rules

SIV Requirement for Competition Pilots

By Jonas Prüssing on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 05:07

Discipline

Paragliding XC

What do we want ?

We want to ensure that competition pilots have the minimum skills required to actively handle their wing in critical situations.
.

How do we achieve that ?

By introducing an obligatory SIV certification for competition pilots, which must be completed on the wing currently used in competition

Issue category :

Safety

rules

Read more about SIV Requirement for Competition Pilots
10 comments
Log in or register to post comments

Comments

By andreacecchetto on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 14:07

I agree that anyone compeeting shuld have done SIV manouvers with an official SIV instructor
But doing an official SIV every time we change the glider is going to be really expensive, expecially for someone that is not already in a CCC.
Not every pilot in FAI1 competitions is using a CCC, so consider that.
I still do collapses, stalls, (SIV manouvers),... with my competition wing, but for actual training, not just for a certificate

By christiaandurrant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 15:10

I would agree to mandatory SIV - not necessarily on the same model as raced.

By Jonas Prüssing on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 23:35

In the German league, we have a rule that you can only participate if you can demonstrate certain maneuvers with any wing of your choice.
After traveling through Asia for two years, I’ve noticed that many pilots progress extremely quickly from A to CCC wings — sometimes within just one or two years. They gain confidence after completing an SIV course on an A-wing and then overestimate their abilities on a CCC wing. The result is often accidents: crashing into buildings, spiraling or SATing into the ground, or experiencing collapses even in smooth conditions.
I want to help prevent pilots from becoming overconfident and believing that an A-wing is just as easy to handle as a CCC wing. From my own experience, I can say there are far too many pilots who underestimate the risks and demands of high-performance competition wings — especially C, D, and CCC two-liners — without ever having experienced how they behave in critical situations.

By Markos Siotos on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 21:17

I fully agree with comp pilots being able to handle the cases that are being taught in SIV courses but, I do not agree in requiring them to attend one of them and getting the "certification". I have friends that when they buy a new wing they go to Lake Garda and do the whole "sequence" of maneuvers to their satisfaction. The "certification" would cost them + 1000 Euros for something that they can do it already...

Having said that, I fully realize that leaving it to the pilot conscience, is not a 'calibrated' way to deal with the issue....

By Jonas Prüssing on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 23:48

In my personal opinion, you should always do an SIV course when switching to a higher wing class.
Of course, if you’ve already proven under professional supervision that you can handle a CCC wing, and then move to a C two-liner, there’s no need to prove yourself again. But for most pilots, it’s simply reckless to practice maneuvers on their own with a more demanding wing, close to the ground, and without ever having trained such situations properly before.
I know many pilots who overestimate their abilities and rush to higher wing classes. They try to stall close to the ground or experiment with maneuvers they’ve never done safely over water — and inevitably put themselves in dangerous situations.
In the German league, you’re currently allowed to prove your required maneuvers via video, which I think is a good step. But considering that most pilots only need to demonstrate this twice in their entire competition career — usually once on a B-wing and later on a C-wing — that doesn’t seem too much to ask.
I’d even be open to accepting video proof over a lake, equipped with a life vest and rescue boats, for your current wing class.
But allowing pilots to perform these maneuvers with any wing over land sends completely the wrong signal. It promotes a false sense of security, while in competition you’re flying under much more stress and often in turbulent air.
So personally, I’d much rather train under professional supervision — or, if you’re convinced you’re “the invincible,” at least do it safely over water with the minimum safety equipment: a life vest and a rescue boat nearby.

By georg.bube on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 21:48

I think if you can prove you can fly predefined maneuvers without attending an SIV, that should be acceptable as well. If you do not dare to fly those maneuvers in an environment comparable to an SIV (i.e. over water, with an (automatic) life vest, with a rescue boat on the water), then it is probably not a bad idea to attend an SIV.

Of course not everyone has easy access to a suitable place for such training.

PWCA Board

CIVL Delegate

By eduardosanchezgranel on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 04:32

Hi Jonas,

I like the idea of looking for ways of better selecting pilots that are really capable of competing XC with tools to sort out unexpected wing behaviour.
I think your proposal lacks some detail
Are you proposing for CAT-1 events ? All Cat1 or just Worlds and perhaps Europeans ?
Are you proposing for a larger array of events ? Which ?

