FIVL - Associazione Nazionale Italiana Volo Libero

fivl 2016 8
HomeSicurezzaNews Sicurezza01-NotizieSerata sulla sicurezza a Gandino (BG)


ESTC Meeting 2016 minutes (english)

ESTC Meeting 2016 – 11th of June, Prague, Czech Republic
Meeting minutes

People present
Rodolfo Saccani, Italy (FIVL), Chairman
Miroslav Vejt, Czech Republic (LAA), Host
Jens Voetmann, Denmark (DHPU)
Dave Thompson, UK (BHPA)
Runar Halling, Norway (NLF)
Laszlo Szollosi, Hungary (HFFA)
Laszlo Kerekes, Hungary (HFFA)
Ulf Martensson, Sweden (SSFS)
Arne Hillestad, Norway (NLF)
Marion Varner, France (FFVL)
Claude Bredat, France (FFVL)
Beni Stocker, Switzerland, (SHV)
Karl Slezak, Germany (DHV)
Ewald Kaltenhofer, Austria (ÖAeC)
Mark Shaw, UK (BHPA)
Andre Bizot, Netherlands (KNLV)
Luisa Slezak, Germany (DHV), Minutes Secretary

The meeting starts at 9:15 in the catacombs of the Hotel Martina in Prague. The chairman Rodolfo Saccani welcomes all the delegates, thanks the host Miroslav for organizing the meeting, thanks Luisa for the great work performed on the minutes last year and for offering to manage the minutes also this year.
Rodolfo Saccani informs the attendees that the EHPU AGM in January (Portugal) has confirmed his election as the chairman of ESTC.

1. Control of former decisions
1.1. Common flying rules, anti-midair-collision campaign
A decision was taken at the 2015 meeting that Karl should make a proposal for a pattern of the common European flying rules (thermal and soaring). This pattern is supposed to explain the rules easily and understandably and therefore mainly with drawings. It should be published in the member magazines and websites of all European Federations in the national language for a European-wide anti-midair-collision campaign.
Karl explains that he started but did not finish the work due to a legal problem concerning SERA, the new “Standardized European Rules of the Air”. SERA is responsible for paragliders and hanggliders. Yet, there are no rules for thermal flying and soaring included in SERA. Thus, it could become a legal problem to publish rules for that kind of flying as they will probably be contradiction to SERA. E.g. SERA allows overtaking on both sides for sailplanes, hanggliders and paragliders. However, the recommendation from ESTC is to overtake only on the right hand side. In case of crossing courses, SERA only knows “right has right-of-way”. This is a potentially dangerous contradiction to the common thermal rule “give way to the pilots circling in thermal”. Ewald explains that at the moment, Austria is without any official thermal and soaring rules because the statutory rules for hangglider and paraglider were completely replaced with the SERA rules. Against this background, Karl did not want to create a document which is a bit dubious concerning its legal validity.

After discussion and important input from Marion as a lawyer, the ESTC takes the following decisions:
- Karl is newly tasked with the job. He will prepare a proposal for a pattern with common European flying rules which are not in contradiction to SERA.
- As SERA is responsible for flying rules for hanggliders and paragliders, those rules should be part of SERA. EHPU should use their contacts to the European legislation in order to adopt common thermal/soaring rules in SERA in the long term. This step should be taken in coordination with the responsible bodies/federations for sailplanes.

1.2. Regular analysis of the European Accident Database
At the 2015 meeting, Karl was tasked to regularly analyze (2-3 times/year) the European Accident Database. Karl explains that he is not able to do this work properly because a lot of accident reports are incomplete. Particularly the French reports, which are hundreds, are not suitable for an analysis. This is due to the fact that the most important data as well as the short accident description in English are missing. Claude explains that there are two reporting systems in the FFVL. The pilots use the FFVL-system for reporting and there is an internal data transfer to the EHPU database. It seems that this data transfer does not work properly. Dave explains that BHPA had a similar problem in the beginning of using the EHPU database. He says that it was an effort to fix the transfer of data between both systems but now it is working well.
Decision: Marion will take that matter into his hands and will make the internet officer restructure the system in order to make sure that we will have the most important data in future accident reports. Karl will start making regular reports as soon as he receives the necessary information from the French federation.

1.4. Read-Only accounts (EHPU Accident database)
As wished, this point was discussed at the 2015 meeting and it is completed. The safety officer can now choose whether he gives a person a full account (with edit function) or a read-only account.

1.5. German annual accident statistic/analysis in English
Sweden and other smaller federations asked (at 2015 meeting) the DHV to publish its annual accident statistic/analysis in English. The 2015 report is available (and sent to all delegates by email) and the DHV will translate future reports, too.

1.6. Letter to WG 6 (Decision ESTC-Meeting 2015)
ESTC respectively EHPU were asked to write a letter to the WG 6 and the test laboratories with the clear demand to judge every correctly performed test flight maneuver. If a maneuver is valid, it has to be taken into account for the classification. That letter has been sent and it can be found here:
The WG6 discussed the letter and stated that the current norm already bans what we called “best case testing” in paragraph 4.2 and therefore no action is required. This interpretation has been recorded in the minutes of the WG6 meeting held on 20 Oct 2015 in Berlin.

Here is a summary of the report to ESTC members sent by Rodolfo Saccani via email in Oct 2015:

Here is paragraph 4.2:
4.2 Classification of flight characteristics
When testing in accordance with the procedures to, various aspects of the paraglider's behaviour are measured. These measurements are classified according to 4.4.1 to 4.4.23.
The class of a paraglider according to this document is determined by the highest classification obtained, i.e. by the highest level of pilot skill required (see Table 1).

According to the WG6 this paragraph does not only mean that the overall classification of the glider is determined by the highest classification assigned to the various tests, but also that the classification of each and every test is determined by the highest classification of each single execution of the maneuver prescribed for that test (should the maneuver be executed more than once), intending that best case testing is already banned and has always been.

