A clear definition for Sport Class paraglider

Discipline

Paragliding XC

What do we want ?

We would want to define specifications to detach sport class paraglider from EN-C norm.

How do we achieve that ?

Let's wrap up a group with the best mind available and try to reach a consensus. It would be a good opportunity to try our community methodology.

Issue category :

material

Institutional issue

Link

Designers report

Comments

Organiser

By Maxime Bellemin on Thu, 16 Oct 2025 - 13:15

The definition of Competition Sport Class should encompass harnesses as well, not only wings. There is no definition of a competition harness at the moment, that should be a topic for a separate entry in "what went wrong" or "what do we want".

Designer

By Luc Armant on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 09:53

Wing and Harness can be in separated classes.
There is actually a definition of a competition harness, created last year and in application when the new EN norm for harnesses will be published, sometimes early 2026. This newly created harness class will exclude Submarine harnesses and some other models because the shock absorption criteria will not be good enough. The rules will be retroactive to old harnesses in 2029. The idea is to not mandate all pilots to through their existing equipment to the bin.

CIVL Delegate

By Tilen Ceglar on Thu, 16 Oct 2025 - 23:30

What is wrong with EN-C? Why is necessary to create a new class of gliders?

Organiser

CIVL Delegate

By Thomas Brandlehner on Fri, 17 Oct 2025 - 13:52

EN-C is not designed for competitions:
There is no limiter mandatory.
AFAIK the minimum line diameters and break loads are not defined.
The line tolerances are way to high.
No limitation in AR.
And most important: The norm is not public availiable so not easy to check if a glider compliies to it.
I am afraid that if there are world titles to achieve then manufacturers and pilots will "expand" the Class as much as possible.

Designer

By Luc Armant on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 09:47

That's true. EN C on its own is not design to be a competition class. It's ok for some small local competition but it's already starting to show its limitation for SRS. If it was for the Worlds championship, then manufacturers will do Enzo4 or X-One certified EN C, flown by top pilots but not adapted to lower level pilots.

Organiser

By thomas senac on Sun, 19 Oct 2025 - 15:11

I share a statment provided earlier, which might be of help.

Concerns Regarding the Use of EN Certification for a Sports Class World Paragliding Championship / 15 December 2023
Dear CIVL Bureau (and Delegates),
We, the members of WG6 (the authors of the current EN926-2 standard which describes methods for classifying the flight safety characteristics of paragliders in terms of the demands on pilot flying skills), are writing to express our deep concerns regarding the recent announcement of the Sports Class World Championship based on EN-C certification.
While we acknowledge and appreciate the initiative to create a new competition category, we believe that using the EN classification as a criterion for glider selection raises considerable risks and challenges that require more careful consideration.
Our primary concerns are as follows:
1.Safety vs. Fairness: The EN test criteria are designed primarily to ensure the safety of paragliders, not for establishing fairness in competition. Implementing EN certification as a criterion for glider selection in a high-ranking competition like the proposed Sports Class World Championship may compromise the safety-oriented nature of EN certification.
2.Lessons from the Past: Reflecting on past experiences from 2011 to 2015 when EN-D was used as a competition class, gliders not originally intended for classic “EN-D pilots” were certified as such for competition pilots. We anticipate a similar scenario with the EN-C class, and we are concerned that this would impact a broader spectrum of pilots.
3.On-site Issue Resolution: During a competition, it is crucial that all questions related to equipment compliance can be resolved on-site. Unlike the EN classification, which relies mostly on flight tests, scrutineering at the Sports Class World Championship will require a process to verify any equipment-related queries on-the-spot. The current CCC has proved superior as a competition class in this regard, compared to relying on EN-D.
In light of these concerns, we strongly urge the CIVL Bureau to reconsider the decision, and follow the CCC class example to develop a more suitable set of rules for defining Sports Class competition equipment. (Measurable parameters might include aspect ratio constraints, and limits on the variable elements of speed systems, for example.)
We suggest that our concerns and recommendations be discussed during the upcoming CIVL Plenary meeting. To facilitate this discussion, we request that our letter be shared with the CIVL Bureau and Delegates in advance of the meeting to ensure a thoughtful and informed consideration of these critical issues.
We appreciate your attention to this urgent matter and look forward to collaborating for the ongoing success and safety of paragliding competitions and promoting a healthy leisure paragliding activity.
Sincerely, Angus Pinkerton / Convenor, TC136/WG6

