Hyperpilot

Sport Cat 1: Fix the Rules First

Sun, 04 Oct 2026 18:20:27 GMT

This is my detailed answer to CIVL’s recent “PG XC Sport Class European Championships” survey.

As the representative of Hungary, one of the countries with the highest average pilot age and with many pilots not willing to fly CCC gliders, I can say that the future of Sport Cat 1 is a very important question for us.

We 100% support Sport Cat 1 comps (both Continental and World), given the proper rules are implemented beforehand. Currently, they are not, and we find it deeply irresponsible to start Sport Cat 1 comps until the rules are correctly prepared for sportive and fair events.

The following areas need to be addressed:

Technical and safety rules

In the current XC competition format, the winner is decided by the final glide section. No matter who leads for 90% of the race, pilots with the fastest gliders will overtake them on the final glide and win. We saw many examples of this at this year’s Krushevo Europeans, where the race leader, first to tag the last turnpoint, was overtaken on the final glide and crossed ESS 20th.

This format of racing has destroyed Open competitions, and there is no reason why it would behave differently in the Sport class once Sport gets elevated to Cat 1 level.

Actually, there are reasons to believe that the Sport class is even more affected than Open, as:

Sport gliders currently have no max limiter specifications.
Sport gliders have a lower top speed, so they are more prone to being flown at their top speed, unlike CCC gliders. (This comes from their polar curves: flying a CCC glider at its absolute maximum speed is not optimal in typical competition conditions, while flying a Sport glider at its top speed is.)

This is an extremely important issue in our sport, and we need to solve it in the rules before it destroys yet another category.

Two solutions exist which can fix this without any additional hardware (i.e. without adding speed sensors to our kits):

Final glide speed limit
Linear Elevated Goal/ESS

Explaining these methods is out of scope here; I’ll be describing them in a future blog post.

Point calculation and fair scoring rules

Currently, the Sport WPRS selection system is not ready to be a fair and sportive system for Cat 1 level team selection. The current rules make a single event series, the SRS, the only way of gaining competitive SPRS points.

On the Open side, a lot of care has gone into making a fair system: Nationals need to reserve places for outsiders, and the PWC takes into account National results and League results, as well as internal PWC results. As a result, Open WPRS scoring has a balanced and fair landscape of strong competitions:

Nationals
PWCs
Independent events (like Montegrappa, Alpen Cup, Niviuk Open)

Meanwhile, on the Sport side, currently:

The only way to get competitive points is by getting good SRS results.
The SRS is oversubscribed and doesn’t reserve places for outsiders (i.e. Open pilots trying to get in).
The current WPRS → SPRS calculation gives extremely few points to Sport pilots flying in Open competitions.

On that last point: the WPRS → SPRS calculation currently just takes the same points the pilots received in the Open comp and turns them into SPRS points. This is unfair, as in the Open comp, pilots on Sport wings are beaten by CCC pilots.

For this reason, the same pilots who get on avg. 50 points at SRS comps get on avg. 30 points at Nationals. This also divides the National comps landscape: Sport pilots are attending less and less, since it’s not worth going to Nationals: they get so few points compared to SRS.

This is made even worse by the SRS’s current 1.5x multiplier. An avg. top 25% SRS pilot is:

Getting 30 points at Nationals → SRS score 300
Getting 50 points at SRS comps → SRS score 750

Thus, entering SRS comps gives a 2.5x difference in entry priority compared to attending Nationals. Of course pilots oversubscribe to the SRS and don’t attend Nationals; it’s all because of the current rules.

My proposal for a fixed WPRS → SPRS calculation would be to take the Sport-only part of the competition and use that as the SPRS score, with a 1.6x multiplier cap. This still does not fully close the gap between Nationals and SRS comps, but it narrows it significantly.

For the other direction: we should require Sport comps to reserve places for outsiders (i.e. not yet Sport pilots), just like Nationals are required to reserve places for outsiders.

These are proposals, of course, and are only tangentially related to the current survey.

Coming back to the survey

Two points:

Sport Cat 1 is super important for the future of our sport. It’s crucial that we don’t rush it without having the right rules in place first.
The most important question was not part of the survey, namely: “Is your NAC able to finance two, or even three, Cat 1 comps per year (with Juniors)?”

I believe that’s the most crucial question, and everything should follow from there. For example, with an odd/even year format for Sport/Open Cat 1, the rest of the survey would look totally different (of course, Sport teams would receive the same funding, uniforms, etc. as Open teams).

I ask CIVL to consider my points and to think about what would be the right way of launching Sport Cat 1 competitions and what that requires.

Protector Incident Research: Koroyd vs Airbag

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 12:43:15 GMT

This year, I’m continuing my research into harnesses.

First, some quick updates:

I made a video about the CIVL Harness Working Group’s progress and results - or lack thereof. It is linked at the end of this article.
I also did an interview with Paragliding Atlas about back protectors, which is also linked at the end.

All links are collected here: harness.hyperknot.com

Interactive Calculator

Based on Fred’s corrections to my article last year, I fixed my calculations and made an interactive harness back protector calculator here: https://harnessvis.hyperknot.com/

You can use it to calculate the minimum theoretical back protector thickness required to pass a given G-limit and jerk-limit requirement.

harnessvis.hyperknot.com

The new, corrected results were enlightening. It turns out I had underestimated my calculations by almost a factor of two!

The correct results with the 1300 G/s jerk limit are actually in line with what many experienced pilots described as their feeling for a good protector:

The thinnest possible theoretical protector would be 12 cm.
A 75% compressible foam protector would be 16+ cm.

12-16 cm is way above the 5-6 cm protectors we have in the Submarines!

Drop Test Visualizer

To address the other points in Fred’s article - namely that measuring jerk is difficult - I made another interactive tool. This allows visualizing, filtering, and calculating jerk on drop test CSV files used by manufacturers and test centers.

droptest.hyperknot.com

I believe that measuring acceleration and jerk using these filters is a solved problem. The acceleration filter I chose is the industry-standard filter for accelerometer sensors in the automotive crash-test industry (called a CFC filter).

What is visible in the screenshot above:

Green: Incoming noisy accelerometer data.
Blue: The filtered accelerometer data - this is the key, showing that filtering works perfectly!
Purple: The calculated jerk value over time - as you can see, this is also a clean, noise-free curve!

We can definitely use these filters to make correct and repeatable jerk measurements; there is no problem here. As an added bonus, there is no financial investment required for manufacturers or test centers. This is a software-only solution compatible with their existing systems.

You can try it on droptest.hyperknot.com with any of Fred’s sample files: Sample 1 and Sample 2.

Methodology

This section outlines my research limitations and the data collection process.

Resource Constraints

As an independent researcher, my sources were restricted to:

Friends sharing their experiences
Old posts on paraglidingforum.com

By “old”, I refer to the decline of paraglidingforum.com following the migration of online communities to Facebook. While active Facebook groups exist, their posts lack the detail and structure of earlier forum discussions.

The European Hang Gliding and Paragliding Union (EHPU) likely maintains protector data in its accident database, but it remains:

Non-public
Likely lacking the granular detail regarding Koroyd tube deformation that enthusiast pilots share on forums

It would be incredibly important for CIVL or the Free Flyers Union to enable pilots to submit protector-related incident reports so we can maintain an up-to-date dataset. Since 1.65 meter impact testing on humans is off the table, real-world incident reporting is the only way we can keep improving our protector standards.

Data Collection

I downloaded 3,350 posts from 14 paraglidingforum.com topics:

I used AI tools to analyze every accident report made by pilots in this dataset. In total, there were 20 detailed accident reports related to back-protector behavior. These reports are described in the following section.

Koroyd Injuries

OK, let’s start with Yassen Savov. Everyone knows him; he is a former European Champion.

He posted publicly on the Free Flyer’s Union:

Was he making the correct choice? Let’s see.

Pilot 1

Lightweight female pilot at the Brazil World Championships, flying a Genie Race 5. Landed on a lee-side in a massive sink. Hit the ground legs-first, buttocks second.

Fractured L1 and T12 vertebrae. Still recovering, has to wear a corset - even though the Brazil World Championship started at the end of August and now it’s December.

But the shocking thing is that after such a crash, the Koroyd tubes were still intact! Some of them shifted horizontally, showing the impact had a horizontal component as well.

Pilot 2

Pilot’s legs got stuck because of Submarine zippers, landed on his buttocks on soft grass terrain.

Result was an L1 vertebra compression.

He believes landing on a foam protector from a previous-generation race harness would have been a non-issue!

Koroyd Mechanism

Let me stop for a moment and explain how Koroyd is supposed to work. Unlike any “spring-like” protector, such as foams or airbags, Koroyd dissipates energy by getting destroyed / crumpled. It is essentially a single use material.