What do you exactly mean by a SIV certification ? Who is able to certify ? Please think worldwide, not only central europe.

Regarding "on the wing used in the competition", you should be more comprehensive, because if a pilot changes from an Enzo to an X-One, would you require a new certification ? Would you require only a certification in the same type of wing ? How many years that certification holds its validity ?

As you see, there are many details to be explored here

By Malin Lobb on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 21:45

Submitting a video showing certain skills (catch & release, stopping rotations, cravat clearing spin etc), on a yearly basis to get you verified for the comp season is a good idea. Standardising where the camera needs to be mounted and what needs to be in the frame could mean that anyone can just go and do a flight and film the required skills and submit it to a website. I’m sure someone could train AI to verify the videos as there are some very obvious movements it could learn from.

Organiser

By Karlis Jaunpetrovics on Mon, 27 Oct 2025 - 15:33

I agree with what Malin has proposed. Pilots should be able to do certain things with the gear they fly, I don't think that training on EN-A wing will help you much on the CCC. At the same time some of us don't need SIV training anymore(I'm a big believer in currency and regular practice, but I don't need a course for it as I can do it on my own), we should be able to demonstrate that we are still able to control the wing. I think what Malin has proposed is a good way to go forward.

Organiser

By Josh Cohn on Sun, 26 Oct 2025 - 23:14

Even just defining what pilots should be able to do, as Malin alluded to, so that they can 'self-certify', which is to say satisfy themselves that they have those specific skills, would be a step in the right direction.

Better would be video of the maneuvers submitted but only spot checked or checked in case there is a question.

Best would be checked by experts.

Getting checked on the class of glider (CCC, D, C etc.) but not the specific model seems most important. Also, if a pilot is checked out on a higher class of glider they're probably ok on lower classes.

My personal impression is that after some amount of experience and currency an annual check may be less necessary. But it might complicate things too much to accommodate that perspective.

This is all keeping in mind that the SIV instructors of the world tend to be pretty booked up.

Radio Requirement and Promotion of Regular Level Reports

By Jonas Prüssing on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 04:57

Discipline

Paragliding XC

What do we want ?

Regular level reports (L/reports) should once again become standard practice so pilots warn each other from dangerous situations and stop tasks before incidents happen.

No 'hidden' reports trough buttons on flymaster devices that pilots do not get informed about.

How do we achieve that ?

Introduction of a mandatory radio requirement with easy-to-use devices, ideally featuring a Bluetooth push to talk button for hands-free operation. Alternatively devices like milo that can even be used completely without pushing any buttons could be an option.

If necessary, introduction of a mandatory L/report requirement in the competition rules. If necessary, penalties for those who flew trough unsave areas and did not report about it. Example: 1st time - warning, 2nd time 1 point, 3rd time 100 points ,...

Clear reminder during the briefing about the importance and proper execution of L/reports.

Issue category :

culture

rules

Safety

Read more about Radio Requirement and Promotion of Regular Level Reports
8 comments
Log in or register to post comments

Comments

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 15:15

Spot on ! I'd like a Meet Director or Safety Director to be able to nominatly call any pilot for an answer. If both are in direct line without terrain interférence the pilot shall be able to reply even just to say : "wait it's sketchy". We curently ask our student more than we do for top comp Pilots.

By neliob on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 17:44

One ideia is to have the task automatically stopped after a certain percentage of pilots or team leaders call level 3,
independent of the Meet Director or Safety Director.

Organiser

By Karlis Jaunpetrovics on Wed, 29 Oct 2025 - 14:04

This opens up the possibility of pilots influencing task, say if they get stuck in a bad spot, or are stuck in a lee side and loosing time. They can report level 3 as a group and force the task to be stopped.

Personally as a Safety director I have always have stopped the task before we have had many level 3 reports. Which we ask pilots to report status every task multiple times a task. They can do this over radios or the Flymaster live tracker.

Organiser

By Maxime Bellemin on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 17:48

GPS Trackers are provided & distributed by organizers to pilots. They are great, quite often.
VHF Radio devices are to be bought & brought by pilots. They are shitty, quite often.