2. EHPU stops financing the AFNOR secretary work for WG 6
The agreement between EHPU and AFNOR concerning the financing of the AFNOR secretary work with money from EHPU has expired at the end of 2015. The EHPU AGM 2016 took the decision not to continue the payment for AFNOR. Instead it will enter into new negotiations with AFNOR or another national EN institution. This matter brought with it a long discussion in ESTC. Arne explains that the decision at the EHPU AGM was taken majoritarian with 8:5 votes.
The main reasons for the decision was the disaffection with the outcome of the WG 6 meetings in matters of safety as well as the massive influence from the side of manufacturers and test laboratories on the WG 6 work on the one hand and the lack of influence from the side of the pilot federations, which pay for that work, on the other hand.
Marion explains that the French Federation FFVL has sent a letter to all European Federations and EHPU in order to convince them to continue the WG 6 work and the payment to AFNOR. FFVL has decided to pay for the AFNOR secretary work themselves because they want to avoid a complete breakdown of the WG 6 work. In the letter, FFVL asks the other federations for participation on that payment. Marion and Claude appeal strongly to the ESTC not to bury the WG 6 work because developing a good safety standard is the keynote of EHPU and was the reason for the founding. According to Marion, neither EHPU nor the federations have answered the letter yet. Most of the ESTC-delegates did not know about a letter from FFVL to their federation.
Decision: FFVL should write a new letter to the responsible persons (political body and to safety officer) in the European federations.

3. Update on Austrian guest flight rules
Ewald explains that a new law is on the ministries table to sign. This new law contents a list of countries which licenses will be acknowledged in Austria. The problem is that the new law covers not only gliders, paragliders and hanggliders but also light aircrafts. As there are issues with the light aircrafts, discussions are continuing. Since 1st of May another law is in force which makes it easier for foreign pilots without Austrian residence to fly in Austria. They can take an easy test at an Austrian flight school. If they pass, they receive a temporary license for one year. This is a way for pilots from countries which licenses are not accepted in Austria to receive a license. We hope that next time the new law is in force.

4. European Accident Database
In the meantime, there are more than 2400 incidents and accidents reported to the database. Details see list below.


Number reports

Quality of data

Czech Republik
























United Kingdom


































4.1. Problem of partly blank reports

There are still some problems with disappearing data if the user makes a mistake during filling in the form. Dave and Rodolfo Saccani have identified one of the problems. If one types in an incorrect entry in a free field (not dropdown) e.g. “100 kg” instead of just the number “100”, the system informs you about the wrong entry. At the same time, it resets all the drop down menus (not the other fields) to default. Maybe this is the reason why there are many fields left blank even though the pilots report that they have definitely filled them out.
Decision: Report to the programmer Alex in order to fix this problem.

4.2. Participation of Austria
Ewald reports that there is currently no possibility to officially introduce the EHPU Accident Database in Austria. Incidents/Accidents have to be reported to Austrocontrol which offers an online reporting system. The Austrian Federation, ÖAeC, is not interested in an additional reporting system due to two reasons: Firstly, ÖAeC is not responsible for incidents/accidents. Secondly, the responsible body already has a working online reporting system.

4.3. Standardized response email to the reporting person
Most of those responsible for the EHPU database in the federations know about the following matter: Pilots send the report and if they do not receive any response from the federation, they are insecure whether they have filled out/sent the report properly. Sometimes, they are also disappointed because of the lack of interest in the report. Some safety officers do send a personal email to each pilot but that takes a lot of time. ESTC discusses about the possibility to add a function for a standardized response-email to the person who has reported the accident.
Decision: A function for sending a standardized email to the reporting person has to be adopted. A proposal for the text that could be used for this purpose can be found in Appendix 1 of this document.
There must be an additional field for the email-address that the reporting person intends to use for the communication between him and the EHPU database. This is necessary because the reporting person maybe wants to have email communication with the database only via a specific (confidential) email-address.

Beni reports about incidents in Switzerland. Two helicopter nearly collided with paragliders.
Air space restrictions close to helicopter stations are possible. Best way: FLARM instead of restricted areas. But: Swiss flight instrument manufacturer Flytec has stopped producing the FLARM chip. Now there seems to be a solution. A lot of drones are flying in Switzerland and they may need some kind of FLARM as well. This could decrease the costs. SHV is thinking about supporting FLARM for paragliders/hanggliders again. Beni clearly states that only a passive FLARM, without a screen as a signal-giver to other aircrafts around, is meant. Beni asks about experience in other countries about FLARM or other devices.
In the following discussion it becomes obvious that there is no real experience with FLARM for paragliders/hanggliders. Dave warns about the use of active FLARM as this would lead pilots to fly into clouds. Also, from another point of view, this matter is interesting and requires observation: Drones! We have to expect increasing drone traffic in the near future. We also have to admit that drone traffic will take place in the airspace we frequently use. Karl reports that the DHV has visited the German Ministry of Transport in order to express their concerns regarding drone traffic in uncontrolled airspace. The ministry was full of understanding for their concerns and promised them to take them in consideration.
Rodolfo Saccani concludes this matter with the demand to all EHPU members to circulate any information on this issue. He and Jens express their concerns that additional restrictions will be introduced if paragliders cannot be seen, like drones, by other aircrafts.

6. New law in Italy
Rodolfo Saccani thanks all ESTC-members which participated in the survey on airsport restrictions in Europe (see:
This contribution has been very helpful. Until now, nothing is been decided and a final decision on the matter will take time. There is a proposal from Italian Aeroclub with additional restrictions for paragliders/hanggliders. FIVL will keep on fighting for as much freedom as possible.

7. Safety Management System (SMS)
Raymond asks to collect feedback on the document circulated. Raymond is not present at the meeting so he cannot present the project. Andre reports from the SMS-System of the Dutch Federation. There are annual analysis about all reported accidents and even minor incidents and mistakes which happened in schools, clubs and to free pilots. The outcome is presented to schools and clubs at the end of every year. Andre says: “We can say that we got a lot of points out of it where it was easy to change something that similar things wouldn’t happen again or somewhere else. It really helps creating an environment that is not about errors but about avoiding them”.

