culture

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.

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.

Good idea, but I always prefer rating along a 4-star poll rather than a 5-star poll.

We do it in our country for national competitions.
We get a 50% response in average which seems OK although I would prefer more participation.
Organizers mostly like it as they have some feedback.
We do it on a 5 star system

All quality and safety management systems require user feedback. All issues (Safety, Staff Performance, Site, Logistics etc) could all be included in a simple survey.

There is a nice consensus on this one. Let's form a working group.

The "defined" and "automatic" are the two key words in here...

The Task setter are usually the organizers themselves, or local pilots, so their friends, and have a vested interest into keeping people happy.

"People happy" means the venue is advertised for future events, and "people happy" means only one thing, flying tasks every day if possible.

So, there is an asymmetry in the "taskable days thing. We want it, they want it, nobody does not want it, so it has a huge bias of "happening" and the organizer feels that and makes it happen.

I agree that we need some simple numeric, uncontested benchmarks that would tell the organizer "forget about it" and keep the pilots at bay from attacking him / her for "canceling" or "stopping" a day.

The easiest of these would have been a limit on the "average forecasted wind during the task hours" but it can be many things.

We need to give them to the organizers, as tools to get the pressure of the competitors (that almost always want to fly) out of their shoulders...

A simple prototype is available for authenticated user. You can register, see a basic list and report a fatality. The goal is to start from here and lower down the filter.

I agree the IFFPU should have a list of all fatalities - I see both a safety and memorial function for this so we never forget our friends and never forget that all the safety we enjoy today came from the blood of our buddies in the past. However I see a broader need as outlined here https://gagglereport.org/node/29.

The FAI Safety Handbook for hang-gliding/paragliding (prepared for national federations) indicates that they are expected to adopt safety-management systems, good practices, incident reporting, etc. All NACs should be investigating and reporting. The CIVL should be aggregating this worldwide into a useable report. Fatalities, spinal, serious, reserves. If NACs are not doing this then the flying community should be made aware that country X is out of line and consideration given to whether pilots from that country are safe to compete.

This data can then be trend analysed to inform the pilot body;
- how does fatigue impact our sport?
- which wing models are resulting in the most reserves per hour of flight?
- how does total airtime affect accident rate?
- how does SIV affect outcomes etc?
the answers to these questions are unknown at the moment which is a travesty to our sport.
etc etc

I believe the discussion should not solely revolve around the accident report itself. While such reports can and should be detailed—covering aspects such as the pilot’s profile and the organizational conditions—it is equally important to focus on how to use this information effectively to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Accident reports should be submitted within a defined timeframe following the conclusion of the event. It is not appropriate to place additional pressure on the Organizer, Meet Director, or Safety Director during an ongoing competition, as their primary responsibility must remain the safety of all participants. Submission of reports by both organizers and pilots should be mandatory, and failure to comply should result in sanctions, such as disqualification from organizing or participating in subsequent events.
A clear communication protocol must be established. Journalists are often the first to share information following an incident, but without a structured process enabling organizers to communicate accurate details to the public, the impact on our sport and our community can be severe. A consistent and transparent communication strategy is therefore essential to safeguard the reputation and integrity of paragliding as a sport.

Great proposal and as Louis says this is normal in every risk based activity - the fact that it has not got to FAI/CIVL in 30 years is surprising.

Hi Louis, Build a working group for this charter please. We need it. Be it on CIVL or on the union.

At a national level in the UK, even for non-comp flying, there "seems" to be significant under-reporting of accidents (injury) and incidents (non-injury). Anecdotally, in any one club, one gets to hear of more accidents & incidents than appear in the annual report for that club or the BHPA's own annual reports. This may in part be a reflection that the reporting mechanism itself is cumbersome.

I really like the approach & format that was adopted - initially as a beta program - about 5-10 years ago by the BMC (British Mountaineering Council) who had exactly the same *cultural* issues. Here's a link to how you both report and research incidents and accidents; it is quick, accessible and lightweight - and as a consequence is to my knowledge very widely adopted.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/en/incident-reporting

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.

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.

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")

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!

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.