In my very first PWC, in Japan, a looong time ago, radio devices combined with a GPS unit inside had been distributed to us. That solved many issues.

Equipment provided by organizers is tested, working, and mandatory to be used by the pilots.

Why not imagining a proper communication system provided & distributed by organizers to pilots?
Why not explore communication means other than VHF, such as Zello or mesh-radio systems?

PWCA Board

CIVL Delegate

By eduardosanchezgranel on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 04:51

Hi Jonas,

You seem to have a bad concept of what you call "hidden reports".
But you must know, this system was born out of a problem of lack of reporting levels, or lack of accurate reporting.
Pilots are many times reluctant to report for different resons, sometimes there is a kind of "herd behaviour" in which pilots report a level heavily influenced, one way or another, by the report of a "well known" pilot (or avoid reporting in the same situation), radio VHF reports are sometimes lacking information such as who is reporting, his position, his height, and even if clarifications are requested, sometimes they do not come easily.

So this system of easy reporting levels without the problems cited above, is a big step forward to the eyes of many experienced organizers and pilots.
The only problem with this system is when there is lack of cell coverage (loss of signal). That is why VHF radios cannot be discarded.
A good MD could, on a day where there are some concerns about levels (wind, T-Storms, etc,) , and live tracking is failing in some areas, communicate on VHF radios the situation of signal loss, and ask for radio level announcement in those stages.

By tomslejko on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 20:42

There is also a problem with reporting level 3 when the conditions are really sketchy; using the radio while trying to fly a wing out of shitty situation can often be dangerous! Mandating the pilot to let go of the controls (brakes) in order to communicate the level will decrease the overall safety. In this way the trackers are better suited since they require less pilot input.

By Jonas Prüssing on Sun, 26 Oct 2025 - 16:02

Maybe I didn’t explain it clearly enough, but what I’m looking for is a solution that allows you to communicate without taking your hands off the brakes. Live trackers don’t provide that functionality.
The only viable options seem to be something like a Milo or a similar voice-to-voice communication device with smart noise-cancellation algorithms, or a setup using a Bluetooth push-to-talk button mounted on your gloves — so you can always talk while keeping your hands on the brakes.

By thibaultrohmer on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 01:49

Safety briefing should encourage pilots to report level 2 and 3 to give info to organization.
It doesn't means task is gonna be stopped.
Just giving live info. about an area.

In FAI 2 comps, i often hear that "if you push level 3 you go land"
I think this sentence should be avoided because people thus never call level 3 and report nothing.
A set of guidelines should be written to explain why it's good to report level 2 or 3, and what you can do in that case.

Regarding the new flymaster devices with reporting level 2 or 3: it's a great improvement!
I wish people would use it more. It does not reveal anything on radio, you can push it several times during the task, ... and it gives valuable info to organization.
They also allow safety director to send messages to pilots (ex: task stopped, helicopter incoming, ...), with a better guarantee of communication than radio as the device will ring until acknowledgement.
Presentation of the device during comp. briefing is sometimes lacking yes. But you'll get used to it, just ask around.
Some meet directors now have some video demoing the behaviors and buttons.

Discipline

Paragliding XC

What do we want ?

A better way to handle airspaces with a vertical ceiling that pilots fly under during competitions.

I've had a similar issue twice during competitions in Colombia this winter :

There is a relatively low imposed altitude ceiling over the whole competition area and strong thermals (2400m in Roldanillo in this case).
As the leading gaggle cannot see the airmass, it tries to leave thermals with enough margin to not exceed the imposed ceiling. If the margin wasn't big enough, ten or more pilots are now climbing at three to five meters per second and are all about to get severely penalized. The only solution, for all of them, is to go into a deep spiral right away or violate the airspace.
In my case, spiraling down hard, barely losing any altitude and seeing other pilots doing the same less than fifty meters away from me wasn't a pleasant experience and was really dangerous. I'd like to avoid encountering these kinds of situations in future events.

Note: The ceiling mentioned here is typically the floor of the actual airspace, but for us pilots it feels more like a ceiling, hence the use of the term.

How do we achieve that ?