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Mon, 20 Oct 2025 - 21:48

Thanks Thomas for this. This message from WG6 went after CIVL announced a Cat 1 event SPORT in October 2023. It went bold and without consultation. It is believed that the current "stand down" will actually lead to a Pan-American championship (Cat1 ) in SPORT (read EN-C) gliders.
It's urgent to define proper specification before such initiative is taken.

By Hans Bausenwein on Mon, 20 Oct 2025 - 12:58

a very valid argumentation, it`s appreciated

Designer

By Luc Armant on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 10:32

I think it's a very nice project, and it might be necessary.
EN C on its own would be a disaster for the reasons explained by many.

The trap is to think without anticipation, just by referring to the existing state. An example:
"EN C wings are nice. SRS is a nice competition. Let's do all competition with EN C. "
If you do so, EN C for competition becomes a design constraint and manufacturer will produce a specific EN C wing with an aspect ratio close to 8, only suitable for top level competitors. And the situation would be worse than with current CCC.

However Sport Class definition is not a simple project. It requires a good team of collaborating designers trying to anticipate the resulting winning design. It's not as simple as, for example, saying the wing should be EN + have a flat Aspect Ratio below 6.6
In this case, due to the rule constraint, the optimum design, I mean the model that will win, will have a very flat arc. Flat arc is not desirable because it comes with bad handling and high rotation after asymmetrical collapse. The model will win, pilots will have to buy it and it could be a disaster.
Each rules comes with some effect in the optimum design adapted to the rules and that's the reason why writing these rules needs some expertise.

Also, as of today, I'm not sure we can come up with a good class on its own if nothing is done about the way we score final glide. If we only rely on EN C to limit maximum speed, there would be a lot of problems and conflicts. Maximum speed is not well defined in EN C. It's only indirectly limited, with too many gray, unobjective criteria's. But it's a major criteria with today's competition scoring system.

CIVL Delegate

By thomasmilko on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 16:29

But didn’t we already +- agree in the initial constrains set by SRS ? Ozone/Gin/Others, who have the expertise (as well mentioned by Luc) can help to further improve the initial agreed rules ? The first idea was just to develop the Swprs to populate the ranking and later decide for a Cat 1.

Competitions are already out there, with the pilots voting with their own feet, increased participation each year.

We need your expertise now !!

By Pope on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 19:55

100% agree with Thomas.
The topic of Sport category ranking has been under discussion for a couple of years.
The SRS has been in operation for three years. Sport category competitions have been held in Europe and Brazil for a couple of years, so let's move forward and do what was already defined: create and launch the SWPRS. In parallel, we continue to discuss whether CIVL will impose restrictions on EN-C gliders.
In my opinion, the idea is to open the opportunity for competition to good and experienced pilots at the recreational or XC-only level.
The idea is that the focus of the competitions is the pilots' skill, rather than the glider's performance, while maintaining a very high level of safety. Therefore, for pilots at the recreational or XC-only level, Sport competitions will have to be held only with EN-B gliders so as not to lose the spirit of Sport competitions, where glider performance is similar, without major differences, and the real difference is made by the pilots themselves.

By Kuba Sto on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 10:46

As I wrote on the CIVL forum, I find the WG6 position alarming.
If the EN test criteria are designed primarily to ensure the safety of paragliders, yet still allow "dangerous" gliders to pass the EN-C tests, the obvious conclusion is that the standard itself is not defined correctly. The solution should be to update the standard’s definition, not to introduce a separate list of additional rules for specific competition categories.