8. Harness buckles
Karl introduces that matter and explains what has happened that finally lead to a safety note which concerns hundreds of paragliding harnesses (see:
There were several reports from chest strap buckles which opened unintentionally and one fatality in Italy end of January. Concerned are the Finsterwalder Clicklock and T-Lock buckles. But there are also buckles from other manufacturers which had problems in the past, mostly concerning production failures. A long discussion follows. At the end, there is a decision:
We have to admit that a technical system like a harness buckle can fail. Due to wearing, wrong operating, material or production failures, ice, snow, dirt in the mechanics. Therefore, we must accept that this systems can never work completely reliable and save. The ESTC recommends an additional rule and a suitable test (for EN and LTF harness standard) to make sure that the pilot cannot fall out of the harness in case one of the buckles breaks.
The following wording (thanks to lawyer Marion) is agreed upon: “The failure of any one single buckle used to secure the pilot in the harness must not allow the pilot to fall out the harness”.

9. Project for disabled tandem passengers
Arne shows a video with a wheelchair developed for tandem flights. He says that there is still some work to do in order to make this tool really suitable for the purpose.

10. Location and date for the next meeting
Lazslo invites ESTC for the next meeting to Budapest, Hungary on June, 10. 2017

The meeting closes at about 6pm.

Rodolfo Saccani   Luisa Slezak
Chairman             Minutes Secretary

Minute del Meeting ESTC 2016, traduzione di Rodolfo Saccani

Meeting annuale European Safety and Training Committee di EHPU

ESTC Meeting 2016 – 11 giugno, Praga, Repubblica Ceca
Minute del meeting

Rodolfo Saccani, Italy (FIVL), Chairman
Miroslav Vejt, Czech Republic (LAA), Host
Jens Voetmann, Denmark (DHPU)
Dave Thompson, UK (BHPA)
Runar Halling, Norway (NLF)
Laszlo Szollosi, Hungary (HFFA)
Laszlo Kerekes, Hungary (HFFA)
Ulf Martensson, Sweden (SSFS)
Arne Hillestad, Norway (NLF)
Marion Varner, France (FFVL)
Claude Bredat, France (FFVL)
Beni Stocker, Switzerland, (SHV)
Karl Slezak, Germany (DHV)
Ewald Kaltenhofer, Austria (ÖAeC)
Mark Shaw, UK (BHPA)
Andre Bizot, Netherlands (KNLV)
Luisa Slezak, Germany (DHV), Minutes Secretary

Avvio dei lavori
Il meeting inizia alle 9:15 presso l'Hotel Martina di Praga. Il chairman Rodolfo Saccani dà il benvenuto ai delegati, ringrazia Miroslav per aver organizzato il meeting, ringrazia Luisa per l'ottimo lavoro fatto con le minute dello scorso anno e per essersi offerta di gestirle anche quest'anno.
Rodolfo Saccani informa i partecipanti che il general meeting di EHPU a Gennaio in Portogallo ha confermato la sua elezione a chairman di ESTC.

1. Verifica delle decisioni precedenti
1.1. Regole di precedenza comuni, campagna anti-collisioni
Nel corso dell meeting del 2015 è stato deciso di assegnare a Karl la redazione di una proposta per un set di regole europee comuni per il volo, incluso il volo in termica e in dinamica. Lo scopo era quello di spiegare le regole in modo facile e comprensibile principalmente attraverso diagrammi e disegni. Questa guida andrà pubblicata all'interno delle riviste e dei siti web delle organizzazioni di volo libero europee, ciascuna nella sua lingua, così da avviare una campagna anti-collisioni di portata europea.
Karl spiega di aver interrotto i lavori a causa di problematiche legali legate a SERA, le nuove “Standardized European Rules of the Air”. Sebbene SERA coinvolga anche parapendio e deltaplano, non prevede regole specifiche per il volo in termica e in dinamica. Questo rischia di porre problemi di tipo legale qualora si pubblicasse regole di precedenza che contrastano con SERA. A titolo di esempio SERA consente il sorpasso a destra e a sinistra per alianti, parapendii e deltaplani, mentre la raccomandazione ESTC è di sorpassare a destra. In caso di rotta di collisione l'unica regola SERA è “chi viene da destra ha la precedenza”. Questa è una contraddizione potenzialmente pericolosa rispetto alla comune regola del volo in termica “dai la precedenza a chi sta girando in termica”. Edwald spiega che in questo momento in Austria non ci sono regole ufficiali per il volo in termica e dinamica proprio perché le regole relative al volo di deltplani e parapendii sono state completamente rimpiazzate dalla regole SERA. In questa situazione Karl ha preferito non rischiare di produrre un documento la cui validità legale poteva essere dubbia.

Al termine della discussione e grazie all'importante input di Marion in qualità di legale, ESTC prende le seguenti decisioni.
- Karl viene nuovamente incaricato di questo compito. Preparerà una proposta di regole di precedenza comuni europee che non constrastino con le regole di SERA.
- Dal momento che SERA definisce regole che si applicano a deltaplano e parapendio, le nuove regole dovrebbero entrare in SERA. Come obiettivo di lungo termine EHPU dovrebbe attivare i propri contatti per far si che la legislazione europea adotti (in SERA) regole comuni per il volo in termica e dinamica. Questo passo dovrebbe essere fatto coordinandosi con le organizzazioni che si occupano di volo a vela.

