crowded

Collisions and mid air increasing

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 16:08

Discipline

Paragliding XC

What went wrong ?

Gaggle density increased a lot lately. Pilots skill has evolved and many are not able to follow a leading group at very high level. At the same time harness visibility dropped significantly and we still use gentleman agreement inherited from the hang gliders where you would leave way to the lowest pilot (easy when you fly facing the Earth harder when you face the sky on a submarine).
Finally fellow contestant safety margin seems to have dropped significantly.

What would you propose ?

- Lower the total number of participants to 80
- Invert the gentleman agreement to leave way to upper pilot (they don't see down anymore).

Issue category

Read more about Collisions and mid air increasing
4 comments
Log in or register to post comments

Comments

Organiser

By Maxime Bellemin on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 18:44

There is no such thing as a regulatory rule to give right of way to gliders climbing below. The common and general rule is to "see and avoid".

US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Regulation 14 CFR Part 91.113: "When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear."

EASA/SERA Section 3 Chapter 2: "Regardless of the type of flight or the class of airspace in which the aircraft is operating, it is important that vigilance for the purpose of detecting potential collisions be exercised on board an aircraft. An aircraft shall not be operated in such proximity to other aircraft as to create a collision hazard."

If one can see another one is too close and considers collision is possible, no matter the rights of way, he shall avoid the collision.

I we want the one below to be the responsible for a collision, fine. But it is not due the a possible right of way of the one above. It is due to the fact he could see and had to avoid the collision.

Common sense.

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 20:08

I absolutly agree. I wrote about gentleman agreement. Right now it is believed highest pilot should give the way which is a problem...

Organiser

By Louis Tapper on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 03:45

We are not the first airsport discipline to have the problem. Gliding had an accident rate at high level competitions that were 10x more than regular solo flying (see link below for the analysis). Would be interesting to do this level of analysis on the problems paragliding/Hang Gliding face https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/collision_risk.pdf

By Markos Siotos on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 01:20

I fully agree with Maxime Bellemin

In the end of the day, we want to be alive, not to be the person who is "right" in a mid-air.

For the mid-air NOT to happen you need "two to dance". Spatial awareness and curtesy is the solution, fixed rules do not work as well.

Especially in paragliding, fixed rules can be counterproductive .

Some times you can be the guy "below" and be in control, because you have seen the guy above you, you keep him / her in sight, even if momentarily they are invisible right over your canopy, you still know where they are, and you are "in control"

Some times, it is exactly the opposite. You are "in control" because it happened that you are above, the guy / girl that came below you on their "dead spot" and you know that.

Curtesy and Chivalry. Now you are responsible both for 'you' and for 'them', till they see you, so they can assume their part of responsibility.

It cannot be described with strict rules, it cannot be straightjacketed in Python scripts and algorithms.

Is "Paragliding".

It is fluid, it is chaotic, it flatty denies simple solutions. (Like "80 pilots")

Sorry to say, that means nothing. I'd rather be with 120 proficient pilots in the same thermal than 80 aggressive uncourteous chaps in 2 square kilometers spread...

Reduce number of pilots in Cat 1

Organiser

By Toni Crottet on Thu, 16 Oct 2025 - 23:30

Discipline

Hang Gliding

What do we want ?

Less stress and dangerous situation due to congestion and too many gliders.

How do we achieve that ?

Limit the number of pilots to 80

Issue category :

Racing format

crowded

density

Read more about Reduce number of pilots in Cat 1
21 comments
Log in or register to post comments

Comments

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Thu, 16 Oct 2025 - 23:44

Not a HG pilot here but this seems so natural. Typical "hard to adopt" proposal when the institution is more positioned as an organiser than a ruler and a representative of the sport. It's clear lowering to 80 pilots represent less fee.

Organiser

By thomas senac on Sun, 19 Oct 2025 - 15:17

another approach would be to have a higher minimum ranking request to qualify (to CAT.1) - also in PG XC ?
Also both approaches are not contradictory.

Organiser

By Robert Kulhanek on Sun, 19 Oct 2025 - 21:32

Hi,

I don’t think reducing the number of pilots will result in less stress or fewer dangerous situations.

When did we last have a mid-air collision in a large group before the start? The last HG Cat. 1 incident was just a wing-to-wing touch, and I think it wasn’t even in a big crowd (ask Gordon).