This is how it is supposed to crumple - from the original marketing website.

And this is from DHV:

Source: DHV

Meanwhile, we get reports like this, showing totally intact Koroyd tubes after extremely serious crashes at 10 m/s!

This photo is from an accident of pilot “Lukske”, detailed in the next section. It is a very serious, 10 m/s fall recorded by the vario, resulting in serious long-term injury to the pilot.

Yet, the Koroyd is 100% intact! (The small deformation on the left was already present before the accident.)

What we can conclude with 100% certainty is that when Koroyd looks like this after a crash, it did not work as intended. No matter what we measured in our laboratory drop tests, in the real world it behaved completely differently.

The crazy thing is that this happened in a Genie Race 4. These reports were published well before the Submarine and Genie Race 5 even came to market!

So let’s go to the paraglidingforum.com posts, starting with the detailed report of the same pilot.

Koroyd - Negative Experiences

Lukske

Date: Oct 1, 2022
Equipment: Gin Genie Race 4
Impact description: After a mid-air collision from 50–70 m, the pilot deployed a reserve. The landing was “hard, flat on my back, maybe more on my behind”. The vario showed a maximum sink of 10.3 m/s. The pilot confirmed he was “still sitting upright in my harness because of the straps of course, so not ‘pushed past the Koroyd protector’”.
Injury/damage/recovery:
- Crushed vertebra T12 with severe neurological damage: “I fractured one vertebra in my back with paralysis in my pelvic area and legs.”
- “After the operation I was left with a neurological injury at the level of L5-S1, with multiple paralysis symptoms in the pelvis and legs”
- Long‑term outcome: persistent paralysis in parts of legs and pelvic region; walking only with crutches.
Protector condition: Essentially undeformed despite high‑energy impact. Later photos showed only very slight pre‑existing dents from sitting/parawaiting.
Quotes:

“The koroyd wasn’t even deformed.”

“The little deformation of the Koroyd was already visible before, as a result of sitting in the harness, parawaiting.”

“From T12, the nervous system branches between the successive vertebrae, the so‑called ’horsetail’… hamstrings and abductors partial, the calfs and toes completly, as well as my pelvic area with the sanitary problems… Luckily my quadriceps are still ok, so I can walk with crutches. In my feet I have nerve pains.”

Links: link1, link2, link3, link4

Oakley

Date: Jun 2, 2023
Equipment: Gin Genie Race 4
Impact description: Following a cravat, the pilot flew into a forest, fell through trees and crashed onto his back. “Slightly feet up hitting a rock on the back of my head that pitched my head forward.”
Injury/damage/recovery: 4 broken ribs, a small pneumothorax, and 3 transverse fractures of the lumbar spine (L1-3), in addition to facial injuries.
Protector condition: Intact. “still intact after the accident and not really showing any sign of the impact.”
Quotes:

“All of this with the Race 4 and Koroyd protector still intact after the accident and not really showing any sign of the impact.”

“This is a shocking finding to me as the protector could have saved me, but somehow was not doing what it was supposed to do.”

Links: link1

PonchoelPiloto

Date: Jan 20, 2024
Equipment: Gin Genie Race 4
Pilot weight: 56 kg
Impact description: Stalled into trees and then fell to the ground. “I hit the ground falling almost straight down vertically while sitting back in the…harness in the normal in-flight position”. Vario showed a vertical speed of at least -3.3 m/s.
Injury/damage/recovery: Fractured L1 vertebra. Recovery involved a back brace for a few months with no surgery required.
Protector condition: Intact. “the Koroyd back protector came out intact in spite of falling directly on it.”
Quotes:

“Sharing details about my recent crash which resulted in a fractured L1 vertebra, in which the Koroyd back protector came out intact in spite of falling directly on it. Is this normal?”

“I am surprised that with a force that was strong enough to fracture a vertebra, the Koroyd foam appears completely intact.”

“I’m lucky that my nerve function is intact and I most likely will not need surgery.”
“This is why I’m sharing my accident.”

Links: link1

Nick Neyens’ Incident (discussed by forum members)

Date: Oct 13, 2022
Equipment: Harness with Koroyd protector
Impact description: A high-energy crash resulting from a flying incident.
Injury/damage/recovery: Severe spinal injury resulting in paralysis.
Protector condition: Observers noted the protector was largely intact but showed some signs of non-vertical impact.
Quotes:

“Here it seems to be just twisted a bit sideways, and somewhat crumpled diagonally, i.e. not in the direction that would be best for taking the impact.”

“Yet on Nick Neyens’ video… the post‑impact protector shows that the Koroyd piece isn’t crumpled. It does look almost pristine, meaning it looks like it simply didn’t do its job.”

Links: link1, link2, link3

Nick’s Koroyd protector

THG

Date: Nov 27, 2022
Equipment: Gin Genie Lite 3
Impact description: On landing approach, the pilot hit the edge of a ditch. The impact occurred at an angle on the right thigh.
Injury/damage/recovery: A broken spine. The pilot wore an orthopedic corset for 2 months and returned to full fitness after 3 months.
Protector condition: Dented very little. “On the board you can see the place of impact, you can compare it to the protector, which dented slightly.”
Quotes:

“I was already out of my harness, and the Koroyd protector in the Gin genie lite 3 did not help.”

“The harness didn’t suffer and the protector dented very little.”

“I would not buy a harness with Koroyd protector a second time.”

Links: link1, link2

Koroyd - Positive Experiences

There was only a single positive experience with Koroyd. Notably, in this pilot’s case, the Koroyd crumpled as intended: 3 modules were crushed.

MarcBoyer (witnessed)

Date: Nov 15, 2023
Equipment: Harness with Koroyd protector
Impact description: A pilot hit the ground “violently” in a seated position following a spin and pendulum recovery.
Injury/damage/recovery: No injury.
Protector condition: Partially crushed. “The Koroyd warped over 3 honeycomb modules.”
Quotes:

“This pilot hit the ground in a seated position. The Koroyd warped over 3 honeycomb modules.”

“The pilot walked up the slope to the ridge. He took off again and then flew 3 hours”

Links: link1

Inflatable Airbags

Finally, I’d like to collect the same accident reports for full-size inflatable airbags.

By full-size, I mean those like the Skywalk Range X-Alps series that cover the spine, looking like this:

These reports are especially important because the enthusiastic pilot community right currently believes that these are the safest protectors on the market today.

Yet, every harness manufacturer I’ve contacted believes that inflatable airbags are inherently bad because they do not pass some time-based test. For example, none of these protectors would pass a “20 ms over 20 G” criteria, something that Koroyd has no problem with.

They also happen to bounce on the drop-test machine, yet in the real-world we’ll see that bouncing is a non-issue.

Summary

lighthunt – Crashed at ~10 m/s in a Karpofly harness while twisted, walking away uninjured.
mincek – Stalled a Skywalk RXA3 from 2–3 meters, resulting in severe bruising but avoiding hospitalization.
tomc – Fell 2 meters onto gravel in a Skywalk RXA2 during a tree landing, escaping with only a minor wrist sprain.
Ismail – Experienced a hard landing on his buttocks in sink on a Skywalk RXA2, noting the impact felt “soft and cushy” compared to traditional foam.
AliF – Landed hard on a slope in a Karpofly harness and bounced sideways into nettles but reported no injuries.
Florian33 – Sustained leg injuries during a severe crash in a Karpofly harness, but the protector prevented spinal damage and showed no bounce.
Bpw – Suffered a slight compression fracture in a Skywalk RXA2 after a very hard impact that burst the protector and blew the harness apart.
inigo – Walked away uninjured from a hard landing in a Skywalk RXA2 that damaged the protector and ripped the harness.
Born2Fly – Remained uninjured after a rough impact in a Skywalk RXA2 and continued using the harness for two years.
flyingdawg – Put a Skywalk Range Air through “hell,” including two crashes, with no injury to himself or damage to the gear.
uBaH – Avoided back injuries over two years of bad landings on rocks and thorns while flying a Karpofly harness.
cuiv (witness) – Witnessed two pilots spin to the ground from 4 meters on air protectors, observing no bounce and no injuries.
LordRuthven (witness) – Watched a pilot slam into a slope in a Karpofly harness and emerge completely unharmed except for a scratch.

In detail

Note: if you want to skip the detailed reports, feel free to jump directly to Conclusion at the end.

1. lighthunt

Date: Dec 6, 2025, Youtube comment to my recent interview on Paragliding Atlas

Equipment: Karpofly harness

Impact description: The pilot crashed while “twisted locked in autorotation” and hit a hard field at approximately 10 m/s (verified by flight log). The heavy impact was distributed along the “banana shape” protector from buttocks to neck.