1.2. Analisi periodica del database europeo di incidenti
Al meeting del 2015 Karl si è preso l'incarico di analizzare periodicamente (2-3 volte l'anno) il database europeo di incidenti per evidenziare trend degni di attenzione. Karl spiega di non aver potuto eseguire questo compito in modo adeguato a causa del fatto che molti report di incidente sono incompleti. In particolare i report della Francia, che sono centinaia, non sono adatti ad una analisi perché i dati più importanti, inclusa una breve descrizione in inglese della dinamica, sono assenti. Claude spiega che ci sono due sistemi di segnalazione incidenti in FFVL. I piloti usano il sistema FFVL e poi c'è un trasferimento dati automatico verso il database europeo. A quanto pare questo sistema non funziona correttamente. Dave spiega che BHPA ha avuto un problema analogo quando il database EHPU.
Decisione: Marion si fa carico del problema e farà in modo che l'internet officer di FFVL ristrutturi il sistema perché i report nel database EHPU abbiano tutti i dati. Karl effettuerà report periodici non appena riceverà queste informazioni da FFVL.

1.4. Accesso in sola lettura al database
Questo punto, discusso nel meeting del 2015, è stato completato. Il safety officer può creare account con permesso di modifica o per sola lettura.

1.5. Statistiche annuali in inglese su incidenti avvenuti in Germania
La Svezia e altre piccole associazioni hanno chiesto nel corso del meeting del 2015 al DHV di pubblicare le proprie statistiche annuali in inglese. Il report del 2015 è disponibile ed è stato inviato ai delegati via email. DHV tradurrà anche i report futuri.

1.6. Lettera al WG6
ESTC aveva chiesto a EHPU di scrivere una lettera al WG6 e ai laboratori di test con la chiara richiesta di tenere in considerazione ogni singola manovra eseguita durante i test di certificazione. Se l'esecuzione di una manovra è corretta, la reazione deve essere presa in considerazione (senza ritentare nel caso la reazione non rientri nella categoria voluta).
La lettera è stata scritta ed è disponibile qui:
Il WG6 ha discusso questa lettera e ha stabilito che la norma attuale vieta quello che abbiamo chiamato “best case testing” nel paragrafo 4.2 e pertanto non sono necessarie ulteriori modifiche. Questa interpretazione è stata registrata nelle minute del meeting WG6 che si è tenuto il 20 ottobre 2015 a Berlino.

Segue un riassunto del report ai membri ESTC inviato da Rodolfo Saccani via email a ottobre 2015:

Questo è il paragrafo 4.2:
4.2 Classificazione delle caratteristiche di volo
Quando testati in accordo con le procedure da a, vari aspetti del comportamento del parapendio vengono misurati. Queste misure sono classificate come definito nei paragrafi da 4.4.1 a 4.4.23.
La classe del parapendio è determinata dalla più alta classificazione ottenuta, cioè dal più alto livello di capacità del pilota richiesto (vedere Tabella 1).

Secondo il WG6 questo paragrafo non significa solo che la classe finale assegnata al parapendio è determinata dalla più alta classe assegnata a ciascuna manovra, ma anche che la classificazione di ciascuna manovra è determinata dalla più alta classificazione di ciascuna esecuzione della manovra stessa (nel caso la manovra sia eseguita più volte), intendendo quindi che il best case testing è già vietato e lo è sempre stato.

2. EHPU interrompe i finaziamenti ad AFNOR per i lavori di segretariato del WG6
L'accordo tra EHPU e AFNOR riguardo il finanziamento dei lavori di segretariato con soldi di EHPU è scaduto alla fine del 2015. Il general meeting di EHPU del 2016 ha deciso di non continuare questo finanziamento. Si avviano invece negoziazioni con AFNOR o altra istituzione EN. Questo argomento ha avviato una lunga discussione in ESTC. Arne spiega che la decisione di EHPU è stata presa con una maggioranza di 8 voti contro 5.
La principali ragione all'origine di questa decisione è l'insoddisfazione nei confronti dei risultati dei meeting WG6 riguardo la sicurezza e la pesante influenza che i produttori e i laboratori di test hanno sui lavori del WG6, oltre alla sempre più scarsa influenza che esercitano i rappresentanti dei piloti, che pagano per questi lavori.
Marion spiega che la federazione francese FFVL ha inviato una lettera a tutte le organizzazioni europee e ad EHPU per convincerli a continuare i lavori del WG6 e i pagamenti ad AFNOR.
FFVL ha deciso di pagare lei per i lavori del WG6 e chiede alle altre organizzazioni di contribuire a questo pagamento. Marion e Claude si appellano a ESTC perché il lavoro del WG6 non sia abbandonato perché sviluppare un buon standard è uno degli obiettivi di EHPU ed è stata una delle ragioni per fondare EHPU. Marion riferisce che né EHPU né le altre organizzazioni hanno risposto alla lettera di FFVL.
Decisione: FFVL scriverà una nuova lettera al responsabile politico e al responsabile della sicurezza di ciascuna organizzazione europea.

3. Aggiornamento sulle regole per gli stranieri in Austria
Ewald riferisce che la nuova legge è sul tavolo dei ministri in attesa della firma. Questa legge consente il riconoscimento automatico delle license di un certo numero di paesi. Il problema è che la nuova legge non riguarda solo alianti, parapendio e deltaplano ma anche aviazione leggera. Dal momento che ci sono delle problematiche sull'aviazione leggera, ci sono ancora discussioni in corso.
Il 1 maggio è entrata in vigore un'altra legge che rende più facile il volo in Austria agli stranieri. E' richiesto un test presso una scuola di volo Austriaca. Se il test viene passato si riceve una licenza temporanea della validità di un anno.

4. Database europeo degli incidenti
Sono oltre 2400 gli incidenti e inconvenienti inseriti nel database europeo.
La tabella che segue riassume i dettagli.


Numero di report

Qualità dei dati

Czech Republik
























United Kingdom























4.1. Problema con report parzialmente compilati
Ci sono ancora problemi con dati che spariscono se l'utente fa errori durante la compilazione del form. Dave e Rodolfo Saccani hanno identificato uno dei problemi: se si digita un valore non valido in un campo libero (non drop-down), ad esempio “100kg” invece del solo numero “100”, il sistema informa l'utente dell'errore ma allo stesso tempo resetta tutti i meno drop-down al default. Questa è probabilmente la causa di alcuni report incompleti.
Decisione: Riportare il problema ad Alex (lo sviluppatore) affinché sia corretto.