When we thermal before the start gate in a Cat. 1 competition with 110 registered pilots, there are usually a maximum of 70–80 pilots in the air under one cloudbase— not everyone is there at once. At any given altitude or proximity level, there are about 20–30 pilots.

If we cut the maximum number of participants to 80, the start gaggle will still have the same stress and density. We’ll just be cutting out the pilots who aren’t even part of the dense gaggle.

What can actually be improved by reducing the number of participants in Cat. 1 HG competitions?

We could be in the air sooner (especially considering mixed Cat. 1 Flex and Rigid Wing categories), giving us a bigger window for the task. Longer tasks are, in my opinion, safer — pilots have more time to correct errors and feel less pressure to push too hard. This year, we had too small a flyable window (too many pilots + mixed classes).

How can we create less crowded/dense situations before the start?

We should encourage pilots to take the second or third start gate. Nowadays, with “leading points” scoring, pilots who take later gates are significantly penalized. Possible solutions:

Keep the current HG formula but reduce the time between start gates (e.g. 15 minutes instead of 20–30).
Develop a dedicated formula that includes some kind of “leading points restart” for later gates.
Be prepared for resistance from experienced pilots — they’ve mastered observing and controlling their surroundings and may not like being overflown by pilots from a later gaggle.

Cheers,
Robert

Organiser

By Toni Crottet on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 09:58

Hello Robert,

Thanks for your ideas! Always great to hear from you.

The start gaggle is just one of a congestion problem. In Ager you had a congestion after the start, where quite a lot of pilots reported "hairy" situations.

Reducing the number of pilots doesn't solve a single occurance for sure, but it reduces the chances as such or you can say statistically.

I agree, reducing the number of pilots solves also quite some other problems
- The number of "special cases" to treat gets reduced by a lot, special cases could be everything the organisation has to deal specially with
- The NAC has to make stronger selections on who has to join (hopefully rising the pilots level)
- The weather window does not need to be that big
- Take-Offs needs less space and are less of a hassle

Remember, there are plenty of beautiful Cat 2 events where pilots can get better. "We" don't need to take everyone to a Cat 1 event, where learning how to fly in a comp should not be the main argument to join. Rather perform is the main focus.

In my experience beeing in quite some comps on the organising side, reducing the number of pilots by 25%, it reduces the number of overall problems by 50%.

And what I am against, since there is a lot of voices makeing tasks and scoring more and more sophisitcated, don't make it too complicated that only a little set of pilots understands. Already now, we have quite a system, which seems complicated. Those problems can often be solved by good tasksetting and organising.

By Juaki Sanchez on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 13:46

Hi Robert, hi Tony
I am the first one to vote against so many pilots in a category 1 competion.
The more pilots in a comp, the more risks of accidents and incidents. Not only mid-airs, overcrowded starts and stress on launch.
It is simply a statistical problem, it is something that I have personally verified in Ager.
Most of the accidents at Ager have not been due to errors on task setting, nor due to unlandable areas, most have been due to bad decisions made by the pilots themselves and others have been unfortunate accidents.
I have been in hang gliding for over 42 years, I've been through competitions with similar and even higher number of pilots and we never reached these high number of accidents and fatalities.
When many of the accidents have been, let's say unfortunate, maybe we have to consider other factors.
The average age of our athletes is getting higher and higher, and we no longer react the same way we did when we were 20 years old and in aviation,
anticipation is very important. If you react in time, nothing happens, but if you react late, it can end in a scare or severe damage.

But there is another factor that is really important, let's say that it forces us to have many pilots in the competitions and it is just a bureaucratic and/or financial problem.
In sports like ours where the CIVL fees and requirements for category 1 competitions are so high it is really difficult to run a competition with a short number of pilots it is not economically viable. This has been the reason of why class 1 and class 5 pilots have been jointed again.

Category 2 competitions are really much easier and cheaper to run.
But what happens when there is a World or Continental Championship, eveybody wants to participate.

I beleive that it would be much easier to run category 2 competitions League type as preliminar rounds.
From these smaller comps we could select the higher ranked pilots that would be selected for the final round that would be the World or Continental Championship.

