Cloud separation protocol before the Start of the Task

By Mateusz Gajczewski on
Discipline
Paragliding XC
What do we want ?
We want to increase safety and separation between pilots and clouds during the pre-start phase, in those cases when many pilots gather near cloudbase or next to the cloud trying to gain maximum altitude. The goal is to reduce congestion and risk of entering cloudswhile still allowing fair and efficient race starts.
How do we achieve that ?
Based on field experience and previous attempts (e.g., during Ikarus), I propose to develop a structured system allowing the Safety Director to set and communicate a maximum altitude limit before entering the Start of Speed Section (SSS).

Suggested process:
1. 15 minutes before the start: The Safety Director announces via radio the maximum allowed altitude or confirms that no limit applies.
2. 10 and 5 minutes before the start: The announcement is repeated.
3. From 5 minutes before the start until entering SSS: Any pilot exceeding the set limit receives a proportional penalty.
4. After crossing SSS: The altitude limit no longer applies.

Possible refinements:
- Limit valid until SSS crossing vs. only until the start time.
- Different penalty curves for exceeding the limit before the task start and for entering SSS at excessive altitude.

The proposal includes developing guidelines defining when altitude limits:
A) should be used - for example: large dense clouds at SSS, comps with > 80 pilots at similar level
B) should not be used - for example: multiple strategic start options with different cloudbase altitude, small-sized clouds or light cloud cover.

This approach not only improves safety by preventing crowding and inadvertent cloud flying, but also encourages clear communication and disciplined listening. While topics like mandatory TOT or a dedicated Safety → Pilots one-way radio channel are relevant and related, the main proposal is focused on maintaining cloud separation before start.
Issue category :
Safety
mid air
25 in favour | 2 against

Comments

Profile picture for user zsoltero
CIVL Delegate
By zsoltero on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 14:58

I totally support it. I was there on Ikarus, it was a great decision on the last day!

But I really believe it should be as simple as SSS crossing penalty. It doesn't matter what pilots do before, obviously they should try not to get in the cloud, but at least they'd know that they cannot cross SSS like that.

And SSS crossing should be like an airspace penalty, or similar.

2 in favour | 0 against
By Robert Berg Niziolek on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 02:17

I think I heard somewhere that it was tested, or they were discussing the possible scenarios.

During Ikarus, the results looked good, but someone pointed out a scenario involving strong lift before an SSS: when pilots start getting sucked up, they may spiral or otherwise lose altitude. If this happens to several dozen pilots at once, it could easily turn into a serious mess.

A similar situation occurred on a more spread-out task in Roldanillo about two years ago. A cloud started pulling very aggressively, and pilots were on the edge of entering restricted airspace. Things got tense with around 20–30 pilots involved. Some entered spirals, while others began stalling. At the finish, tensions ran high - those flying slightly lower behind were frustrated with pilots in front who were dropping unexpectedly on them, especially the ones stalling pilots.

In my view, sooner or later a scenario like this is bound to happen again, and the risk of collisions will increase. But, of course, I could be wrong.

3 in favour | 0 against
Profile picture for user Luc Armant
Designer
By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 12:23

I agree with Robert.
I'm not certain that it would be a positive change for safety for PG competition.
I have not seen a case of collision because of low visibility close to cloud ( I'm not saying that it will never happen) but I've seen and lived quite a few collisions in the huge start gaggle. We should not forget that the bigger the lift area, the less dense the gaggle is, and the safer.
To me, It often seems that the lift area is larger higher in altitude close and around to the cloud. If you cut off this space, we stuck everyone in a smaller space.
Also, I've lived few starts close to airspace ceiling. It was very stressfull in term of safety. Each pilot had a different behavior, different way of escaping or spiraling. It made a lot of unpredictable trajectories inside the dense gaggle which created collisions.
Sorry for not providing data here, as my memory is mixing events and task, but I'm sure a lot of us see what I mean.

6 in favour | 0 against
By Joachim Oberhauser on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 12:45

Hi i was on that task on Icarus and it was not a strong day, only +3m with the big startcilinder over 3/4 termals and some pilots are spiraling down in the group just to get under the max. level. It was a competition with 150 pilots and it was quite dangerous and not easy to handle.
Immagine a day where you have stronger termals, the situation will be much more complex!
On all these topics where we discuss about SS or ESS the right and good tasksetting it comes more and more important to me.

4 in favour | 0 against
Profile picture for user Maxime Bellemin
Organiser
By Maxime Bellemin on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 17:53

Tested, refined and validated during German Open 2022 in Ager.

1 in favour | 0 against
By Markos Siotos on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 21:43

It is an interesting idea, placing a number (which will apply to everybody) in the place of a "guess"

People are trying to top it, they get "slightly in" "slightly over but on the side", "fully in", whatever.

The Meet director screams "no cloud flying" and at that point you do not know if this is helping or not - my guess is that some of the guys that have been in the "white room" are freaking out and want out of it, they did not do it in purpose, they just miscalculated.

With the help of "flying marshals", or trustworthy pilots, it is an idea that the meet director can radio up a "limit" which is definitely below the cloud-base and avoid all the ugliness and the perceived "un-sportsmanship"

Is an idea worthy of discussion. We may find out that is not practical, but discussing it, for sure!

1 in favour | 0 against
Profile picture for user zsoltero
CIVL Delegate
By zsoltero on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 21:59

I think the pilot community will always be divided on clouds. Some of the best pilots can consistently climb the side of a cloud and start hundreds of meters above the rest.
We've all done it, and many of us decided it's not worth the risk being on the cloud's side. Any random moment a pilot could appear from the cloud exactly where you are climbing.
I think it's risky, not safe and definitely not sportive.

A clear rule about SSS crossing altitude would be much safer I believe. Ikarus was a trial, that's why people didn't know when should they spiral, etc., but if this becomes regular it'd be much safer. For example it's definitely not like an airspace, nothing happens if you go above this before SSS.

2 in favour | 0 against

Collisions and mid air increasing

Profile picture for user Julien Garcia
CIVL Delegate
By Julien Garcia on
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
collision
mid air
density
crowded
7 in favour | 0 against

Comments

Profile picture for user Maxime Bellemin
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.

5 in favour | 0 against
Profile picture for user Julien Garcia
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...

2 in favour | 0 against
Default profile picture
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