In other words, the EN certification system falls apart when it's really put to the test. It turns out it doesn’t actually define a glider’s safety - which is supposed to be its main purpose.

By Kuba Sto on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 10:47

Technical criteria always lead to loophole hunting and pushing definitions to their limits.
I was thinking of a different approach to defining the class:
Leave the definition of the “spirit of the class” to the pilots. Every wing model could be subject to an ongoing vote - any active Sport Class pilot can vote for or against it at any time. If a wing receives 67% votes against, it would be banned from the ranking from that point onward.

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 13:00

We thought about it with Pal just the same. However in the meantime this model could still win a significant amount of result and crash a significant amount of pilots before it gets "community banned"

By Kuba Sto on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 13:13

There is a rule, the wing for Cat1 have to be ready 3 months in advance (something like that), so there would be time to prevent this scenario. Manufacturers won't risk developing such glider for no market.

By Jens Peterson on Sun, 26 Oct 2025 - 02:38

I find the idea of setting restrictions based on some simple numbers such as Aspect Ratio and in particular to a single length of speed limiter for the class, and even a broad "EN C" requirement to have several issues, many of which have already been mentioned on this topic, and in the Designers Report.

As stated the EN rating system was never designed with competition in mind. But aside from safety my larger concern is how much such regulations will limit and slow innovation. thereby delaying the much needed advancements by forcing regulation and limits based on simple numbers fails to address the source of the problem. Perhaps dare I say it is the simple or easy way to say "We did something".

My own personal opinion and it is just that, my opinion. Is that we should be targeting and limiting specific dangerous wing behaviors, not putting an arbitrary limit on something such as blanket speed limiter length that applies to all wings in the class. just because there is a correlation to dangerous wing behavior with some or even all current wing designs, same for aspect ratio. I know its easier to say don't exceed this limit and that limit, than it is to actually have each sports class competition wing design pass a specifically designed set of tests based on actual wing behavior.

Some people might say well doesn't the EN C rating do that, and in someways it does, but the testing needs to be taken even further and perhaps without some of the limitations that the EN or even DHV systems currently have.

Wing design has come a long way over the last 20 years, and both speed and safety has been greatly improved in that time. and I think most if not all of us would like to see that continue. we did not know then what we know now about wing design, and we don't know now what we will in 10 or 20 years. but we must not limit innovation, and the ability to have as many brilliant minds coming at the problem from every angle, and not restrained by blanket numbers that have been labeled as bad, when if you change something else in the design, then that number is fine, and the collapse and recovery behavior are within acceptable limits.

I believe the limits should be placed on behavior or in other words on the design as a whole, not just small parts of the design that prevent finding solutions to those limitations.

Some might say won't designers just find ways around the limits, and yes they will, they will find ways around the limiter length, or the aspect ratio, and they are not violating the rules to do so. If the rules are don't exceed this aspect ratio, don't exceed this limiter length, don't exceed this EN rating, etc... if those are the values being measured, then they have the freedom to sacrifice safety, for speed. Because none of the limits proposed are about how the wing actually behaves.

If we are to achieve improved safety, then the metric we use, must be Safety itself. Not things that may correlate to safer wings with designs as they are today, anything else is like tying our hands behind our backs while trying to get to the faster and yet safer designs of tomorrow and beyond.

So in summary I think the best solution, but not the easy solution is more to grade the each wing design as a whole, and to be used in the sports class it cannot score lower than a certain threshold for each test. similar to the EN and DHV systems but redesigned, and without the current limitations, which can and have limited some advancements in design from making it to production just because the way their testing rules are written.

A new testing system or standard is needed, something comprehensive and with both competition/ performance and above all safety in mind, not reward designs that are less safe for the sake of increasing performance.

A testing system that can adapt to allow new safe designs to come forward, not deny them just because the way their rules are written, If a new design can be proven to be safer, and perform as good or better, or be proven to be as safe and perform better than current approved designs, but the rules don't allow it, then the rules themselves are now the problem and not the solution, and therefore the rules must now change to allow for safe progress.