4.2. Partecipazione dell'Austria
Ewald riferisce che attualmente non è possibile introdurre ufficialmente il database EHPU in Austria. Gli incidenti e gli inconvenienti devono essere segnalati ad Auscontrol, che offre un sistema di segnalazione online. Questo limita l'adozione del sistema EHPU che richiederebbe un doppio inserimento. Non è possibile collegare i due sistemi in quanto la federazione non ha il controllo sul sistema di Auscontrol.

4.3. Risponsta standard via email ai report di incidente
Molti dei responsabili del database EHPU sanno che quando viene inserito un report il pilota che non riceve feedback non è sicuro di averlo inserito correttamente e spesso anche deluso dalla mancanza di interesse nel loro report. Alcuni responsabili mandano una mail personale a ciascun pilota ma questo prende molto tempo. ESTC ha discusso della possibiltà di inserire una email automatica in risposta alle segnalazioni di incidente.
Decisione: Deve essere inserita una email automatica a chi ha inserito il report. Una proposta per il testo della mail è nell'Appendice 1. Ci deve essere un campo adizionale per l'indirizzo email attraverso il quale il pilota vuole diaolgare con EHPU. Questo è necessario perché chi inserisce il report può desiderare che queste comunicazioni avvengano solo via uno specifico e confidenziale indirizzo.

Beni riferisce di incidenti in Svizzera in cui due elicotteri hanno di poco evitato una collisione con mezzi da parapendio. E' possibile che vengano introdotte restrizioni al volo in prossimità di eliporti. Il sistema migliore per gestire il rischio è il FLARM, piuttosto che restrizioni al volo.
Il produttore svizzero Flytec ha smesso di produrre strumenti con FLARM. La soluzione può arrivare dal fatto che ormai molti droni stanno volando in Svizzera e potrebbero avere anche loro bisogno di un sistema di questo tipo. Questo potrebbe portare a soluzioni dai costi e pesi contenuti. SHV sta intanto valutando di supportare nuovamente il FLARM. C'è da specificare che si parla di FLARM passivo, senza schermo, solo per essere visti.
Nella discussione che segue appare evidente che non c'è una grande esperienza di uso del FLARM nel volo libero. Dave avverte che l'uso del FLARM attivo andrebbe ad incoraggiare il volo in nube, cosa da evitare. Dal momento che i droni saranno sempre più presenti negli spazi in cui voliamo, è sempre più utile trovare una soluzione comune. Karl riferisce che il DHV ha incontrato il Ministero dei Trasporti per esprimere preoccupazioni rispetto al trafico di droni in spazi aerei non controllati. Il ministro ha dimostrato di condividere le preoccupazioni e promesso di tenerle in considerazione.
Rodolfo Saccani conclude con la richiesta a tutti i membri EHPU di far circolare ogni informazione sull'argomento. Lui e Jens esprimono la preoccupazione verso la futura possibile introduzione di restrizioni al volo qualora i mezzi da volo libero (così come i droni) non abbiano un modo per rendersi visibili agli altri aeromobili.

6. Nuova legge in Italia
Rodolfo Saccani ringrazia tutti i membri ESTC che hanno partecipato alla raccolta di informazioni circa le restrizioni al volo libero in Europa. Questo contributo è stato estremamente utile.
Fino ad ora non ci sono state decisioni di sorta e in ogni caso qualunque decisione richiederà ancora molto tempo. La proposta di legge di AeCI prevedere restrizioni per mezzi da volo libero e FIVL continuerà a battersi per quanta più libertà possibile.

7. Safety Management System (SMS)
Raumond chiede di raccogliere feedback sul documento che ha fatto circolare. Raymond non è presente al meeting quindi non può presentare il progetto. Andre riferisce circa il sistema SMS della federazione olandese. Si tengono sessioni annuali di analisi di tutti gli incidenti segnalati, inclusi incidenti minori ed errori avvenuti nelle scuole, club e piloti. Il risultato è presentato alle scuole e ai club alla fine di ogni anno. Andre dice che in molti casi è facile cambiare piccoli comportamenti affinché gli incidenti non si ripetano e che è molto utile creare un ambiente in cui si discute di come evitare gli errori.

8. Fibbie delle sellette
Karl introduce l'argomento spiegando quello che è successo e che ha portato ad un avviso di sicurezza che coinvolge centinaia se non migliaia di imbraghi.
Ci sono stati diversi report di fibbie del ventrale che si sono aperte ed una fatalità in Italia. L'ultimo avviso è relativo alle fibbie Finsterwalder Clicklock e T-lock ma anche fibbie di altri produttori hanno avuto problemi in passato. Segue una lunga discussione da cui deriva la seguente decisione.
E' necessario contemplare che un sistema tecnico come una fibbia può fallire a causa di uso, errori, difetti del materiale o di produzione, ghiaccio, neve, sporcizia nei meccanismi. Dobbiamo accettare che questi sistema non possono essere sempre affidabili. ESTC raccomanda un ulteriore test per i test di certificazione che miri ad assicurarsi che il pilota non possa cadere fuori dall'imbrago nel caso una fibbia si apra.
Si suggerisce la seguente definizione (grazie all'avvocato Marion): “Il cedimento di una singola fibbia usata per assicurare il pilota nell'imbrago non deve consentire al pilota di cadere fuori da esso”.

9. Progetto per passeggeri tandem disabili
Arne mostra un video di una sedia a rotelle sviluppata per il volo in tandem. Segue breve discussione su esperienze analoghe.

10. Località e data del prossimo meeting
Lazslo invita ESTC a Budapest, Ungheria, il 10 Giugno 2017

Letter from Rodolfo Saccani (ESTC) to WG6 - september 2015


14 Setpember 2015

Dear CEN/TC 136/WG6 member,
during the last meeting of the European Safety and Training Committee of EHPU (European Hang-gliding and Paragliding Union), the committee took the following decision:

"ESTC, as the technical emanation of EHPU, should write a letter to the WG 6 and the test laboratories asking that every test maneuver, when properly executed according to the test protocol, is taken into account for the classification. If a maneuver has been executed more than once, the worst result should determine the certification. No "best-case-testing" anymore. For upcoming modifications of the standard EN 926-2, it should be clearly written in the test flight rules that every valid maneuver has to be taken into account for classification."