Organiser

By Toni Crottet on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 15:28

Hello Juaki

Thanks for your clarification. Very nice to hear from yourside.

As long as financial arguments are predominant, the sport itself will get in trouble.

(I see some comments, that we want to get into Olympics as well. Well, I followed closely the entrance of Sport Climbing and was actively involved in Ski Mountaineering and yes, that happened there. I doubt we want what it really means to get into that Olympic thing. But thats another topic)

It raise some question, do we / you or Fabio know the age of the pilots that had incidents? Just out of curiosity.

And yes, we are not in the 2000-2010 with HG anymore. The average level got weaker i am sure and the top pilots got stronger. Thats also why I think we should reflect this level development in the selections and number of participants in Cat 1 comps.

Before makeing selections on the side of CIVL - thats what I think - by just descreasing the number of participants, it will be solved without makeing a complicated thing, where we need to make a lot of exemptions (I wonder how many Cat 2 Petr did before winning the Worlds, he would have needed such an exemption).

And yes, limiting to 80 will not help solveing the financial problem, this needs to get compensated by other measures. Germany had a proposal to reduce the staff of CIVL by 2. Maybe we can also say, one CIVL person per 40 pilots? The rest of the members can get consulted online if required.

Finally, the idea is to protect the pilots as well as the organising staff. This would be good (once the financial problem is solved) for every participant and organising staff member.

By BrodOZFreeFlyer62 on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 15:52

I would like to respond to Juaki's comments. I flew in the Words for the first time in Ager this year. I thoroughly enjoyed the flying. At 63 I don't think the age is an issue. I would like to see some analysis of the incidents/accidents/fatality to make a better informed decision about the factors contributing to these unfortunate events that otherwise have marred a great Comp. The 'statistical' argument that too many pilots in the air at once doesn't appear to stack up, spreading out the comp over a few 'leagues' will make it impossible for some of us to participate, and the number of pilots flying may be less in any particular comp/'league' , but you will need to run more comps to short list the top pilots for a final round (Worlds) thus equating to more 'airtime' per pilot, at least equal to or more airtime per pilot , which is therefore equal to or even a higher probability of accidents/incidents, not less. From what I observed, I can only say that I saw good pilots pushing themselves to limits that increased their individual risk taking in the given circumstances on the day, ... I might call it the 'Do or die' thinking, and therefore individual pilots making decision to push themselves to or beyond what they might otherwise consider a safe limit (not wanting to be disrespectful to anyone given the fatality.

By JD Kugler on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 21:56

Hey guys,

I completely agree with Toni and Juaki : less pilots = less accidents. It's a statistical fact. There would be also less pressure on the organisation and the rescue teams, who can concentrate on the special cases, like Toni said. I would even say, less pressure on the pilots as well. Also less pressure for the task setting, as less pilots gives can use fly in a shorter time window if the weather is tricky.

Ideas to reduce the number of pilots (not considering the financial aspects, which belong to another discussion I would say) :
- Separate class 1 and class 5 (I think everyone would agree on this one)
- Not allowing teams more pilots than they are normally allowed (for example, GBR, JPN and USA teams had 7 pilots this year)
- CAT1 selection based on WPRS ranking
- CAT1 selection based on past performance (for example, 6 (random number) goals achieved in the past 2 years in a CAT2 or CAT1 event, a top 20 in a CAT1 event in the past 4 years, etc).

By Martin Grössinger on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 21:57

I don't think, that we need a general limit.
The capacity is depending from flying site, cloudbase, lift and crossing zones of the task.

By Fabien Zado on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 09:13

Hey everyone,
Less pilots = less chance of problems, that's for sure. There is a beneficial effect for everyone
- better for the organization team : less people top take care of and maybe the ability to provide better services
- Medical assistance
- Less stress for the pilots on take off, in the air, in goal
- and so many more advantages...

One of the problem is the selection of the pilots, WPRS is not very representative, performance as well... We all know some pilots going to a CAT1 comp and doing their 1st flight of the year overthere.
A lminimulm number of flying hours could be an idea, an HG-SIV mandatory...

When you look at aviation, to be allowed to fly, you need to keep current with mandatory training, you need a minimum of 3 take offs and 3 landings within the last 3 months, etc...