Injury/damage/recovery: The impact “knocked the breath out” of the pilot but they suffered no physical injuries. They were able to walk away and flew an XC flight back the same afternoon. The pilot believes they “would not walk” if they had been using a foam protector (citing a previous tailbone injury with an 18cm foam protector from a smaller impact).

Protector condition: The protector functioned correctly during the crash.

Quotes:

“I have crashed twisted locked in autorotation and hit the hard field at ~10m/s according to the log and walked away from it.”

“Physically the impact knocked the breath out of me for a while… but I am forever grateful I’ve chosen safe harness with proper thick (17cm) banana shape airbag.”

“I am sure, I would not walk if I was sitting in anything else (I hurt my tail sitting in 18 cm foam protector from much smaller impact earlier).”

Links: link1

2. mincek

Date: Jul 4, 2023

Equipment: Skywalk Range X-Alps 3

Impact description: 90 kg pilot stalled the wing from approximately 2–3 m above ground, resulting in a “fairly big bang on my back”. The impact sequence was “ass/upperback first, top body next and feet last”.

Injury/damage/recovery:

Reports “bruised ass and pain in tail bone” and being “sore for few weeks,” but no hospital stay or diagnosed fractures.
He explicitly believes the protector prevented much worse injury: “That protector probably made a difference in me being in hospital vs me being sore for few weeks.”

Protector condition: Intact. The “Protector survived it and did not burst into pieces.”

Quotes:

“I had a fairly big bang on my back in RXA3. Need to say that the protector probably saved me from more serious injuries. Bruised ass and pain in tail bone is all I got.”

“Protector survived it and did not burst into pieces.”

“That protector probably made a difference in me being in hospital vs me being sore for few weeks.”

Links: link1, link2, link3

3. tomc

Date: Apr 2, 2020

Equipment: Skywalk Range X-Alps 2

Impact description: Tree‑tip landing leading to a short uncontrolled fall onto his back. He describes a horizontal rotation and drop of about 2 m onto a gravel road.

Injury/damage/recovery: He reports only a minor wrist sprain and otherwise walked away.

Protector condition: The harness sustained structural damage. The protector itself was undamaged.

Quotes:

“Couple of weeks ago I had a tricky landing tipping the top of trees. The result was a fall with horizontal 360 rotation from about +2m straight on the protector.”

“It felt OK, just a bit harder at the very end of the impact. I had no injury except for a minor sprained wrist.”

“Compared to the Gin Genie Race protector, which feels very progressive protecting in the same case, the air protector feels soft till a certain point. This makes all sense as the air cannot get out.”

Links: link1, link2

4. Ismail

Date: Sep 17, 2018 (Incident) / Jan 17, 2023 (Retrospective)

Equipment: Skywalk Range X-Alps 2

Impact description: A hard landing on the buttocks in a tight spot. The pilot was lifted by a thermal and then hit strong sink close to the ground. In later posts, he refers to this and other “unintended hard impacts” over his time flying the harness.

Injury/damage/recovery: No injuries reported. The pilot emphasizes that he “just got up, packed and went off for the second flight.” He explicitly compares this to foam protectors, stating a belief that he “probably would have broken something” or had a sore back for a week if using traditional foam.

Protector condition: Intact. The pilot described the impact as feeling “soft and cushy,” likening it to “plopping on a couch.”

Mechanics observed: He noted that upon impact under the seat, the air redistributes to the back and sides. This inflation of the surrounding areas cushions the secondary impact on the upper spine/back as the pilot rolls backward.

Quotes:

“The sink was just too big and unfortunately a hard butt landing followed… With any other back protection I probably would have had a sore back for a week but with this guys I just got up, packed and went off for the second flight.”

“Later on when switched to Skywalk X-Alps 2, I noticed that unintended hard impacts were way way more soft and injuries were avoided where I probably would have broken something if it was just a regular foam based back protection.”

“The way the PermAir dissipates the blunt impact is quite interesting… the air that just moments ago was squeezed under you does travel sideways and upward, making the secondary impact on your upper spine much less noticeable.”

Links: link1, link2, link3, link4

5. AliF

Date: Sep 27, 2020

Equipment: Karpofly harness

Impact description: Described as having “landed hard on the harness once which was on a steep slope after a low spin”. The impact caused one bounce, which “threw me sideways into a nettle patch”.

Injury/damage/recovery: The pilot reported “no problem”.

Quotes:

“So far I only landed hard on the harness once which was on a steep slope after a low spin.”

“I did get one bounce which threw me sideways into a nettle patch, no problem but I guess you could get thrown over sideways and land on a shoulder or face with second bounce.”

“Still the first bounce will always be the hardest.”

Links: link1

6. Florian33

Date: Dec 6, 2019

Equipment: Karpofly harness

Impact description: Very hard impact onto the protector in standing posture. Some energy was taken by his legs but most went into the back protector.

Injury/damage/recovery: Significant soft‑tissue trauma to the legs but no fractures; spine spared despite a crash that witnesses expected to be fatal.

Protector condition:

Airbag valve remained closed; no bounce was observed.
No damage to the airbag was reported; he concludes that it “works just perfectly.”

Quotes:

“I (unfortunately) tested the (fortunately) excellent Karpofly airbag in real conditions. The accident itself is irrelevant here but the impact isn’t: I was standing, therefore some of the energy (not much) was absorbed by my legs (leading to serious tendon and muscle injuries, but miraculously no bone was broken), and the rest of the strong impact occured on the protection.”

“In short, the Karpofly protection works just perfectly.”

“I didn’t bounce, the valve stayed closed and my spine didn’t break.”

“All of the eye (and ear) witnesses … thought I was dead or at least wouldn’t lift up (ever…).”

Links: link1

7. Bpw

Date: Sep 24, 2024

Equipment: Skywalk Range X-Alps 2

Impact description: A very hard hit on smooth grass. “I used my legs, and blew through a protector… Pretty common to go legs then butt when you fall down.”

Injury/damage/recovery: A “slight compression fracture”.

Protector condition: Protector burst under load, but only after significant deformation: “I managed to burst the protector on my RXA2, but it was a really, really hard hit, and the protector took a lot of energy before popping, blew the harness apart as well.”

Quotes:

“I also made it through with nothing worse than a slight compression fracture, so the gear seems to have done its job.”

Links: link1, link2, link3, link4, link5

8. inigo

Date: Nov 3, 2024

Equipment: Skywalk Range X-Alps 2

Impact description: Hard landing

Injury/damage/recovery: The pilot was uninjured. “I am pretty sure that with another protection I would had have more chances of being injured.”

Protector condition: Protector damaged, harness “ripped” from the impact.

Quotes:

“My experience with Perm-air protection was under a Range Xalps 2 harness.”

“Some years ago I had a bad and hard landing, and the protection did its work. Of course, protection got damaged and the harness was ripped. But I did not get any injury.”

Links: link1

9. Born2Fly

Date: Jan 26, 2023

Equipment: Skywalk Range X-Alps 2 with Permair protector

Impact description: Describes “a quite rough impact on a tight landing” with the RXA2, hard enough that he feels the protector “saved” him.

Injury/damage/recovery: No injuries mentioned; he implies he walked away from the impact and kept flying the same harness.

Protector condition: He continued using the harness for about two years and reports no problems with the protector, implying it stayed intact and functional after the hit.

Quotes:

“I was flying the RXA2 for about 2 years and didn’t have a problem. It even saved my **s during quite rough impact on a tight landing.”

Links: link1

10. flyingdawg

Date: Mar 13, 2018

Equipment: Skywalk Range Air

Impact description: Mentions two crashes but gives no specifics about height, surface or body position: “I put my Range Air through hell, including two crashes…”

Injury/damage/recovery: No injuries are reported in the post.

Protector condition: Harness (including the airbag system) survived both crashes without any visible damage according to the pilot.

Quotes:

“I put my Range Air through hell, including two crashes, and it is as good as new.”

“I really couldn’t believe that it had no damage after my last crash.”

Links: link1, link2

11. uBaH

Date: Sep 26, 2022

Equipment: Karpofly Fantom Extralight 2

Impact description: A summary of multiple small-to-moderate impacts over the first two years of flying. These included “Many bad or aborted takeoffs, many bad landings and some downwind landings on rocky terrain,” including on “thorns, bushes, stones, rocks.”

Injury/damage/recovery: “I have NEVER been injured in the back and NEVER felt any pain or discomfort after any of these situations.”

Protector condition: The protector remained functional through all impacts and a total of 7 seasons of use. The pilot described its performance as “outstanding.” No bouncing was observed. Non-impact-related wear on the valve and hose occurred over time and was repaired.