As the chairman of ESTC I am therefore bringing to the attention of the WG6 members this recommendation coming from the safety officers of the major European free flight organizations.

At the meeting the following nations were represented: Norway, Denmark, France, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Sweden, Romania, Netherlands, UK, Austria, Germany, Italy.

The motivation behind such recommendation from ESTC is the fact that with current gliders, in many cases, small changes in the execution of a maneuver may lead to a wide range of reactions some of which fall within the acceptable reactions for one category and some in a different category.

The current EN926-2 norm does not specify what happens, for example, if the same maneuver is executed twice, both times executed properly and according to the protocol, and two different reactions are obtained, and these two reactions fall into two different glider classification classes, for example B and C.

Which classification should the glider get for such maneuver? B or C?

Given that the EN926-2, probably assuming a repeatable behavior (same test maneuver, same reaction every time), does not specify what to do in such situation, ESTC is worried that this might lead, in some cases, to mis-categorization of gliders.

The suggestion from ESTC is that, whenever different reactions leading to different classifications happen, the worst reaction should determine the glider classification.

In the example above the glider should be certified as a C glider, not B.

A request for clarification (02-2015) has been filed this year by Italy about this issue. The request for clarification has been discussed at the previous WG6 meeting on 2016-05-29/30. I wasn't present at that meeting and I see from the minutes that the result of the discussion is "No action".

I suggest to re-open the discussion on that request for clarification based on this input from ESTC, in the agenda of the next WG6 meeting.

For further details, the minutes of the 2015 ESTC meeting are available on the EHPU website:


I am available to provide any clarification. I can be contacted by email at and by phone at +39 3355844936.


Best regards
Rodolfo Saccani

ESTC meeting 2015 minutes (english)

ESTC Meeting 2015 – 13th of June, Herrsching am Ammersee/Germany

Meeting minutes

Persons present:
Arne Hillestad, Norway (NLF)
Jens Voetmann, Denmark, (DHPU)
Jean Pierre, France, (FFVL)
Claude Bredat, France, (FFVL)
Marion Varner, France, (FFVL)
Miroslav Vejt, Czech Republik, (LAA CR)
Martin Kinzl, Switzerland, (SHV)
Beni Stocker, Switzerland, (SHV)
Hans-Peter Fallesen, Sweden, (SSFF)
Valentin Popa , Romania, (AZLR)
Andre Bizot, Netherlands, (KNVvL)
Dave Thompson, UK, (BHPA)
John Lovell, UK, (BHPA)
Ewald Kaltenhofer, Austria (ÖAeC)
Karl Slezak, Germany, (DHV)
Luisa Slezak, (Minutes) Germany, (DHV)
Roland Börschel, Germany (DHV)
Horst Barthelmes, Germany, (DHV)
Rodolfo Saccani, Italy, (FIVL)

After killing as much mosquitoes as possible in the meeting room, the meeting starts at about 9:30 AM

Greetings to John
As announced at the last meeting in Nice, John Lovell lays down his function as the chairman of the ESTC after 15 years. On behalf of the whole ESTC, Karl thanks John (and Yvonne for keeping the minutes in all these years) for his long voluntary commitment.
Long applause from the participants.

Elections of new chairman
Rodolfo Saccani was appointed chairman by Rasmus Rohlff, former EHPU General Secretary. He asks for a formal election of the new chairman by the ESTC members.
It has been determined that no other candidate is available for the election. An open election took place, unanimously voting for Rodolfo Saccani.
At 11:00 AM, Rodolfo Saccani took over the temporary chairmanship of ESTC. The chairmanship has to be confirmed by the EHPU Presidents Meeting in January 2016.

Acknowledgment of tests for airsports devices carried out by the test laboratory Aerotest from the French Association FFVL
Marion presents a letter to Karl, sent from the German Ministry for Transport and Traffic
to the lawyers of the French federation (but Karl already was aware of this letter). In this letter it is confirmed that certifications according to EN 926-1 and 926-2 (paraglider load and flight tests) issued by Aerotest are fully acknowledged in Germany, in the same way as certifications from the DAkkS-accredited test laboratories. Background is that every certification issued by a governmental representative from an EU-Member country has to be acknowledged according to the German air traffic law.
Karl: How will the French association proceed?
Marion: Open for anything, there is a cooperation with Air Turquoise, but even cooperation with DHV is thinkable.
Andre: Which paragliders tested in France can be used in Germany?
Karl: Only those with certification issued by Aerotest

EHPU Financing ESTC
Rodolfo Saccani and 2015 EHPU Chairman Arne informed the ESTC that EHPU took the decision, at the last annual meeting, to finance the ESTC-Meetings with an amount of € 2000/year. The organization hosting the annual ESTC meeting can issue an invoice to EHPU up to this amount to help covering the costs.

Pilot survey
Rodolfo Saccani asks for the real number of active pilots in the single countries. Problem: In some countries the licenses are valid unlimitedly, in others they are limited and must be renewed in a certain period of time. Some of the numbers therefore will be estimations.

