Discipline
Paragliding XC
What do we want ?
A better way to handle airspaces with a vertical ceiling that pilots fly under during competitions.
I've had a similar issue twice during competitions in Colombia this winter :
There is a relatively low imposed altitude ceiling over the whole competition area and strong thermals (2400m in Roldanillo in this case).
As the leading gaggle cannot see the airmass, it tries to leave thermals with enough margin to not exceed the imposed ceiling. If the margin wasn't big enough, ten or more pilots are now climbing at three to five meters per second and are all about to get severely penalized. The only solution, for all of them, is to go into a deep spiral right away or violate the airspace.
In my case, spiraling down hard, barely losing any altitude and seeing other pilots doing the same less than fifty meters away from me wasn't a pleasant experience and was really dangerous. I'd like to avoid encountering these kinds of situations in future events.
Note: The ceiling mentioned here is typically the floor of the actual airspace, but for us pilots it feels more like a ceiling, hence the use of the term.
How do we achieve that ?
I believe a really simple solution can be discussed and implemented : add a vertical buffer to avoid actually infringing airspace ceilings and apply the same rules as those used for cloud flying.
Similarly to when a pilot is being unexpectedly sucked into a cloud, a pilot not being able to avoid climbing into the buffer could keep flying straight until it becomes safe to descend and lose the advantage he gained by getting too high.
Losing the advantage would be very similar again. Go off the task route, ensure there are no pilots directly below you and spiral down below the ceiling.
I believe that this could work really well as the altitude of the buffer is known by everyone who attended the briefing and can be checked on instruments whereas for all cloud flying incidents, the actual height of the cloudbase must be discussed, proven with video etc...
I also believe this could solve similar issues happening before the start and would leave pilots a bit of time to lose altitude.
One downside is that in an area where the airspace is already limited, the buffer would bring the ceiling down even more. For example, in my example regarding Roldanillo, a 100m buffer would have brought the actual ceiling to only 2300m.
Fifty or one hundred meters seems reasonable and it could vary. If the actual airspace is infringed, the same penalties as today can be applied. To implement this, competition organizers would simply have to tweak airspace files so that some airspaces are N meters lower.
On top of all this, it could ensure that most competition organizers use airspace buffers and that actual airspaces are not infringed as often.
Comments
I agree that anyone compeeting shuld have done SIV manouvers with an official SIV instructor
But doing an official SIV every time we change the glider is going to be really expensive, expecially for someone that is not already in a CCC.
Not every pilot in FAI1 competitions is using a CCC, so consider that.
I still do collapses, stalls, (SIV manouvers),... with my competition wing, but for actual training, not just for a certificate
I would agree to mandatory SIV - not necessarily on the same model as raced.
In reply to I would agree to mandatory… by christiaandurrant
In the German league, we have a rule that you can only participate if you can demonstrate certain maneuvers with any wing of your choice.
After traveling through Asia for two years, I’ve noticed that many pilots progress extremely quickly from A to CCC wings — sometimes within just one or two years. They gain confidence after completing an SIV course on an A-wing and then overestimate their abilities on a CCC wing. The result is often accidents: crashing into buildings, spiraling or SATing into the ground, or experiencing collapses even in smooth conditions.
I want to help prevent pilots from becoming overconfident and believing that an A-wing is just as easy to handle as a CCC wing. From my own experience, I can say there are far too many pilots who underestimate the risks and demands of high-performance competition wings — especially C, D, and CCC two-liners — without ever having experienced how they behave in critical situations.
I fully agree with comp pilots being able to handle the cases that are being taught in SIV courses but, I do not agree in requiring them to attend one of them and getting the "certification". I have friends that when they buy a new wing they go to Lake Garda and do the whole "sequence" of maneuvers to their satisfaction. The "certification" would cost them + 1000 Euros for something that they can do it already...
Having said that, I fully realize that leaving it to the pilot conscience, is not a 'calibrated' way to deal with the issue....
In reply to I fully agree with comp… by Markos Siotos
In my personal opinion, you should always do an SIV course when switching to a higher wing class.
Of course, if you’ve already proven under professional supervision that you can handle a CCC wing, and then move to a C two-liner, there’s no need to prove yourself again. But for most pilots, it’s simply reckless to practice maneuvers on their own with a more demanding wing, close to the ground, and without ever having trained such situations properly before.
I know many pilots who overestimate their abilities and rush to higher wing classes. They try to stall close to the ground or experiment with maneuvers they’ve never done safely over water — and inevitably put themselves in dangerous situations.
In the German league, you’re currently allowed to prove your required maneuvers via video, which I think is a good step. But considering that most pilots only need to demonstrate this twice in their entire competition career — usually once on a B-wing and later on a C-wing — that doesn’t seem too much to ask.
I’d even be open to accepting video proof over a lake, equipped with a life vest and rescue boats, for your current wing class.
But allowing pilots to perform these maneuvers with any wing over land sends completely the wrong signal. It promotes a false sense of security, while in competition you’re flying under much more stress and often in turbulent air.
So personally, I’d much rather train under professional supervision — or, if you’re convinced you’re “the invincible,” at least do it safely over water with the minimum safety equipment: a life vest and a rescue boat nearby.
I think if you can prove you can fly predefined maneuvers without attending an SIV, that should be acceptable as well. If you do not dare to fly those maneuvers in an environment comparable to an SIV (i.e. over water, with an (automatic) life vest, with a rescue boat on the water), then it is probably not a bad idea to attend an SIV.
Of course not everyone has easy access to a suitable place for such training.
Hi Jonas,
I like the idea of looking for ways of better selecting pilots that are really capable of competing XC with tools to sort out unexpected wing behaviour.
I think your proposal lacks some detail
Are you proposing for CAT-1 events ? All Cat1 or just Worlds and perhaps Europeans ?
Are you proposing for a larger array of events ? Which ?
What do you exactly mean by a SIV certification ? Who is able to certify ? Please think worldwide, not only central europe.
Regarding "on the wing used in the competition", you should be more comprehensive, because if a pilot changes from an Enzo to an X-One, would you require a new certification ? Would you require only a certification in the same type of wing ? How many years that certification holds its validity ?
As you see, there are many details to be explored here
Submitting a video showing certain skills (catch & release, stopping rotations, cravat clearing spin etc), on a yearly basis to get you verified for the comp season is a good idea. Standardising where the camera needs to be mounted and what needs to be in the frame could mean that anyone can just go and do a flight and film the required skills and submit it to a website. I’m sure someone could train AI to verify the videos as there are some very obvious movements it could learn from.