Quotes:

“In the first two years mainly I have ‘tested’ the inflatable protector many many times. Many bad or aborted takeoffs, many bad landings and some downwind landings on rocky terrain.”

“I have NEVER been injured in the back and NEVER felt any pain or discomfort after any of these situations. The protector did its job in a perfect way.”

“Many times landing on the protector, on thorns, bushes, stones, rocks. The inflatable protection was outstanding.”

Links: link1, link2

12. cuiv (witness)

Date: Sep 18, 2022

Equipment: Unspecified harnesses with “air protectors”.

Quotes:

“I’ve personally witnessed 2 pilots suffer strong impacts on air protectors (spin to ground from 4 meters high or so), but there was no bounce (a big sound though)… And no injury either.”

Links: link1

13. LordRuthven (witness)

Date: Jul 23, 2019

Equipment: Karpofly X‑Alps 3

Impact description: He watched another pilot “trying to thermal too low and too close to the slope” who then “slammed directly into” the hillside. He characterizes it as “a hard and nasty smack” directly into the slope.

Injury/damage/recovery: The pilot was “completely unharmed” apart from “a small scratch on his leg near the boot”.

Quotes:

“The first time I saw it in action was when a guy who was trying to thermal too low and too close to the slope slammed directly into it near Karlovo with Karpofly X-Alps 3 open harness.”

“It was a hard and nasty smack, but apart from a small scratch on his leg near the boot, he was completely unharmed.”

Links: link1

Foam Protectors

Foam protectors are generally taken as the standard and are not discussed as frequently as Koroyd or air protectors.

The only significant point worth noting here is that in some harnesses, instead of a full-size back protector, the rescue container is mounted in the lower back. In the first case below, the pilot broke his back exactly on the border between the protector and the reserve container. This configuration has long been criticized as a dangerous mounting point on lightweight harnesses.

1. cuiv

Date: June 2021
Equipment: Advance Lightness 3
Impact description: The pilot had a “bad landing in rotor” where the “impact wasn’t even that strong.” The harness hit the ground at the border between the foam protector and the rescue parachute container located in the back.
Injury/damage/recovery: An “exploded vertebra” resulting in a broken back and spinal fusion.
Quotes:

“The impact that broke my back was right at the border between the rescue and the protector. That meant the full energy transferred to my spine.”

“I am convinced (without proof) that had I been in my Wani Light 2 with its massive airbag protector, I wouldn’t have been hurt.”

“I see more and more harness manufacturers praising their own protector… a lot of ‘trust me bro!’ from the manufacturers… yet their design diagrams seem to indicate the rescue is placed within the protector area.”

Links: link1, link2

2. JonesB

Date: Feb 15, 2024
Equipment: Kortel Kanibal Race 2 with the regular foam protector.
Impact description: A 64 kg pilot experienced a “hard landing” while flying in Colombia.
Injury/damage/recovery: The pilot reported no significant injuries, stating they were “good to go the next day.”
Quotes:

“regular foam protector works great.”

“Saved my back on hard landing and was good to go the next day.”

Links: link1

Conclusion

The most important points I’d like to highlight in conclusion are:

Koroyd

Koroyd has very different behavior in real-world conditions compared to the controlled drop‑test environment.

On the test bench, it crumples nicely. In real crashes, it very frequently stays almost intact while the pilot leaves with fractured vertebrae and, in several cases, long‑term neurological damage or paralysis.

Even during perfectly controlled drop tests, Koroyd already shows dangerously high jerk values. In the real world, with non‑vertical impacts, rotation, and uneven ground, pilots may have experienced extreme G and jerk values – easily multiple times higher than the lab‑measured ones.

In my small dataset alone, the real‑world behavior of Koroyd is associated with dozens of injured pilots, and I believe these reports might only cover 1–2% of Koroyd injuries.

Airbags

I believe full‑sized inflatable protectors are the safest protectors available today.

This is especially important because most manufacturers currently discard them as an inferior solution, largely because of how they perform against certain time‑based criteria on standardized tests. I’m especially worried that a new EN test with strict time‑over‑G requirements could effectively exclude inflatable airbags, despite their excellent real‑world record.

I collected all those reports to show that the real‑world behavior of inflatable airbags is probably better than anything else currently on the market.

It might be worth discussing the reasons for this. Some of my ideas:

They distribute the load smoothly over the full human body, without sharp pressure points.
They handle over‑loading (heavier pilots and/or higher impact speeds) much better than foam or Koroyd, without a hard bottoming‑out point.
Even in extremely high-energy impacts - the rare cases where protectors exploded - pilots mostly reported walking away with no or relatively minor injuries.

If we care about what happens in actual crashes, full‑size inflatable airbags should not be treated as second‑class solutions. They look a lot like the best we currently have.

The data gap

All of this sits on top of a massive data gap.

I had to scrape old forum threads and personal reports to get even this small dataset. EHPU almost certainly has useful information in its accident database, but it’s not public and likely lacks the level of detail pilots share when they post their own stories.

Right now, our standards are optimized for what is easy to measure on a drop test - not for what actually happens when a pilot hits the ground in a real crash.

It would be extremely important for CIVL or the Free Flyers Union to start collecting accident data specifically related to protector behavior. Since 1.65 m impact testing on humans is off the table, real‑world incident reporting is the only way we can keep improving our protector standards.

Hopefully this will come soon!

Bonus

I also share a NotebookLM project for those who would like to query this dataset. At that link, you can ask questions like: “Research all pilot discussion and especially personal experiences about inflatable protectors bouncing. Is this an issue, or not?”

Link

Videos

About competition safety and how can CIVL improve

Sun, 28 Sep 2025 09:02:51 GMT

I’ve been collecting my thoughts on the paragliding competition world and the unfortunate, tragic accident of Bram Declercq at the World Championship in Brazil.

If you haven’t read it, here is CIVL’s official statement on the accidents. Accidents, in the plural, as unfortunately there was also a tragic accident at this year’s Hang Gliding World event.

An article on this topic from XCMag.com includes details from a third tragic accident at the PWC in Turkey as well. That’s three tragic accidents in high-level comps within 3 months!

Community reactions and proposals

Note: the following section mentions Pál Takáts and Julien Garcia, some of the most experienced and influential people in our sport - two people who I highly respect. Still, I disagree with their solutions, and I’ll explain why.

Pál Takáts

Pál Takáts wrote the following post on Facebook and Instagram.

Pál later also published an update.

Marcella Uchoa

A letter was shared, which was sent by Marcella Uchoa back in April, that warned the organizers about the dangerous conditions that would be present in September. Unfortunately, his points turned out to be an extremely precise prediction (highlighted in green).

She received the following official answer:

Julien Garcia - FFVL

Julien Garcia started the #CIVLRESIGN movement on Instagram.

A post shared by @jugarciaffvl

FFVL, the French Federation, officially requested the resignation of the CIVL Board, with the following letter.

My thoughts

Here is the summary of my thoughts:

As you can see by the thousands of likes/comments on Pal’s and Julien’s posts, comp pilots are deeply disillusioned by CIVL today. This is also what I’ve been hearing in person for many years now.
I think we all agree that something needs to change. I don’t believe asking for the resignation of the CIVL Board would solve anything, but I also believe CIVL needs a reform.
We should start building bridges and having dialogues, not destroying teams. The current CIVL Board is one of the most qualified ever to represent PG Cross Country pilots.
The real problem is that the NAC system is broken, and asking for board’s resignation will not fix that.
XC Comp pilots should form a committee that directly represents them, and CIVL should recognize this committee.
Limiting comps to EN-C is the wrong solution. It will just create fake EN-C gliders. Today’s PWC pilots will be flying these fake EN-C gliders with Submarines. It will not make the sport safe, it’ll just destroy the EN-C class.
There should be a safety questionnaire sent after each task. This is the only way to get real feedback on pilot safety.

Technical solutions

Let’s get this EN-C thing out of the way.

The whole Sport class movement has been safe in the last few years, only because it was not about performance / high-level comps.

The first-gen 2-liner EN-C gliders were not designed for top-speed/max-performance.

Pál wrote that “While the evolution of CCC gliders is stuck for years, the EN-C performance became mindblowing”.

Do you know why that is, exactly? Because CCC has been super strictly regulated for years, with the speedbar length + limiter requirement. Manufacturers told me that this limit is blocking the innovation in the CCC class, so much that it is almost impossible to develop better CCC gliders. That is why almost every comp is won by an Enzo 3, which is an 8-year-old design.

And what’s with the EN-C? The C class has almost zero performance regulations, it’s the Wild Wild West! An EN-C wing can have an Aspect Ratio of 7.0, any speed bar length and no limiter whatsoever!