Organiser

By Toni Crottet on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 18:47

For solveing financial problems I suggest following (assuming 80 pilots instead of 120, cutting 1/3):

- The entry fees per pilot that are payed by associations to raise to the extend that we already pay in total (paying for 4 people the same amount we pay for 6 now)
- For pilots without association paying: make it cheaper

(- optional make CIVL send per 40 pilots one person)

As Association, for who I work, it will be cheaper anyway like that; it will compensate the costs an organiser has. Additionally that cutting 1/3 of the field will be for the organiser also a bit cheaper (maybe 20% cheaper?)

The pressure we have with all the Cat 1 in all categories CIVL has and plans, sending less pilots will help also us.

BTW: That's also one of the reasons I am again Cat 1s in Sport Classes HG and PG.

By MarcoG on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 15:40

I also believe that significantly reducing the number of participating pilots is one of the most effective ways to improve both safety and the overall quality of competition flying. A smaller field naturally decreases the risk within gaggles, allows for longer and more technical tasks, lowers the likelihood of accidents, and opens up more potential event locations – after all, very few sites can still accommodate 140 hang gliders. In my view, a field of around 80 pilots would be ideal. Of course, this needs to go hand in hand with financial solutions such as those Toni suggested and/or additional sponsorship.

Organiser

By Toni Crottet on Mon, 27 Oct 2025 - 13:42

I agree, that the site can also be a factor.

An organiser have to consider the weather conditions as well. In Ager and a lot of other comps, the less ideal weather condition should be considered:
- Do you want to cancel the day, because there is not bombing thermal conditions?
- Do you want to cancel the day because of the current conditions, the only problematic factor is the number of pilots, while with less pilots it would be totally safe to send the field on the task?

Furthermore, who tells that the crowding does take place only at the start position? So flying site consideration does not only apply to the start and potential waiting room. It happens a lot where later in the task, there is some crowding as well, which the tasksetting couldn't foresee.

In every case, takeing less pilots means less hassle for the organiser, the tasksetter, MDs, SDs, Retrieve, etc. It means more flying days, more flying in a task (earlier takeoffs, better takeoffs, etc.) for the pilots. More afforable Cat 1 for all Nations, less stress for the teams within the Cat 1 comps. And maybe - who knows - it will test again more the tactical flying, since the field will be streched more along the task.

Finally, financial problems are not unsolveable and should not be the predominating factor.

By Martin Grössinger on Mon, 27 Oct 2025 - 13:58

You are right. Each safty Change has some costs, disadvateges on the other side.
The question is what ist the best balance?
Cost of limited number of pilots: It will be more difficult to qualify. Last year in Ager maybe not even the world champion would have qualified...? Cost per pilot would rise as you mentioned.
Cost of stricter limits per flying site: Much less sites would qualify for CAT1.

I personally think, that many accidents are site-related and think that CAT1 events are fir example much safer in Krushevo than in Ager...

By Fabien Zado on Tue, 28 Oct 2025 - 08:02

To Toni :
Yes days should be cancelled when the conditions are not good enough for a task. Organizers usually keep pushing to have a task even when it's not good. If you have only 1 task over 10 days, then that's it, bad luck but it is a weather-related sport and we really should stop playing with it.
But completely agree that less pilots can only be an advantage for everyone.

To Martin :
More difficult to qualify ? Then next time the world champion will fly more comps if he wants to fly a CAT1 event. ;)

I also believe the site has a very important role to play and as you said, much less sites will qualify for a CAT1 event but that's how it is. The choice of the competition site should be really well studied by an independant, ethical group before accepting it.
Ager shouldn't be selected anymore by exemple, Krushevo yes definitely.
In Krushevo, even with a low cloud base, stable conditions, you can just set a task in the flat and it's safe. In Ager with similar conditions, you send people to the hospital.

By Martin Grössinger on Tue, 28 Oct 2025 - 10:24

Ager: flying-site and organisers we're overwhelmed by the number of pilots, especially with two classes at different launch sites.
Krusevo: number of pilots and two classes were no issue.

-> it is not possible to make a general Statement about the Safe number of pilots.

Costs: A large number of pilots Will Always be easier to manage efficiently than a reduced number. What's the point of cutting down two-thirds of the pilots If that also reduces the organizations capacity by two-thirds?
However, I do Support the Idea that stewards should Not only be a cost factor, but also contribute meaningfully to safety.

