culture

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

Spot on ! I'd like a Meet Director or Safety Director to be able to nominatly call any pilot for an answer. If both are in direct line without terrain interférence the pilot shall be able to reply even just to say : "wait it's sketchy". We curently ask our student more than we do for top comp Pilots.

One ideia is to have the task automatically stopped after a certain percentage of pilots or team leaders call level 3,
independent of the Meet Director or Safety Director.

GPS Trackers are provided & distributed by organizers to pilots. They are great, quite often.
VHF Radio devices are to be bought & brought by pilots. They are shitty, quite often.

In my very first PWC, in Japan, a looong time ago, radio devices combined with a GPS unit inside had been distributed to us. That solved many issues.

Equipment provided by organizers is tested, working, and mandatory to be used by the pilots.

Why not imagining a proper communication system provided & distributed by organizers to pilots?
Why not explore communication means other than VHF, such as Zello or mesh-radio systems?

Hi Jonas,

You seem to have a bad concept of what you call "hidden reports".
But you must know, this system was born out of a problem of lack of reporting levels, or lack of accurate reporting.
Pilots are many times reluctant to report for different resons, sometimes there is a kind of "herd behaviour" in which pilots report a level heavily influenced, one way or another, by the report of a "well known" pilot (or avoid reporting in the same situation), radio VHF reports are sometimes lacking information such as who is reporting, his position, his height, and even if clarifications are requested, sometimes they do not come easily.

So this system of easy reporting levels without the problems cited above, is a big step forward to the eyes of many experienced organizers and pilots.
The only problem with this system is when there is lack of cell coverage (loss of signal). That is why VHF radios cannot be discarded.
A good MD could, on a day where there are some concerns about levels (wind, T-Storms, etc,) , and live tracking is failing in some areas, communicate on VHF radios the situation of signal loss, and ask for radio level announcement in those stages.

There is also a problem with reporting level 3 when the conditions are really sketchy; using the radio while trying to fly a wing out of shitty situation can often be dangerous! Mandating the pilot to let go of the controls (brakes) in order to communicate the level will decrease the overall safety. In this way the trackers are better suited since they require less pilot input.

Safety briefing should encourage pilots to report level 2 and 3 to give info to organization.
It doesn't means task is gonna be stopped.
Just giving live info. about an area.

In FAI 2 comps, i often hear that "if you push level 3 you go land"
I think this sentence should be avoided because people thus never call level 3 and report nothing.
A set of guidelines should be written to explain why it's good to report level 2 or 3, and what you can do in that case.

Regarding the new flymaster devices with reporting level 2 or 3: it's a great improvement!
I wish people would use it more. It does not reveal anything on radio, you can push it several times during the task, ... and it gives valuable info to organization.
They also allow safety director to send messages to pilots (ex: task stopped, helicopter incoming, ...), with a better guarantee of communication than radio as the device will ring until acknowledgement.
Presentation of the device during comp. briefing is sometimes lacking yes. But you'll get used to it, just ask around.
Some meet directors now have some video demoing the behaviors and buttons.

Easy to build. Good idea. Maybe linked to Malin's more ambitious idea : https://gagglereport.org/node/17
The data you propose to gather can serve evaluation of further events. I'm not sure I see CIVL doing it. Be we definitely could.

Good idea, but I always prefer rating along a 4-star poll rather than a 5-star poll.

We do it in our country for national competitions.
We get a 50% response in average which seems OK although I would prefer more participation.
Organizers mostly like it as they have some feedback.
We do it on a 5 star system

All quality and safety management systems require user feedback. All issues (Safety, Staff Performance, Site, Logistics etc) could all be included in a simple survey.

There is a nice consensus on this one. Let's form a working group.

Indeed. I want this too.
Technically I can open this today.

Fatality list is not enough (though a rather good start), as important would be listing also the severe incidents.

A simple prototype is available for authenticated user. You can register, see a basic list and report a fatality. The goal is to start from here and lower down the filter.

I agree the IFFPU should have a list of all fatalities - I see both a safety and memorial function for this so we never forget our friends and never forget that all the safety we enjoy today came from the blood of our buddies in the past. However I see a broader need as outlined here https://gagglereport.org/node/29.

The FAI Safety Handbook for hang-gliding/paragliding (prepared for national federations) indicates that they are expected to adopt safety-management systems, good practices, incident reporting, etc. All NACs should be investigating and reporting. The CIVL should be aggregating this worldwide into a useable report. Fatalities, spinal, serious, reserves. If NACs are not doing this then the flying community should be made aware that country X is out of line and consideration given to whether pilots from that country are safe to compete.

This data can then be trend analysed to inform the pilot body;
- how does fatigue impact our sport?
- which wing models are resulting in the most reserves per hour of flight?
- how does total airtime affect accident rate?
- how does SIV affect outcomes etc?
the answers to these questions are unknown at the moment which is a travesty to our sport.
etc etc

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.