A try:
Norway: 2150 PG, 210 HG
Denmark: 850 total
France: 23000 PG, 1200 HG
Czech Republic: 2500 PG, 200 HG
Switzerland: 15700 PG and HG
Sweden: 1500 PG, 150 HG
Romania: 1300 PG, 17 HG (problems to control licences, unknown number of active pilots without licences)
Netherlands: 1526 PG, 327 HG (difficult estimation of pilots)
UK: 4600 PG, 1500 HG
Austria: 4000 PG, 500 HG (valid licences 26000)
Germany: 34000 PG, 3000 HG
Italy: 9000 PG, 1000 HG

Austrian guest flight rules
Ewald stated that there will finally be guest flight rules in Austria. They will not be based on the IPPI-Card rating from FAI (like e.g. in Germany) but on acknowledgement of the national licenses. The Aeroclub and the Austrian Ministry of Transport are currently working on a list of the acknowledged licenses.
In order to proof whether the foreign licenses are at least equivalent to the Austrian licenses, the Austrian Aeroclub has send a letter to all European Federations/Aeroclubs asking for information about the training requirements for the national licenses. By the end of the summer there should be a list of acknowledged licenses. At the moment, the following licenses are positively proven by the Austrian Aeroclub and proposed to the Austrian Ministry of Transport:
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Development of accident numbers
Karl presents the paragliding accident statistics for Germany (German pilots at home and abroad) since 1997. It shows that the number of paraglider pilots has increased during the last 15 years from 20.000 to 34.000. The number of reported incidents and accidents has increased too, but compared to the increasing number of pilots, the curve of the increasing incidents/accidents is flatter.
The number of fatal accidents per year has been roughly stable during the last 15 years, between 8 and 12 on average.
Carefully spoken, that means that during the last 15 years paragliding has become safer.

Rodolfo Saccani: the number of fatalities in Italy stayed almost the same over the years, with a constant number of pilots. Knowledge of techniques and weather-conditions, passive safety of gliders in lower classes have increased greatly over the last 15 years but today we can see two different types of pilots: those who take advantage of all these improvements and fly much safer than 15 years ago and those who fly gliders in higher classes, have a more competitive approach (also related to online competitions) and take more risks. The final result is a constant rate of fatalities.
Question: Why is the number of the pilots in Germany increasing?
Karl: The main reason is probably that DHV promotes supervised flying intensively (magazines, internet): Pilots who don´t fly frequently should fly only class A gliders or max. low level B-gliders (less serious accidents, statistically) and should fly supervised by flight schools.

Karl stated out that mid-air-collisions are a serious problem – several fatalities – a lot of dangerous situations, that could have developed into serious accidents. DHV has started a humorous campaign in his members magazine in order to remind the pilots to the rules of the air.
Proposal: EHPU should create an information flyer (with simple design) which shows the common rules of the air in the European countries and even informs about differences. This flyer (maybe double-side) should be published once a year in the member-magazines of all the European federations and even on their websites.
DHV would work on it and will send a first proposal as soon as possible. It is agreed that, apart from the specific rules, a main-rule should apply: It is the duty of all pilots to maintain a safe distance to all other pilots.

Dave and Marion remind that there should be a careful use of the wording "right of way" because pilots who think they have right of way “don´t think” at all. In almost every case there is a duty to "give way". For the common EHPU-information about the rules of the air, this should be taken into consideration. Dave explains that there is a difference between law and rules. E.g. the regulations for overtaking or thermaling in the UK are not law, but rules, given from the federation.
Marion reports that in case there are no legal regulations for specific mid air encounters but rules from a responsible body (federation) are available, a court will always refer to these rules. Therefore, even the rules should get as much attention as laws legally in force.
Decision: DHV work on a proposal for common EHPU rules of the air for paragliders and hanggliders.

On behalf of the DHV-Board, Karl asks for a common rule for flying at a ridge. It has to be defined more precisely whether the rules are valid only while flying at a slope or even in case of flying above a ridge.
A long discussion with several proposals for a definition took place. For details, see record of the meeting. Finally, the ESTC agreed the following common rule for ridge soaring.
Decision: Approaching head on when ridge soaring or near a slope or an obstacle: The glider with the ridge/slope/obstacle on his left hand side has to give way and has to change his course to the right.
In order to make both situations clear, near the slope and above the ridge, the EHPU information side of common rules should contain clear drawings of the different situations.

Thermal rule: "While thermaling, the slower climbing pilot has to give way to the faster climbing pilot".
Legal situation concerning this rule: In most of the countries it is unknown. But in Switzerland it is part of the law and in Germany it is part of the specific rules for paragliders and hanggliders, issued by the DHV as representative of the Ministry of Transport.
After a long discussion the ESTC took the following
Decision: When thermaling, neither the faster climbing nor the slower climbing pilot has the right of way. Both are responsible for a safe distance.
Switzerland and Germany are asked to work for changing their national rules.

According to the new SERA (Standardized Rules of the Air), gliders (sailplanes) can choose the overtaking-direction. Both sides, left and right (former, only right) are allowed now. Question: Should this rule also be valid for paragliders and hanggliders?
Decision: There is no need to change the existing rule: Overtaking only at the right hand side.

Landing approach
It is a common law in whole Europe that during landing approach, the higher flying aircraft has to give way to the lower flying aircraft. In spite of that, it is agreed that this rule should be part of the EHPU rules of the air:
During the landing approach the higher flying pilot has to give way to the lower flying pilot.

Alcohol, Drugs
After a long discussion about the question, whether the EHPU rules of the air should contain something about flying under influence of alcohol or drugs, the majority votes against that proposal. The common rules should be limited to the essentials with the clear emphasis of avoiding collision. Apart from that, flying under influence of alcohol and drugs is forbidden by law in every single country.
Decision: No rule about alcohol/drugs should be in the document, the document is about collision avoidance

EHPU-Accident database
New database-member
France has joined the database, the week before the ESTC-Meeting. Everybody is happy now, because France is one of the major paragliding/hanggliding countries in Europe. The more data from accidents and incidents can be found in the database, the better is the profit for research and analysis.

View-only function
Karl explains that the programmer is currently programming a view-only function. This means, there will be the possibility to give database-accounts to people who are then able to see the data but not to edit the data.

Database-access for pilots
Hans-Peter: All pilots/federation-members should be able to get the information from the database with the view-only function. In Sweden, only few accidents happen and only a part of them are reported. It would be a better motivation for reporting incidents/accidents, if the pilots could see the benefit for all pilots- public accident reports. A survey in the Swedish magazine showed that there´s huge interest in information about accidents. Due to the small amount of accidents in Sweden, European database is fantastic tool to use to help pilots.

