By Mateusz Gajczewski on Sat, 18 Oct 2025 - 00:36

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

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

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

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

1 in favour | 0 against
Organiser
CIVL Delegate
By Flyluchofly on Sat, 18 Oct 2025 - 16:29

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

4 in favour | 0 against
Organiser
By thomas senac on Sun, 19 Oct 2025 - 15:24

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

1 in favour | 0 against
By thibaultrohmer on Mon, 20 Oct 2025 - 22:42

I like this idea.
Great prototype @Louis Tapper !

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

1 in favour | 0 against
By Martin Grössinger on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 12:53

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

The topic itselve shall not be limited to paragliding events!

1 in favour | 0 against
By Kuba Sto on Tue, 28 Oct 2025 - 01:22

I have a problem with this concept. It's mixing to much different things, so the end result doesn't mean much.
Good weather probability + WPRS points estimate + takeoff rating?
Also it's a mix of predictions and a post event feedback, so the grade changes the moment the event ends?
I think it's all just too much. Some good things but I don't buy it as a whole.