This proposal outlines a concept for a shared, independent safety information platform for paragliding competitions. The goal is simple: to make safety-related information easier to find, understand, and act upon, without creating new layers of bureaucracy or imposing top-down control.
The prototype I have created (using completely fictitious data) is designed to show what is possible, not to represent any official source. https://preview--simply-supode-style.lovable.app It demonstrates how safety, medical, and logistical information could be presented in a central, structured, and user-friendly way, so that every pilot, organiser, and institution can benefit from the same foundation of knowledge.
The key principle is independence with collaboration.
Each organisation—whether a national federation, competition organiser, or safety body—would be able to contribute and update relevant information within agreed boundaries. Updates would be moderated to ensure quality and consistency, but the intent is not to control or enforce. Instead, it is to reduce duplication, improve accuracy, and save time for everyone who currently works in isolation to gather the same information.
For example, competition organisers could easily access consistent details about:
Nearest hospitals and emergency care capabilities
Medical response plans and regional capacity
Site-specific safety considerations and infrastructure
Contact details for local emergency services

Pilots can also personalise their experience through adjustable preferences. By choosing from preset profiles such as Safety First, Balanced, Points Hungry, Budget, or New to Comps, the system tailors competition recommendations to align with individual goals and priorities. Factors such as safety, cost, reliability, learning, scenery, social atmosphere, novelty, and points weighting can all be balanced to reflect what matters most to each pilot. This approach encourages self-awareness and informed decision-making, while acknowledging that pilots value different aspects of competition flying.

Much of the current safety discussion in our sport focuses on equipment and pilot skill, both of which are important. However, one of the most significant and underrepresented contributors to accidents lies in the sites we choose to fly and compete at. The inherent characteristics of each site—its terrain, infrastructure, accessibility, and available emergency care—play a major role in shaping risk. Yet this information is often fragmented, inconsistent, or difficult to access. By making site-related safety information more visible and comparable, we can strengthen both pilot decision-making and organiser planning in a practical, non-judgemental way.
This initiative does not aim to restrict or replace decision-making. It is about empowering better judgement through shared visibility.
By agreeing on common definitions and preconditions for a “safe competition”, we can build a consistent baseline while still respecting the diversity of sites, organisers, and flying cultures around the world.

This is a starting point, not a finished product. It will require collaboration on governance, moderation processes, and terminology. But even at this early stage, it shows how a shared approach can reduce friction, improve safety awareness, and strengthen trust between pilots, organisers, and institutions.
Thank you for taking the time to review the concept. A preview of the prototype can be viewed here:
👉 https://preview--simply-supode-style.lovable.app

Really interesting concept - I like the direction! A few thoughts came to mind:

It’s worth considering how to ensure that the data in the system stays complete and up to date. Who would be responsible for filling it in, and what would motivate them to do so? Maybe the platform could sync automatically with existing competition data sources such as CIVL Comps or Airtribune to reduce manual work.

It would be valuable to collect feedback or post-event reports from each competition. This could help improve data quality and provide insights for future events.

I’d also like to see not only the organiser’s declarations, but also references to historical competitions run by the same organiser or at the same site - including details like who the Meet Director and Safety Director were, and how their performance was rated.

I have been an organizer for the past fifteen years, and I believe this proposal is an excellent initiative — not only for competitions, but for the paragliding community as a whole.
Most competition organizers aim to promote their regions through these events. They are typically required to possess all the relevant information, as it forms part of the contingency plans needed to ensure a fast and efficient response in the event of an accident.
However, this initiative should be complemented by the parallel discussion taking place in this forum regarding the establishment of clear standards for Organizers, Meet Directors, and Safety Directors, as well as qualification criteria for event organizers.
I would therefore suggest the creation of a dedicated working group to further develop and consolidate these ideas collaboratively.

I understand the safety rating to be based on the 'event organisational safety features' , including feed-backs from past events at this place with the same organisation ?
.
There should not be confusion with 'expected flying conditions at this place at the given period', this could be integrated from 'experiences' from past events at the given place.

I like this idea.
Great prototype @Louis Tapper !

Suggestions:
- rating of takeoff: cliff or grass? rocks, trees around ? typical wind speed? number of pilots possible in // ; preparation area in shade or sun?
- rating of landing: obstacles, flat or not, size, proximity of dangers (road, fence, animals), gradient...
- clarify the take off and landings evaluated (they can change through time for same "site")

I also like the direction. But there also some questions:
1) what are we supposed to do with the colour code?
If I get it right, the goal is to define better qualification criterias for an organiser and its location for specific events, right?
Lets split it up:
Organiser Criterias from my point of View: Experience of Meeting director and his team. Are local experienced pilots in the team? Is there a professional meteo? Are there enough helpers,..
Rescue: Easy to evaluate.. how far ist the hospital, how fast ist the rescue Chain.
Site: From my point of view a bit difficuter. I site can have many flyable days, which lowers the pressure on the organisers to have tasks in bad conditions. (Maybe another topic) On the other hand, are those always-good-condition sites offen more turbulent, have less outlanding opportunity (what ist more relevant at low cloudbase). When thinking about flying site: Maybe we habe to define save and unsave weather conditions for specific flying sites?
Pilots: my 2cents to this: I don't think that world championships habe a bonus compared to local comoetition. Experienced pilots are offen mit locally experienced.
gear: I am a hangglider Pilot - no comment from my side.

The topic itselve shall not be limited to paragliding events!