
The task is set on launch for the top weight category (125+kg), and the scoring system calculates the turn point radiuses for each turn point to achieve the shorter task lengths for each weight group.
The amount of task length reduction is calculated from statistical analysis of previous competitions. The more competitions run using MRT the more accurate the statistical analysis will become.
Pilots receive a QR code with the task for their weight group on launch.
MRT is not applied to the start or finish/goal, only to turnpoints along the course.

In Laragne this was the system used and it went pretty smoothly. The QR codes worked really well.
The biggest difficulty was instruments that don't accept QR codes, but they were few.
In the air you hardly noticed the different task lengths, because it was the pilots who were naturally lagging behind were given a boost at each turnpoint bringing them back into the running.
Sometimes the radius change did not help, and sometimes it did. But having a shorter task length is definitely an advantage as it all averages out in the end.
It appeared to me that amount of compensation was about right. Pilots commented that if they had flown a smaller glider they would have ended with the same result, despite having less performance.

1
-2
3 votes with an average rating of -0.3.
Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 11:12
christiaandurrant

Basing MRT on weight and not on Wing Size addresses the issue of bigger pilots/profile drag. Nice.

1
0
1 votes with an average rating of 1.
Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 09:19
BruceG

My letter to CIVL - 8 years of Weightless.

Introduction.
Flying with a bigger glider is a signifiant advantage in competition. As a result heavier pilots tend to do better and most pilots fly larger gliders than their usual size and they carry ballast to be at the top of the weight range. We have now reached the stage where competition equipment is typically double the weight of free flying equipment.
This has lead to signifiant reduction in safety as well as a disadvantage for lightweight pilots. As the average weight of an adult worldwide is 62Kg, then the majority of pilots worldwide are significantly disadvantaged in competition.

The objective of the Weightless project is to study this issue and propose different ways of overcoming this problem.
After 8 years of evolution we have now the latest MRT scoring system. This allows lighter pilots to fly a shorter task and arrive in goal at the same time as the heavy pilots. The system is statistically tuned to compensate exactly for the advantage of weight.
The result is that pilots no longer need to fly with ballast, and lightweight pilots can also compete equally.

Some heavy weight pilots do not like this proposal! As many heavy weight pilots are now in key positions of management in the competition scene. So voting this proposal though may be difficult.

Background.
I have been flying competitions since 1985. Hang gliding at first then paragliding.
Thought my flying career I have consistently seen the advantage of weight, a little in Hang gliders and even more so in paragliders.
Weight gives you an advantage at speed stability and glide, great for “racing tasks”. Being light weight also has its advantages, mainly in weak tasks, where there is hardly enough lift to keep you in the air, I call these “survival tasks”. Tasks usually had a nice mixture of the two. Weak conditions as well as fast racing.
Over the years there have been several rules that have promoted racing and reduced the survival type tasks.
These rules are:
- Task validation (weak days invalid)
- Devaluing weak days (weak days low score)
- Dropped tasks (FTV)
- Easier tasks with high numbers in goal
- Certification regulations giving advantage to larger gliders

These rule changes have had the effect of increasing the advantage of flying heavy. So it is not only the aerodynamics that cause this but also the way the rules have been applied increasing the advantage of weight over the years.

When I won the World Championships I knew that as a 65Kg pilot this was one of the last competitions where a light pilot could win due to rule changes and the general direction in which competition is evolving.

As a result of this 8 years ago I started the Weightless project.
The idea was to investigate ways to remove the advantage of weight in competition, as well as discouraging the use of ballast.
Personally I had always refused to fly with significant ballast despite the pressure to do so.

Timeline.
2003 Article published in XC Mag called “Size Does Matter”

2018 1st Weightless Competition - Slovenia
Test of 3 Weight Classes

2019 2nd Weightless Competition - France
Handicap scoring system with 0.25% points advantage for every 1Kg

2019 Study on the effect of Weight on Paraglider performance.

2020 3rd Weightless Competition - Colombia
Introducing MRT style competition

2022 4th Weightless - Spain
Refining MRT scoring

2025 5th Weightless Competition - France
MRT with compensated task length and QR codes

2025 MRT accepted in gliding for many competitions (not Cat1).

At the first weightless competition we had 3 weight classes. This is similar to having the Reynolds Class which has been proposed in other FAI competitions. Unfortunealty this had the opposite effect to what was intended. Pilots simply carried ballast to be at the top of their weight class. One very keen pilot even carried more ballast to get into the class above his one class carrying 30kg of ballast. The idea simply did not achieve the objective.

At the second weightless the classes were effectively 1Kg though a proposed handicap scoring system. This method helped but was not a perfect system to compensate for weight. The biggest issue being that light pilots could not lead, which removed much of the fun of the race.

MRT was then created to help light pilots compete in the race on an even level. 3 competitions have now been run each with an improved version of the MRT system. The 2025 even showing great promise and achieving its goals to level the field and stopping the need for ballast.