By JD Kugler on Tue, 28 Oct 2025 - 23:17

I'd would argue that Krushevo is the only place in Europe (at least that I know of) where pilots number is not an issue, thanks to the slow evolution of the weather during the day. To me this place is an outlier and one cannot state a general truth based on the Krushevo experience alone. It would be quite sad and boring to only have CAT1 events in Krushevo, as much as this place is nice to fly.

I am conflicted regarding Àger. It is for sure a more difficult place to fly than Krushevo, but it is possible to have a safe task with stable conditions if the task is set properly (not like task 2...). Having less pilots would certainly help with that.

CAT1 events are supposed to represent the elite, these are not holidays. Therefore I don't see a problem in having more difficulty to qualify. I'm not too sure about a HG-SIV because, what would you check apart from take-off and landing technique ? Does it prove you'll be able to make safe decisions in a competition environment ?

I'd much more prefer a flight log that a pilot would have to provide, with a minimum amount of flights and airtime to be able to participate in a CAT1 event. Also CAT2 results requirements seem reasonable to me.

By Martin Grössinger on Wed, 29 Oct 2025 - 07:39

I think the assumption that a CAT 1 competition has a higher standard is already the first false premise.
In my opinion, the risk of accidents in CAT1 competitions stems not from general inexperience, but from local inexperience. We pilots base our decisions on experiences that are not at all representative of the competition area and the prevailing weather conditions. This, combined with group dynamics and ambition, is a dangerous mix. Therefore, the weather and area requirements for a CAT1-suitable task should be very high.

By Fabien Zado on Wed, 29 Oct 2025 - 09:42

JD, Krushevo was just an example. There are many others places in Europe that would qualify for a CAT1 event, but for sure, forget about Valais ;)
I think you need places with flatlands and mountainous areas if you want to be safe. In Ager, nothing is flat... A place like Laragne, the Swiss Jura, Gemona, etc... on the other side offer flats everywhere.

When you talk about CAT1 being the elite, i think it doesnt reflect the reality at all. 30 years ago maybe, there were a lot of people still flying HG and pretending to qualify for a CAT1 event. Nowdays, it is only the same group of pilots, new generations are not interested in HG and anyone can qualify for a world championship. If you limit it only to top pilots, you will have 20 guys max.

A log could be a way to go but would be difficult to put in place unless you have an official flightlog software.

And i really agree with Martin about the weather and area requirements. I think it is the first thing to consider.

By JD Kugler on Wed, 29 Oct 2025 - 20:42

There are indeed other valid possibilities in Europe (Valais definitely not being one, even for CAT2 ^^'). The choice of an appropriate flying site and weather is definitely an highly important point, but discussions about it don't belong to this thread (pilots number in CAT1 events). I suggest to create a separate thread so that we don't loose sight of the point raised in this one ;)

I agree that the discipline is not what it used to be anymore. The top 30 (to 50 even ?) has improved, while the level of the pilots behind has decreased. In that regard "elite" was probably too strong of a word, since we are an amateur sport. The idea of reducing pilots number is certainly not to have a 20 pilots championship, but to partially remove strain on the organisation and on the pilots, as Fab well mentioned in a previous post. Reinforcing qualification requirements will also have the effect of rising the general level of the fields (however i agree, we unfortunately don't have stats of accidents VS pilot's level)

For the record, i appreciate that pilots number highly depends on the flying site. There were too much people in Àger, because of the financial strain on the organisation (if I understood Juaki correctly), which is definitely not good.

Regarding flight log : the FAI already uses flights uploaded to xcontest.org and other XC contest websites to make their own XC rankings : https://www.fai.org/page/world-xc-online-contest. I guess a flight log would not be too difficult to set up on the same model. People would just need to upload their flights online, which is easy with today's instruments.

By Martin Grössinger on Wed, 29 Oct 2025 - 21:14

My opinion:
Less pilots do not have a direct effect on safety.
The only effect is that a smaller number of pilots offers a wider selection of flying areas and somewhat compensates for inefficient processes and poor task setting.

Oh and another nice effect: class 1 pilots may switch to class 5 -> thats a good Thing. :)

Subscribe to crowded