Unfortunately, I’m already seeing how top-speed/max-performance is starting to dominate EN-C with the Gin GTO 3 and BGD Cure 3. Also SRS pilots are moving to Submarines.

I believe in a year or two, we’ll be talking more about how to fix the EN-C class.

Look at the Zeno 2 report. It only has 2 D’s (skip the “Folding lines used” lines, that would give C today). Don’t you realize that Ozone could develop a Zeno 3 with a winglet and push it into the EN-C class?

It’d have an AR of 7.0 and a higher top speed compared to the Enzo 3! Of course, it’d be a “fake” EN-C glider, just like how the Gin Carrera was a “fake” EN-B.

(Today, they have no incentives to develop such a glider, so no worries, it won’t happen. But if World Championship were to happen on EN-C, they’d be forced to make it).

Then we’d arrive at a point where pilots are racing Submarines with Zeno 3s, and GTO 4s and Cure 4s until a few tragic accidents would make us reconsider where it all went wrong.

Unfortunately, we tend to talk about these problems only after serious accidents happen. This is such a dark side of our sport, and I wish it wasn’t like this.

Harnesses and protectors

The safety at our comps has gone really bad recently, even though the design of the CCC gliders didn’t change in the last 8 years. So what did? Harnesses and protectors.

I strongly believe many of the accidents are more serious because of the lack of adequate protectors in the new style harnesses.

It seems we are stuck with Submarine style harnesses, but we need to seriously start adding better protectors to them. If we are settled on 5-6 cm protectors (I hope we are not), then we need to add Airbag systems. Airbag systems have been standard for motor-bikers for many years now. For an illustration, have a look at this bicycle solution which inflates around the neck and head.

We should be integrating these into our harnesses. They’ll finally have the possibility of protecting our hips as well, something which classic protectors never did properly.

A post shared by @hovdingofficial

Same with CO2 ejected rescues. Have a look at this video.

Why are these not standard already? These would solve both the slow-opening and the tangling-into-lines problems of our current rescue systems.

From what I know about Bram’s accident so far, I believe a CO2 ejected rescue might have saved his life.

Task design decisions

There are some interesting proposals about the task designs we should talk about. For example to have a min altitude requirement at goal: you’d need to arrive to goal at say 200 meter AGL. If you risk arriving lower, you’ll need to thermal up (time would still stop at ESS). This would solve probably the most dangerous/stupid aspect of our sport, where dozens of pilots are barely arriving a few meters above goal.

Years ago that’s why ESS got introduced, as pilots were racing into the ground. Today, everyone is optimising final glide to ESS and hoping to find a thermal and just barely glide into goal.

Dusan Oroz also proposes some alternative ideas in the PGF thread discussing this, like making it possible to skip turn-points - with a penalty. So say if a turn-point is on a strong lee side, allow pilots to turn back earlier and still make a say, 800 point day, instead of risking their life and pushing into the lee.

Also, FTV is one of those ideas which, on the surface, look like it makes our sport safer, but has the side effect of making everyone risk more / fly closer to the ground. I believe one of the most important safety decisions of SRS was not to use FTV within a comp. (They still have FTV for the full year championship).

Question of responsibility and personal decisions

I believe technical solutions are not the real problem here, but something on the human level. This is a very difficult discussion to have.

If you say that the Meet Director is personally responsible for the safety of every pilot - as much as risking getting into jail if something goes wrong - then no one will organize comps in the future. From what I heard, something like this happened in France this year, and they went from 30+ comps per year to almost none.

On the other side, the other extreme is what we have today, when we keep saying that “you are the best pilots in the world, you make your own decisions, everyone should decide to land when they believe it’s outside of their limits”.

Repeatedly saying this is what made us arrive where we are now. This is just another way of saying if you are a rabbit, don’t come to our comps. Also, it’s very much a macho / manliness measuring contest, no wonder female pilots are underrepresented in our sport.

I don’t think there are black-and-white solutions here; what we need is a dialogue.

We can be angry at CIVL, but PWC comps have an equally bad safety record compared to CIVL Cat 1 events, even though on PWC, pilots directly vote on these issues.

My friend told me that on PWC discussions he repeatedly proposed the idea of having min altitude at goal, only to have it always discarded, because it’d kill the “fun factor” / “adrenaline rush” of our races.

All I’m trying to say that there are no black-and-white sides here. Pilots are not angels. From time to time, after an accident, they are asking for safety, yet they love arriving to goal at 5 meters / pushing full-bar through all kind of conditions / using FTV and sometimes refer to others struggling with conditions as having “skill issues”.

CIVL reform

I believe CIVL needs an internal reform, but it’s not as simple as asking for resignations.

The biggest problem is that the NAC system is broken, and asking for a resignation is not going to change that. By NAC system being broken, what I’m saying that a typical comp pilot has absolutely no idea how his country’s NAC works, who is even the member of their NAC, how do they even contact them and how many bureaucratic steps they need to give feedback / make a proposal. Even the whole concept of how CIVL works through NAC proposals is totally unknown to many comp pilots flying for 10+ years!

So let’s say one pilot successfully contacted their NAC. The NAC would then need to discuss the issue, and hopefully, if the stars are aligned correctly, they’ll write a proposal for next year’s CIVL Bureau meeting.

Then, if, and only if the NAC has the financial means to sponsor their delegate to travel in-person to the other side of the world, the delegate can attend the meeting. On this meeting, the delegate can try to represent the proposal, which was written by a different person months ago. A day or two after the delegate has presented the proposal, there is an in-person voting session (not online!), and if accepted, then CIVL makes an amendment to the Section 7 document for the next year. Any changes afterwards? Start from the beginning and make another proposal the next year.

If the comp pilot is not so lucky to have a good connection to their NAC, the proposal cannot happen. If the NAC doesn’t have the financial means to sponsor their delegate’s travel expenses, they can only view online, without being able to present. In this case, the country’s proposal will very likely fail.

This year for the first time, I represented Hungary as a delegate. As the location was in Europe, I was able to attend the meeting in person. We’ve spent 4 days sitting in a room 12 hours per day and voted on tiny issues like goal line orientation and scoring formula variables.

Then, in the same season, 3 pilots die in 3 month.

I believe something really needs to change. If you read this paragraph out loud to a stranger, they’ll shake their heads and say what a dysfunctional organization.

I understand Julien Garcia’s points. We were sitting next to each other in the same room in the same 4 days.

Things need to change, but I believe we need to build bridges instead of asking for resignations.

Discussing proposals for 4 days in a room

What is going to change the system?

OK, here are some very practical proposals:

During a comp, send a daily safety questionnaire after each task to every pilot by email. Currently accidents are only self-reported by the Meet Director, and they tend to “forget” about accidents at their own comps. Also, very important details are not currently collected, like harnesses.

I’m thinking something simple like:
1. Conditions at start were OK / not-OK. Comments
2. Conditions at goal were OK / not-OK. Comments
3. Comments about task
4. Comments about meet director
5. Mid-air collisions you saw during the task
6. Accidents / rescues you saw during the task
  
  Luckily AIs today are extremely good at summarising 130 responses into a short text, so it won’t be a burden for anyone to read these.
Make a committee directly representing cross-country competition pilots. Let’s call it Cross-Country Pilots Committee or CCPC. CIVL should recognise this committee and accept proposals from them just like they accept proposals from NACs. Cross-Country Pilots Committee could even have voting rights, if somehow we can make it possible within FAI.
CIVL needs to do something with this “spending 4 days in a room to vote on scoring formulas and goal line orientations” while people are dying on our comps!

I believe we should move smaller issues to quarterly online votings and dedicate the annual in-person meeting to issues like safety.

About FAI and CIVL

I think many of my readers probably don’t know what’s our relationship to CIVL and FAI and who are even our CIVL board members. I don’t blame you, CIVL is really bad at communicating what they do. The only time most pilots see these names is when they have to pay for FAI license or register for a comp on civlcomps.org.

OK, so FAI is The World Air Sports Federation. It was founded in 1905, so we are talking about a 120 year old federation.

CIVL is the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Commission of FAI.

Most importantly, it is not a direct democracy, but a representative democracy. The members of the FAI are not people, but national organizations. For each country, there is one recognized National Airsport Control (NAC). Examples include the BHPA in the UK, or the DHV in Germany. NACs have their own selection processes in each country, which might or might not be democratic.

Representation: Each member country gets one vote. This all comes to a head once a year at the CIVL Plenary Meeting. This is where all the delegates from every member nation gather to vote.

So this is what’s given, it’s a super rigid structure by a 120 year old organization. I believe pilots behind #CIVLRESIGN don’t understand how rigid this structure is, and that our only way to make it better is to work within this structure and try to fix it.

I tried to give 3 proposals above which can hopefully work in the existing system.

