Cross Country magazine is off to Lausanne to attend CIVL’s annual meeting, where they will be discussing the future of paraglider design, safety and other subjects of interest to all pilots. If you want to ask CIVL a question, post it below and we’ll do our best to get it to the right person
The governing body of competition paragliding, the Commission Internationale de Vol Libre, otherwise known as CIVL, meets next week to discuss, among other things, whether or not to allow carbon technology in paragliders in competition.
The debate has been a rough one so far. After winning the Paragliding World Cup Superfinal in September 2009 with its BBHPP, Ozone revealed their winning paraglider uses flexible carbon rods chordwise across the glider. The result is a wing that glides better than anything else.
The Paraglider Manufacturers Association (PMA), which represents 28 manufacturers (lots but not all of the industry), cried foul, and argued that the carbon rods meant the BBHPP was not a paraglider as we know it, but a different type of glider altogether.
The carbon rods used in Ozone's BBHPP, demonstrating flexibility and in situ in a cell wall
They want gliders that use this type of carbon technology – or any similar stiffening techniques where the reinforcement can’t be wrapped around a marker pen – to be given a new class: Class 6.
The debate went public almost immediately. Ozone argued that the comp-winning technology would ripple out to create better performing paragliders in all classes, not just at the highest level of performance. The prospect of a safe, recreational paraglider with a glide ratio of 15 to 1 was floated.
But, they said, if carbon technology was not allowed in international, CIVL-sanctioned competition (from Cat 2 competitions to the World Championships), then the technology would not be explored fully. The result: a possible big leap in performance all round would be stopped in its tracks.
The PMA argued carbon technology was untested, possibly unsafe, and no one knew what lay down that road.
Rightly or wrongly pilots around the world saw the PMA’s stance as anti-competitive and self serving. A case of sour grapes on behalf of manufacturers who had just seen a fairly level playing field tilted out of favour.
The response was swift: Ozone took out adverts in every paragliding magazine to defend its technology; debate on the forums turned against the PMA; the PMA seemed to score own goals every time it tried to defend itself; magazines like Cross Country discussed it at length.
To read more about the backstory behind this, take a look at:
- The PMA discussion about the definition of a paraglider (a technical web page)
- Ozone’s position (a typically natty video)
- And the current debate on paraglidingforum.com (including contributions by the PMA and the several paraglider designers): Ozone performance, BBHPP and response to the PMA
- Cross Country mag’s Redefining the Paraglider (subscription needed)
If you are still with us, good. Here comes the new bit.
CIVL, that’s the body that regulates paragliding and hang gliding competition and world records, meets in Lausanne, Switzerland, from 18 – 21 February 2010 for its annual meeting. One of the topics up for discussion will be, in essence, this very issue – to allow carbon or not to allow carbon.
CIVL is funded by fees from competitions, and its officials are all pretty-much volunteers. They do a lot of unseen work to help and promote the sport that is never seen, talked about, or widely appreciated.
This time, it’s different. The paragliding world will be watching closely not only what decision CIVL makes, but how it makes it and who makes it.
CIVL has various subcommittees: safety, aerobatics, records, scoring, environmental affairs, sporting code etc, and of course hang gliding and paragliding.
The paragliding subcommittee will meet on 18 and 19 February to discuss this year’s agenda. They will then present their proposals to the rest of CIVL for voting on 20 and 21 February.
It promises to be a long and complex few days. The paragliding subcommittee, chaired by Chris ‘Calvo’ Burns, has 17 main items to discuss, each with several subpoints.
The debate about the definition of a paraglider is being put forward by the Swiss, who have agreed to do it on behalf of the PMA. This doesn’t mean the Swiss agree with the PMA it just means they’re being helpful. In fact the Swiss, whose official CIVL delegate is world-class comp pilot Martin Scheel, are “strongly against” the introduction of a new class of paraglider – they say so in their proposal.
The ‘Swiss Proposal’ will be debated on Friday morning. It will then go to the main CIVL meeting for voting on Sunday. By Sunday evening, there should be an official decision.
If you want to review the CIVL agenda yourself, it’s available here: CIVL Plenary Agenda, 20 and 21 February
The Swiss Proposal is in Annex 16 – it’s remarkably short at only 224 words long. The Paragliding subcommittee agenda is Annex 4 – it’s pretty long. You get the picture.
So, the point of all this is that Cross Country magazine plans to be there on Saturday and Sunday to listen to the main debate, watch the voting, and to speak directly to the people involved in making the decisions.
There is a lot more than the carbon debate being discussed – the whole safety debate that surrounded the 2009 World Championships is heading the agenda. The results from that will be crucial too: some observers predict Open Class gliders will be banned from CIVL comps. Helmets are being discussed. GPS and altitude too.