I believe a really simple solution can be discussed and implemented : add a vertical buffer to avoid actually infringing airspace ceilings and apply the same rules as those used for cloud flying.

Similarly to when a pilot is being unexpectedly sucked into a cloud, a pilot not being able to avoid climbing into the buffer could keep flying straight until it becomes safe to descend and lose the advantage he gained by getting too high.
Losing the advantage would be very similar again. Go off the task route, ensure there are no pilots directly below you and spiral down below the ceiling.

I believe that this could work really well as the altitude of the buffer is known by everyone who attended the briefing and can be checked on instruments whereas for all cloud flying incidents, the actual height of the cloudbase must be discussed, proven with video etc...

I also believe this could solve similar issues happening before the start and would leave pilots a bit of time to lose altitude.

One downside is that in an area where the airspace is already limited, the buffer would bring the ceiling down even more. For example, in my example regarding Roldanillo, a 100m buffer would have brought the actual ceiling to only 2300m.

Fifty or one hundred meters seems reasonable and it could vary. If the actual airspace is infringed, the same penalties as today can be applied. To implement this, competition organizers would simply have to tweak airspace files so that some airspaces are N meters lower.

On top of all this, it could ensure that most competition organizers use airspace buffers and that actual airspaces are not infringed as often.

Issue category :

airspace

rules

Read more about Vertical buffers for airspaces and apply similar rules than those used for cloud flying
9 comments
Log in or register to post comments

Comments

By christiaandurrant on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 14:37

This point came up at the PWC in Turkey this year. I believe all pilots need to fly to the conditions presented.

If you are in a +8 you should not take the thermal up to within 100m of the limit. Some did and they broke airspace. Then they complained that it was dangerous to spiral down because the conditions were rough - which I agree with. But treating the symptom (people in airspace) is not the solution. The buffer you mention that should be set by the committee is what the pilots should have set themselves. I personally set - 300m below the ceiling. I left early and had no altitude issues. The buffer cannot be set on the ground hours before the task - it must be dynamically assessed throughout the race and adjusted accordingly. Racing isn't just a measure of speed but of full spectrum captaincy - which includes airspace anticipation for wind/lift etc.

By Damien Pattou on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 20:14

I agree that pilots should keep a comfortable margin, and this is easily doable when you see people in front of you who stop climbing. When you're in the lead gaggle and the stakes are high however, this is something that can happen, whether it is in a thermal or in a blue convergence as Luc mentions below.

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 14:50

If I'm not mistaken, what you propose is actually in the rule with a 100m buffer (sportive airsapce lower) to the real zone. Organisers often ignore it.

By Damien Pattou on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 20:05

Yes, set the airspace 100m lower than the real one in the airspace file.

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 14:53

Note that if you touch the actual airsapce (not the buffer) you still have 0 for day. I understand it could be amended so you don't end up in silly situation everybody urging to go down

By Mateusz Gajczewski on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 14:55

In many competitions, the altitude limit for pilots is set slightly below the official airspace boundary - for example, by 100 meters - so that only exceeding it by more than 100 meters (actually entering the official airspace) results in a 100% penalty. I believe this should be the standard practice.

Designer

By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 12:00

I second Damien.
Other dangerous situation one would like to avoid living:
Being in a strong and powerfull blue sky convergeance line without knowing the exit and with an airspace ceiling. You are all pushing full speed to death but fail to find an exit and soon there is no more altitude margin to leave the bar for a spiral, as the resource will suck you to the end-of-comp penalty anyway. Your blood is full of adrenaline, you're ready for the all possible stupidity.
A zone with zero penalty but with possible compensation by loosing advantage afterwards is very welcome. Clever idea.

By thibaultrohmer on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 02:03

Interesting idea.
But how long are you allowed in the buffer area ?
Or how much points is it gonna cost ?

I think a mix of both: you loose points depending on how long you stay in the buffer.

By Damien Pattou on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 20:09

I haven't thought about how much time you could be "allowed" in the buffer. It could be one parameter but it may complicate things.

I guess it would only make sense if you weren't to lose points if you can prove later that you lost your advantage, just like cloud flying. If you don't lose your advantage, then apply the same penalty as today ? Penalties seem to vary depending on competitions anyway.

Subscribe to rules