Daily security questionnaires: we can definitely do this today. I’m happy to volunteer on the software side of this.
Allowing a Cross-Country Pilots Committee to represent at meetings: this should be possible. Giving voting rights to them might not be, but we should try.
Quarterly online votings is something we should really really push for. If we need permission from FAI then we should do everything to get that permission.

Finally here is a photo of the CIVL Board at the time of the last plenary meeting in 2025.

As I said I’ve only been a delegate for one year, but people who have spent some time in CIVL say that this is actually one of the best boards we ever head for representing XC comp pilots. Bill, Goran, Zeljko and Fabio are still active XC competitors and/or meet directors today.

Potential for change

Finally, I wanted to share a story about the potential for change, especially involving the French team.

I vividly remember the 2023 World Championships in France. It was the competition with the worst safety statistics of anything I’ve ever been to or even heard of. In total, I believe 21 pilots had accidents, about 18 of them threw rescues, of which maybe only 6 opened.

The strong valley winds between the 1800 meter ridges were way over the limit for many pilots unfamiliar with the area but were OK for the French team, who knew this place inside-out.

Many of us will never forget, how every time we discussed the safety aspect during the comp, the French pilots reacted calling it a “skill issue”. Every time the tasks were “only” 90-100 KM closed triangles, they were upset that we were not flying 150 or 200 km tasks on such perfect days.

Then Timo’s tragic accident happened during the 2024 French Open and I believe it changed everything in France. The same pilots who were the loudest back then are now standing up for improving safety on our sport - and I’m glad they do.

I’m saying this as an example that change is possible.

We need to start a discussion and find a way to fix things which are broken, not just ask for resignations.

How to Set Up PureTrack for X-Alps Viewing

Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:04:07 GMT

PureTrack.io is a live-tracking app by Tim Bromhead, a sailplane pilot from New Zealand. What makes this app special, is that it aggregates multiple networks for each pilot’s live location.

For example, here is one X-Alps pilot’s position, aggregated from four different devices.

I believe integrating multiple devices from multiple networks for each pilot is the most important innovation in live-tracking in recent years. No network - not even a satellite tracker - guarantees a 100% connection, but if a pilot has multiple trackers, one of them will probably work. It also has no delay, unlike other platforms.

I believe both of these features are super important for safety in our sport, and I hope that in the future, more comps will embrace these multi-network live-tracking platforms.

X-Alps Live Tracking

If you’re a paragliding pilot, you’re probably following the X-Alps race right now. And you’ve probably realized that the official live tracking on redbullxalps.com gets worse each year. This year, in particular, it’s so bad that most viewers are looking for alternative platforms.

Configuring PureTrack

Of the alternative platforms, PureTrack is currently the best one, but its UI has many settings that aren’t optimized for paraglider pilots. In this guide, I’ll share how to configure it for the best experience.

First, the URL is https://puretrack.io/g/red-bull-x-alps. The URL changes the moment you load the page, so you have to save a bookmark, then edit it and copy and paste this exact link: https://puretrack.io/g/red-bull-x-alps

OK, now you’re on the page. Please be patient; the server is being hammered by everyone right now, so loading takes about 35 seconds. Once it’s loaded, it works fine.

Initial view is this:

Initial view

Let’s make it look better.

From here, I’ll just use screenshots with red arrows to show the settings you need to click.

Settings

Labels and Icons

Units

Layers

Label Line Two (super important!)

Base Map

Time

One small note, make sure the tracklog is set to 6h and not 24h. The 24h option is a bit broken at the moment and makes everything super slow.

Now it looks much better! Enjoy the X-Alps!

Improved display with pilot names, altitudes and live radar view.

Note: Track playback isn’t working well for me. I hope in the future it gets developed into something similar to XContest Live. For now, PureTrack is best for viewing a pilot’s latest position.

Paragliding changes in 2025 (Equalizers, CHS harnesses, H&F World Championship)

Sun, 23 Mar 2025 19:48:55 GMT

Correction 1: Score back time was NOT removed, it’s 5 minutes for PG and 15 minutes for HG.
Correction 2: Equalizers are only allowed at the moment, they are not yet decided to be mandated for this years Worlds. If they are, CIVL will publish a statement about it.

“FAI CIVL Plenary” is the name of the most important annual meeting in paragliding. This is the time and place where the current problems in our sports (PG and HG) are discussed, and proposals for their solutions are submitted and voted on.

This year, the CIVL Plenary took place in Budva, Montenegro, at a seaside hotel resort. Though this sounds like a dream, in practice we were working from morning till evening inside a meeting room, looking out onto the backyards.

I was recently voted to be the Delegate for Hungary, making this meeting my first. Several people told me this was a particularly efficient meeting, and many things were accomplished.

I’d like to summarize the most important changes that were accepted.

Equalizers

The biggest change in the last 20 years of paragliding is the arrival of equalizers! This has the chance of finally solving the weight inequalities in our sport!

The basic idea is that pilots flying bigger sizes have to put foam tubes onto their gliders (on the B1 lines), making their performance closer to smaller sizes. They look like this.

In my opinion, this is a brilliant idea! In a given competition, the organizer decides to equalize all glider performances to, say, 95 kg: In this competition, there will be no advantage to flying with a glider bigger than 95 kg!

The short-term aim is simply to achieve more equalized performance at the next few events.

The long-term aim is even more important: pilots will hopefully buy their next gliders one or even two sizes smaller!

Luc Armant gave a talk at the Superfinals, where he said there is absolutely no technical reason why 95 kg gliders should have worse handling than 115 kg gliders. They can be made just as good as bigger sizes—or even better—if manufacturers put enough effort into prototypes and development of these sizes. Previously, they didn’t, because no one was buying these sizes. This will now change with the next generation of CCC gliders.

~~The current idea is that~~ ~~equalizers will be mandatory~~ ~~already on this year’s~~ ~~PG World Championship in Brazil~~~~, with a test event happening before.~~ The PWC plans to do the same from 2026.

You can read the full document here:

Civl Plenary 2025 Annexe 32 Safety Officer Proposal Performance Equalizers

1.19MB ∙ PDF file

Download

CIVL Competition Harness Standard - CHS

This document is the result of the CIVL Harness Working Group, in which I participated over the last 2 years to solve harness safety problems. Now it has a name: CHS, similar to CCC for comp gliders.

The biggest difference between CCC and this document is that while CCC tests are less strict compared to EN tests, CHS harnesses must pass the latest EN test in addition to passing CHS. So unlike CCC gliders, CHS harnesses will be safer compared to non-CHS harnesses.

Since I was personally involved in this group, allow me to share a bit of background about this document. Two years ago, we started with the main aims of addressing:

Unsafe back protectors
Instrument accessibility (open cockpit, no plexi)
Tail wrapping around the pilot’s head
Visibility/blind spots
No zippers for pod

The most important item, the back protectors, became “outsourced” to the EN harness standard, which means it is no longer part of this document. There was long debate about this. I proposed fixed minimum dimensions (10 cm thickness, x width, y length), but in the end we abandoned the idea. Now our hope is that the EN WG-6 group will consider our points and come up with a safe back protector standard.

Instrument accessibility turned out to be mostly solved by the latest versions of the Submarine envelopes. Pilots reported that new versions with magnetic openings no longer pose significant problems. For this reason, this was also removed.

Tail wrapping around the pilot’s head is the trickiest aspect. It turns out there is no exact way to test this. Even if we introduced flight tests for harnesses, realistically it is almost impossible to simulate this reliably. What we came up with is a section stating that if incidents occur in competitions, CIVL can invite a group of experts, including competing manufacturers, to evaluate the problematic harness and decide if the harness is allowed to continue flying.

Visibility is, in my opinion, the weakest section of the document. We ask for visibility no worse compared to Gin Genie Race 4 and Ozone Exoceat. I think we all understand that this ship has sailed: we’ll never have visibility like we had before, and pilots must adapt their behavior when flying with these harnesses. At the moment, I cannot imagine a solution other than literally putting some kind of “parking camera”-like device on the bottom of harnesses.

The zippers part was accepted. CHS only allows harnesses where the pilot does not need to use their hands to get in or out of the harness. Magnetic closures such as those in the current Genie Race 5 2025 update / Submarine v1.4 have resolved this.

Now, the most important question everyone is asking me relates to the year from which these harnesses will become mandatory. CIVL will only decide what happens in Cat 1 events; Cat 2 event organizers can decide independently. The PWC and SRS will also independently choose from which date they will require CHS harnesses.

The current document proposes the first Cat 1 event requiring CHS harnesses to be the Cat 1 event in 2030. Personally, I think this is too far in the future. It could definitely be at least one year sooner.

You can read the current version of this document here (the working group will continue to refine this document in the future).