The Numbers.
When discussing performance advantage due to weight it is important to understand that there are 3 components to this.
1. Glide Performance
2. Speed advantage
3. Dynamic effects

When we look at the amount of advantage between and XS to an XL glider, in these 3 subjects we see from the theoretical study that these are around 6% for best glide performance, 5% speed advantage and 25% dynamic advantage. All 3 of these factors constantly come into play in any competition. These factors add together to make a large difference of up to 20% between XS and XL gliders. Note that when discussing the performance difference often pilots only consider the range of 100-125Kg, as this is the only weights that competitors currently use in top level competition, the performance difference in this range is around 6%. The objective must be to change this so that pilots as light as 60Kg (PTV) can compete without ballast opening up competition to 3 times the current number of pilots.

Gliding.
I have been in contact with Nick Gilbert from Australia who says they have been using similar technology for gliding competitions.
https://dhtask.com/
DHTask, short for Distance Handicapped Tasking, is a method for conducting a racing task where task length is adjusted for each competitor based on their glider handicap. This is acheived by moving the centre of some or all turnpoints in such a way that gliders of lesser performance fly a task distance in proportion to their handicap. Contests are scored and tasks are set using SoaringSpot. DHTask applies a script to the task set in SoaringSpot and provides each competitor with access to a CUP file containing their task.
The task is flown & the competitor uploads (via a dhtask pilot portal) or emails their IGC trace and it is automatically scored via SoaringSpot as usual.
Task finishers are scored purely on elapsed time, as the handicapping has already taken place during the flight.

Conclusion.
MRT significantly improves safety by removing the advantage to fly with ballast as well as reducing congestion by avoiding local crowding at turn points. It also is expected to increase the participation of lighter pilots in competitions which could lead to a large increase in the popularity of competitions. The average weight of an adult human is 62Kg worldwide, and we should let these lighter pilots fly on an even playing field opening up competition to all.

1
0
1 votes with an average rating of 1.
Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 21:41
chrisb1

Bruce, thanks to you and team for the effort you have put into MRT. Personally, as a hobbyist sports-class comp pilot, I think it's a very interesting direction (very generally: task scoring is already responsive to a range of factors, why should it not also be responsive to the additional factors MRT introduces).

I'm curious if you have been able to gather 'quantitative' data over the years of developing MRT what the preferences of the lighter pilots' are between what sounds like broadly two non-optimal choices? As you highlight above, with the "size/weight" issues interacting with the competition rules, how are these preferences different with and without MRT?

The two choices, perhaps oversimplified, being a) don't ballast up and accept the disadvantages/risk of the smaller gliders (performance, pilot demand, adverse events, ...) or b) fly a (somewhat) larger glider at the disadvantage/risk of carrying ballast? I understand that MRT intends to make (a) a much more available choice if being competitive is the goal but it does not remove what I understand to be a relatively higher risk in flying the (very) small gliders? I recall a recent podcast with a world-class pilot that mentioned they will blast up to some degree for that reason even with other "equalizer" systems in place due to this factor.

I'm not trying to burden MRT with solving every problem, this really is about learning more from the affected pilots (direct voices or indirectly through your work) what their view is. Perhaps the fact that MRT has 'only' been tested in CAT 2 competitions actually provides valuable insights here as lighter pilots may not participate in CAT 1 in the first place due to the challenges they currently face.

0
0
No votes have been submitted yet.
Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 14:35
Richard Meek

Is there any data on the effects of this proposal on ESS/ goal crowding ? Will it have the tendency to increase the numbers arriving at ESS (and goal) at the same time ?

0
0
No votes have been submitted yet.
Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 14:43
BruceG

We have only run one competition with the latest version of the MRT system. This was a serial class competition with about 70 pilots.
There was a wide range of pilot levels and crowding was never an issue anytime in the competition.
However this is more from the number of pilots, level of pilot spread and very BIG site we were flying in, and is not really related to MRT.

0
0
No votes have been submitted yet.

Cat 1 organisational framework

By Julien Garcia on
Discipline
Paragliding XC
What went wrong ?
The amount of XC compétition all across the world is booming. There are dozens of very good quality competition organised across the world every years. Yet we are having more and more trouble finding organisers who will bid for CAT1 because the framework is way harder to sustain. The problem is, thoses championship are not better quality wise and from a pilot perspective than any other good event (Bassano, Spanish League, German open...). If there is no additional value, I wonder who benefit theses additional constraint applyed to the organisation ? Where does the money go ?
What would you propose ?
I believe the organisational framework could be polished a little bit so there is less stress applyed on the organisers shoulder. Steward are not mandarory by FAI Laws. Most comps go (much better) without any. 3 jury members on site is a complete overkill. 1 committed juror who is not linked to the top décision of the institution is way enough. The final balance (assets) of CAT1 event should be detailled and public.
Issue category
Governance
Competition format
Cat1
Organisers
2
0
2 votes with an average rating of 1.
Subscribe to Competition format