What we’d like is your help. Let us know what questions you’d like to ask CIVL by posting below and we’ll try and get them to the right people. We’ll be reporting on xcmag.com over the weekend of 20-21 February, and of course in the next issue of Cross Country magazine.
We’re looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
Ozone's BBHPP paraglider
Links
Who’s who on the paragliding subcommittee
The CIVL Bureau (the ‘elected government’ of CIVL)
Related posts:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:47 am
I think the new technology is genius and brings paragliding to a new frontier of performance and possibly safety. Performance has plateaued for a while now and, personally, I do not see that there is a big difference between using thin carbon rods or the plastic flexon that everyone is using to reinforce the leading edge these days. I say hats off to Ozone for coming up with the idea and showing that performance leaps are still possible in the realm of paragliding. There is no doubt that the BBHPP is still a paraglider in every sense of the word.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:50 am
The most important thing to do is to make paragliding comps safer. Competition gliders should pass EN D at trim speed. This way manufacturers can develop 2 versions of an EN D glider, one for mainstream and one for comps. This is especially true IF empirical evidence suggest that most (fatal and non-fatal) accidents in competitions happens while thermalling or searching for lift (at trim speed).
Regarding BBHPP, it is a paraglider and innovation should not be stopped. Innovation may lead to safer gliders as well.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:51 am
I think we should adapt this new invencion and to work it futher to improve all categories of gliders
February 11th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Economics always wins the battle in the end, so here’s my question.
If a new class of paraglider is created that is safe to fly but offers much better performance, will this out-grow normal paragliders and be the death of them anyway?
I would certainly fly the new class if I knew it offered equal safety but better performance.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I think the true point is clearly missed.
To me the use of carbon is NOT the point !
Just change the carbon rods for nylon rods, and the Ozone Bbhpp will fly exactly the same !
The very good overall performance of the Bbhpp is not due to the carbon rods, but to a combination of several factors well designed : a performing and slim profile, 2 liner, very nice canopy vault, and original \open\ wing tips.
The Bbhpp is a normal paraglider as any other. and some PWC protos have more \stiffening\ than it has.
But indeed carbon rods has to be banned, not because they are \rigid\, but because they are BREAKABLE, that is a major issue for the paraglider and pilot safety…
February 11th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Thanks for the post… Very informative and a nice synopsis of the situation.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
EMBRACE CHANGE!!!!!!!!! Lend me one “delta” and i’ll fly it untill my behind numbs!!!!!!
We all have to accept change remember when the first topless hang glider appeared???
February 11th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
My personal opinion is that the carbon rod technology is a very intresting development. Especially as seems to pack just like any other glider. What I think would be intresting to se is how the carbon rods will affect a serial class wing, say EN C, with the normal line configuration. How would the glider be affected with regard to collapses, will a cravatte be easy or hard to untangle. How far can you puch line reduction and what will happen if more than a few rods break? The reason why at least I would be intrested in this is because of the classification rules for serial class wings.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:03 am
I think that regardless of classification that if the carbon technology is that good it will survive and filter down to the lower performing gliders. I am all for it so long as I don’t have to faff around doing fancy packing techniques in confined spaces and worrying if the airline is going to metamorphose my wing into something resembling a porcupine!
February 14th, 2010 at 8:07 am
It’s like an echo. This debate goes back to the very roots of the concept of a flexible wing. Flexibility is an appealing idea because it is convenient, cheap and light. It falls down on performance and safety.
If you go back and look at the introduction of battens into the hang glider you will find all the same questions, discussions, and even the answers I think.
Full length very flexible battens holding the roach tips were ultimately replaced by preformed battens with flexible tips for performance with stability and control response considerations. Paraglider Pilots may find it hard to believe, but the trade-offs were worth it.
If you combine a performance increase coupled to a safety increase you don’t have change, you have evolution. The ideology of the completely flexible wing is interesting. But you don’t fly for the ideology, you fly for fun, and performance and safety add to the fun.
If you force them into a new class then in the end the pterodactyls will just fade away, and the old classes will be forgotten and dropped.
The PMA is just stalling for time while they play catch up.
In the mean time buy an ozone until the clones appear
February 17th, 2010 at 8:02 am
[...] XC Mag: Debate CIVL [...]
February 18th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
[...] the hot topic and the one that has caught the attention of paraglider pilots around the world is the carbon debate – should it be allowed in [...]
March 9th, 2010 at 3:16 am
Does the acceleration of technological progress mean that there is a lot of money pouring into the sport?. It is more than about fun and bragging rights. isn’t it? If there is money, people will always find a way to go faster – as the author pointed to F1. Next year everyone will have what winners have today and winners will have to stay ahead..to stay ahead.
I hope that in the long term better wings will be available to weekend flyers, like myself, allowing me to fly more often, more and more safely.
For now carbon is about performance, let’s hope that in the future it will be there for all.
The short term problem is – as always with progress – that people may get hurt.