Civl Plenary 2025 Annexe 26b Bureau Proposal Competition Harness Specification 1

256KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Hike and Fly became a discipline

Hike and Fly has grown into a discipline recognized by CIVL. H&F now has a WPRS ranking, and the first-ever World Paragliding Hike and Fly Championship will take place in Panticosa, Spain, from June 6 to June 13, 2027 (link).

Now it’s time to create your national team, select your team leader, and generally inform your associations about these changes!

Thomas Senac is personally happy to answer all your questions related to this new discipline - you can contact him by email.

Satellite trackers and mandatory live tracking

I think we can all agree that live-tracking-related accidents have shaken the paragliding scene in the last 12 months. CIVL Plenary voted for two changes related to live tracking:

Cat 1 comps will now require pilots to have mandatory satellite trackers, in addition to the primary trackers supplied by the organizer. Garmin/inReach and SPOT devices are accepted. Note: pilots must bring their own satellite trackers; they will not be supplied by the organizer. Currently, the cheapest device is the SPOT Gen 4, costing just 145 EUR. The subscription is 18 EUR per single month (you don’t need a full-year subscription).

You have to buy these before this year’s World Championship in Brazil, where mobile coverage can be a real problem!

At the CIVL Plenary, we all agreed that live tracking is such an important safety device for our sport—and costs so little compared to our overall expenses—that we should not try to save money by skipping this measure.

I believe it’s a good idea to contact your NAC/association and ask for financial support in obtaining these devices. They might assist with the costs or perhaps have dedicated trackers available for national teams.

We also think it’s a good idea for pilots to buy their own personal device—you never know when you might need help in an area without mobile coverage.

Cat 2 comps now require all pilots to use live tracking. Mobile app-based tracking (XCTrack, SeeYou Navigator, etc.) is accepted! Organizers just need to make sure every pilot has some kind of live tracking that they can see.

I personally think Puretrack.io will become an important tool for Cat 2 comps, as it integrates dozens of different live-tracking systems into one unified map view.

We also made the rules much stricter regarding flying without a tracker and not reporting back.

GAP and PWC formula changes and unification

Jörg Ewald made a huge effort to unify the CIVL GAP and PWC formulas into one unified standard, and it has been accepted.

We also agreed to change many formula variables based on real-world experiences we collected in the last few years.

The most important changes relate to stopped tasks. There was agreement that the current system is not good and results in very dangerous situations in rain / thunderstorms.

The new changes include (thanks Daniel Dimov for collecting these)

Score-back time fixed to 5 min for PG, 15 min for HG
Stopped task validity criteria: minimum 50 points scored in the task
FTV value fixed to 25% for PG, 0% for HG
Nominal launch fixed to 96% and no longer parameter
Nominal goal fixed to 30% and no longer parameter
No more Open Distance tasks
No more Ground Start
Leading-Time Ratio between 0% and 26%
One decimal digit in competition results
Renamed task types (“Race”, “Race with multiple start gates”, “Time trial”)
The improved geodetic to planar conversion algorithm
Public description of the optimization algorithm
The simplified WGS84 distance formula (Thomas)
Adopt the improved formulas for Leading points calculation for PG
Formula names: GAP_2025.1, GAP_2025.2 ….

Cylinder tolerance percentage is 0.1% in 2025 and will be 0.0% from 2026.
The 5-meter absolute tolerance remains unchanged.

(There was no point in using any tolerance for quite some time, as some instruments navigated to the tolerance line anyway.)

Full document available below (35 pages):

Civl Plenary 2025 Annexe 39za Sui Unified Scoring Formula Pwc Civl V1 6

1.14MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Goal line direction changes

We accepted Daniel Dimov’s proposal to finally fix goal-line orientation. Previously it was directed toward the center of the last turnpoint, which made no sense.

Now it is finally oriented in the correct, optimized direction.

The downside is that instruments need updating, Local Regulations/Safety Briefings must announce whether they are using the new or old direction, but in a few years this will all disappear, just like how FAI Sphere vs. WGS 84 did.

CIVL Comp changes

Organizers now have to upload all IGC files from all tasks to CIVL, when submitting the comp results. The IGC files are visible next to the results.

Uploading safety reports after each comp is now mandatory for organizers. Multiple people noticed that officially reported numbers were much lower than the real incidents pilots witnessed. Suggestions to allow pilots to submit safety reports were discussed, but nothing was changed at this time. Also, related to safety reports, information about glider model and harness is not currently collected. It’ll hopefully change this year.

Suggestions were made to allow pilots to submit organizer feedback after events, but nothing changed at this point.

For record flights, advance notice is not required any more for free flight records.

For the 2027 World Championship, Niš, Serbia won against Pegalajar, Spain.

New WPRS Formula Proposal

Kuba Sto put a lot of effort into a new WPRS formula proposal. It’s a very important proposal, and it would be the biggest change to the WPRS formula in a very long time.

While the core idea is very simple, it will substantially change points both within competitions and between competitions. As a side effect, it will also change the points between nations. While many of these changes move in the right direction (for example, giving South American competitions higher points has been a recurring topic in recent years), given the importance of such a significant change to the WPRS formula, I believe we need to look more carefully into it and analyze the side effects.

Also, I know there are a few pilots from all around the world who know how he existing WPRS formula works and it’d be really important to have their feedback on this as well.

I proposed asking pilots from multiple nations and the software team to look into this proposal and work together with Kuba Sto on this topic. Once we understand exactly what these changes bring, we should vote on this in next year’s meeting.

Kuba’s full proposal can be found here, along with a discussion in the Paragliding Forum.

Civl Plenary 2025 Annexe 39zb Pol Wprs Formula Modification V5

979KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Closing Thoughts

I consider myself fortunate, that (1) I could be both the CIVL delegate of Hungary, (2) have domain knowledge about many of the topics discussed at the Plenary, and (3) this meeting was held at a location for which the Hungarian NAC could support my travel expenses.

I am also aware that mine is not a typical situation in our sport. Many of the best domain experts are neither official delegates nor have any official connection to their NACs; they are simply enthusiastic pilots deeply engaged with certain topics.

For example, Jörg Ewald has by far the most domain knowledge about scoring, GAP, and PWC formulas. It was only by chance that he could present his major unification proposal in person, since the Swiss NAC covered travel expenses not just for one but two individuals to attend the meeting. This was a very unusual process, yet an extremely valuable one, as it allowed us to discuss and vote very efficiently, with Jörg guiding us through these discussions.

I hope CIVL finds a system that allows connections between these domain experts and lets them discuss and work on proposals throughout the year. For example, we should start with one such discussion about Kuba’s new WPRS formula.

Additionally, since most people will never be able to attend these meetings in person, being able to include a pre-recorded video for proposals would also represent a significant improvement.

This was my summary of CIVL Plenary meeting in 2025.

The Future of Paragliding Harness Back Protectors

Wed, 02 Oct 2024 11:16:13 GMT

You might have heard the news about the recent development of paragliding race harness protectors. Thanks to some amazing advancements, manufacturers will soon be able to make protectors just 5 cm thick, while still passing the same safety tests that the 17 cm foam protectors once did.

I am Zsolt Ero, and I volunteer as a pilot on CIVL’s paragliding harness working group. I’ve heard the previous statement many times, and my common sense just couldn’t accept it. Almost all of us have heard of serious injuries with these new harnesses, and I mean, stopping a paragliding fall on just 5 cm seems impossible. How can it be true?

In this article, I’ll look into what’s going on with the next generation of protector designs.

The Drop Test

Today’s drop test for the protectors is from a height of 1.65 meters, which results in a speed of 5.68 m/s. I found two interesting facts about this:

1.65 meters is surprisingly low; it’s like when you jump over a fence.
5.68 m/s is the speed of a premium rescue that is perfectly open, without any pendulum movement or negative effects from the paraglider, at sea level. The typical vertical speed recorded for rescue deployments in the Alps is much higher than this.

Anyway, this test was good enough for safe harnesses in the past, so let’s stick with it. For simplicity, I’ll round up to 6 m/s and do some calculations based on that.

For the following parts, I’ll be using the classic equations of motion from physics:

$\begin{align} v &= at \ s &= \frac{1}{2}at^2 \ v^2 &= 2as \ s &= \frac{v}{2}t \end{align}$

Where:

$\begin{align*} v &= \text{velocity} \ a &= \text{acceleration} \ t &= \text{time} \ s &= \text{displacement} \end{align*}$

Minimum Thickness with Constant Acceleration

Let’s start with constant acceleration. The maximum allowed value is 40g, so let’s see how much time and distance are required to stop an object falling at 6 m/s.

$\begin{align} s &= \frac{v^2}{2a} &\Rightarrow \frac{36}{2 \times 40 \times 9.81} &\Rightarrow 4.6 \text{ cm} \ t &= \frac{v}{a} &\Rightarrow \frac{6}{40 \times 9.81} &\Rightarrow 15.3 \text{ ms} \end{align}$

Great, we can stop an object in 4.6 cm and 15.3 ms! Cool, so what’s the problem then?

Well, for a start, there is a proposed “Maximum 35g for a period of 7 milliseconds,” so we can’t have 40g for 15 ms. Let’s recalculate it with a max of 34.9g.

$\begin{align} s &= \frac{v^2}{2a} &\Rightarrow \frac{36}{2 \times 34.9 \times 9.81} &\Rightarrow 5.3 \text{ cm} \ t &= \frac{v}{a} &\Rightarrow \frac{6}{34.9 \times 9.81} &\Rightarrow 17.5 \text{ ms} \end{align}$

OK, so with a constant 34.9g acceleration, we can stop in 5.3 cm and 17.5 ms. What’s the problem then?

Let’s have a look at how this constant acceleration looks.

What’s the issue with this? The problem is the change in acceleration, from 0 to almost 35g in zero time.

To understand why this is a problem, we need to introduce a new concept called “jerk”

Jerk

In physics, the definition of jerk is very simple: it’s the change in acceleration over time. It’s very similar to acceleration, which is defined as the change in speed over time. In everyday language, jerk is best described as a quick shock or violent shaking. It’s basically the opposite of smooth acceleration.

There are two very important things to know about jerk:

A NASA study found that the human body is actually more sensitive to high jerk than to high acceleration.
In our example above, the circled red part has infinite jerk!

The NASA Study

During the 1950s and 60s, NASA conducted a lot of research on rocket launches and pyrotechnic ejector seats. Mind you, this was at the time of the first moon landing, and back then NASA had basically an unlimited budget. They were interested in the survivability of ejector seats. This wasn’t just a theoretical study by engineers—some test subjects even suffered spinal fractures.

I looked into papers on the effect of jerk on the human body and found the best information in two reports from NASA:

They were researching multiple directions, but the one most relevant to us is the “headwards” or “eyeballs down” direction. It happens to be the same direction as with ejector seats and is thoroughly researched.

One illustration for “headwards” acceleration

The 1959 study concluded:

1300 G/sec for a max of 15 G for human subjects
1000 G/sec for a max of 50 G for chimpanzees

The 1970 study concluded:

“The vertebral column is very susceptible to injury in the longitudinal direction.”
“Maximum tolerance limits for upward ejection have been estimated at 33 G’s with a rate of onset of 500 G/sec, provided an ideal position is assumed.”
“… suggests tolerance at 300 G/sec with a peak acceleration of 25 G’s.”

In summary, the NASA study gives us some very specific numbers for human limits in terms of jerk during abrupt accelerations.

Analyzing Jerk in Harnesses

Now that we have some reference values from NASA about tolerance limits, how do we test harnesses for jerk? It must require expensive new equipment and new tests, right?

Luckily, we don’t need to invest in anything new. The jerk can be measured using the existing equipment. Moreover, we can even calculate it just by analyzing the existing test reports.

This is exactly what I did. I went ahead and made some measurements based on the reports. Let’s start with a classic harness, the Kortel Kanibal 2, with a 17 cm foam protector.

Here is the graph of acceleration over time, which you can see in the test report:

Using an online tool called WebPlotDigitizer, we can place two points on the steepest part of this graph, like this:

After a quick calculation, we can determine the average jerk value between those two points. The Kanibal has a jerk value of 1216 G/sec.

Now, how does it look for a new-generation protector, like the one in the Submarine? Do you see that steep part below? When measured, the Submarine has a jerk of 8000 G/sec!

Because the scale of the reports changed over the years, I created a Photoshop with both reports aligned:

Red - Kanibal, Blue - Submarine

Now you can clearly see that the Submarine starts with a vertical jump! To make things worse, the steep part is exactly at the start of the compression, which means that on bottom landings with a Submarine, you get no dampening at all (a fact many pilots would confirm).

Compare this with a foam protector: they start super smooth and then turn into the 1200 G/sec steepness which is still 6x less compared to the Submarine.

Harness comparison

I ran the same tests for a couple more harnesses. Here are their jerk values:

Inflatable

Skywalk Range X-Alps 3: 1186 G/sec

Classic Foam

Kortel Kanibal 2: 1216 G/sec

Ozone Exoceat: 1245 G/sec

Nearbirds ATACMS: 1150 - 1730 G/sec (new generation harness but uses foam protector)

New Generation protectors

Gin Genie Race 5: 5369 G/sec

Niviuk Drifter 2: 7511 G/sec

Ozone Submarine: 8033 G/sec

What we can see is that new-generation protectors have extremely high jerk values, many times higher than the NASA limits! Remember, NASA concluded that the human limit is 1300 G/sec for 15 G, and 500 G/sec for 33 G.

We can see that the inflatable and classic protectors all fall within the range of 1300 G/sec, whereas the new-generation protectors are multiple times above it!

Now we have scientific evidence (the NASA limit), empirical evidence (serious injuries), and matching measurement values (the new-gen harnesses are indeed multiple times over the NASA limit).

// comment: The Skywalk Range X-Alps 3 tested above is a 2 kg Hike and Fly harness. It’s unbelievable that a lightweight Hike and Fly harness has way better protection than comp harnesses. It’s totally the opposite of how it used to be!

An Ideal Protector

How would an ideal protector look? To create a theoretical protector that takes up the least amount of space, we need a “constant jerk” phase followed by a “constant acceleration” phase. You can see a similar graph in NASA studies as well.

Let’s be very generous and make a limit of 1300 G/sec regardless of peak G, even though NASA recommended 500 G/sec over 15 G.

How would the acceleration of such a protector look with a max jerk of 1300 G/sec?
Update: I actually underestimated with my original calculations, as Fred Pieri has pointed out. I made an interactive website which shows the corrected calculation (verified by Fred):

You can try it out yourself here: harnessvis.hyperknot.com

Original text for reference:

~~Something like this:~~

~~Peak acceleration is 36 G.~~
~~Time above 35 G is 7 ms.~~

~~The minimum theoretical thickness of such a protector would be 6.22 cm.~~

Now, to achieve 6.22 cm of compressibility, the uncompressed material would need to be say 20% thicker, making it 7.5 cm. However, creating such a perfect behaviour like the one above is almost impossible in the real world.

Summary

When it comes to high-G situations, limiting jerk is the most important factor for human survivability, as found by the NASA study.
The classic foam protectors were great at limiting jerk; their peak value happened to match the NASA study’s limit of 1300 G/sec.
The current competition protectors exceed the NASA limits by multiple times, in many cases showing values above 8000 G/sec!
We are measuring the wrong things in the tests, and the harnesses are being developed to pass these incorrect tests.
Adding jerk measurement doesn’t require financial investment or new equipment; the value can be calculated from the existing tests.
Making a safe harness in 5 cm is physically impossible, no matter what materials we use. It’s literally against the laws of physics.
The protector thickness does not depend on the pilot’s weight. This means that we can scale down all the dimensions for S size harnesses, except the protector’s thickness, which has to stay constant.

Recommendation for the harness groups

~~- Require a minimum protector thickness of 10 cm for all pilot sizes.~~

Implement jerk testing in future standards, with the NASA limit of 1300 G/sec.
Remove the “Maximum 20g for a period of 25 milliseconds” requirement from the standards (as well as any other duration limits under 35 g). It’s counterproductive to the goal of lowering jerk, as it makes the acceleration curve steeper. What we want is less steep curves, smoother acceleration.
The NASA study found the region around the T12 vertebrae is where most compression fractures happen. One paraglider physio doctor have confirmed this as well, stating the T12-L1-L2 area as the most critical one.
I believe it’s important to make sure the protector covers this area well, up till the T8 vertebrae (about the bottom of shoulder blades). Not because of the NASA study, but because paraglider accidents are not perfectly vertical, but have a horizontal component, hence the importance to protect this area really well.

Distribution of vertebral fracture positions

Recommendation for the competition scene

It is clear that a harness with a 5 cm protector will be more aerodynamic compared to one with a ~~10 cm~~ 12 cm protector.

While individually a top competition pilot cannot afford to choose a harness with worse aerodynamic performance compared to the rest of the scene, collectively, as a group, we can ask for safer harness standards.

At the end of the day, if every pilot flies with a ~~10 cm~~ 12 cm protector, no one has a competitive disadvantage compared to each other.

Updates

28 Oct 2024 - Clarified the part about vertical drop test and T12-L1-L2 vertebrae.

27 Oct 2024 - Added a comment about the Hike and Fly harnesses