Karl: In Germany, the DHV doesn't want to make the data public to all pilots. More than 250 incidents/accidents a year – it is not possible for the DHV safety officer to investigate every accident thoroughly. Partly accident reports are incorrectly filled out by the pilots themselves. The DHV only publishes fully investigated accident reports on his website. Another problem might be faked accidents that are only reported to harm producers/brands.

Beni: Pilot might blame behaviour of glider even though he himself made a mistake – publishing untrue facts can cause trouble with manufacturers.

Martin: We have to take into consideration, that possible identification of the accident pilot, in case of publishing the accidents, might stop pilots from reporting.

John, Dave: The BHPA publish main data from UK accidents on the BHPA-Website. There is a tool, which automatically takes the data from the BHPA national accident database into a form on the BHPA-Website with the following informations: Date/sex/age/licence/location/condition/wing, launch type/glider/short summary/injury. Of course, every federation can do the same with the own national data.

After the following discusssion the ESTC took the following
Decision: Every federation is free to publish the national data for public purpose. But the EHPU data are furthermore confidential. Because the smaller federations have a well-founded interest in an analysis of the European data (because they have too few accidents for an own analysis), ESTC ask Karl to make a overview analysis 3 or 4 times a year. Karl agrees under the reservation of an approval of DHV-Board and DHV-CEO.

Analysis tool for the database
Currently, there is no analysis function programmed on the database. Only the search-function allows an analysis. It is consensus, that a statistic function, which generates diagrams on the base of the data, would be a useful tool. Karl will go in contact to the programmer in order to find a reasonable solution.

WG6, EN standard for paragliding equipment
Arne starts this topic with the question "What has to be updated? How shall we look into the WG6 and contribute to get a good safety standard? Is there a need for an improvement of gathering information?"
Beni: Work is finished on gliders and parachutes standard, work in progress on harness-standard and connecting elements.
In the following discussion (for details see record of the meeting), it gets obvious that inside ESTC there is lack of knowledge and information about the questions:
Who has the right to participate in WG 6? Who finances the work of WG 6? Who puts the WG 6 together? How often does that group meet? What is the space of time to review the EN-standards? Who can control WG 6?
Rodolfo Saccani, Marion and Arne explain the open questions.
It gets even obvious, that there is a certain dissatisfaction concerning the results of the certification by the test laboratories (classification of paragliders A-D). The criticism from a part of the participants is that it seems that the test laboratories partly work under the principle of "best case testing" which means that only the best results of the test flights are taken into consideration and the worse ones are ignored. Evidence for that is a number of certifications, particularly in EN-B, which appear to be clearly misplaced. Rodolfo Saccani determines that it is unacceptable that when the test manoeuvres are repeated multiple times, only the good outcomes may be used to determine the classification category of the glider. EN 926-2 is not totally clear in this regard and this should be fixed.

Karl explains that the DHV-retesting of A-and B-paragliders (DHV-safety tests) originates from the dissatisfaction with the results of the certification. More than 60 A and B gliders have been retested, partly with huge differences to the results of the EN-tests. The English version of the Safety Class database is currently a work in progress.

Beni says that testing according to the DHV-safety tests would be the better way to check a paraglider seriously. Because they allow the test pilot, to check the glider closer, if he thinks there is a weak point in the glider behaviour. For certification, the test pilot has to check the glider exactly according to the rules of EN, for example regarding the size of a frontal collapse (40%), even if he has clear evidence that a bit greater deflation would lead to a critical behaviour.

The ESTC then discussed whether the review of the test-flight videos by a group of experts involved in paragliding safety could represent a useful tool to share the knowledge about the difficulties of the certification process and at the same time to add some transparency and control over the operation of the test laboratories.
Marion asks for consideration of the fact that the test-flight videos are property of the manufacturers. He even says that no decision should be made at the ESTC level concerning the standard without the advice of the test laboratories and WG 6.

A long discussion follows and at the end, there are the following common
ESTC, as the technical emanation of EHPU, should write a letter to the WG 6 and the test laboratories asking that every test manoeuvre, when properly executed according to the test protocol, is taken into account for the classification. If a manoeuvre has been executed more than once, the worst result should determine the certification. No "best-case-testing" anymore. For upcoming modifications of the standard EN 926-2, it should be clearly written in the test flight rules that every valid manoeuvre has to be taken into account for classification.

Request to test laboratories and manufacturers: Please share certification videos with experts of ESTC and WG 6. This will both improve knowledge among the experts involved in safety decisions and also will provide a healthy super-partes control over the operation of the test laboratories. Upcoming modifications of the standard EN 926-2 should contain a duty to publish the test-flight videos.

A closer communication between EHPU/ESTC and WG 6 is absolutely necessary. The safety experts from the European Federations, who have a deep knowledge of the safety issues and their evolution over time, are willing to provide contributions to the development of the EN standard and EN should take advantage of this willingness.

During next year ESTC meeting this topic should be discussed again with a better preparation of the participants in advance.

EN standard for helmets CE-EN 966
Marion informs that the American organization allowed their pilots to use skiing helmets. Andre completes: CIVIL allowed skiing and snowboard helmets in competitions because there are more head shapes available.
Karl: For professional use (training, tandem) the use of EN-966 certified helmets is mandatory in Germany and probably in whole Europe.
Decision: ESTC will not make a recommendation to the pilots that they should use only EN-966 certified helmets.

Better communication from the ESTC committee
Rodolfo Saccani proposes to publish ESTC minutes, decisions and other documents on a publicly accessible section of the EHPU website.
Decision: ESTC asks EHPU to provide a public section on the EHPU websiste for publishing an edited version of the ESTC meetings minutes (specially edited for the public reading) and to also publish relevant news and updates about the committee operation.
Rodolfo Saccani is available to host this portion of the EHPU website on the FIVL webserver (maybe under the domain Technical details will be arranged between Rodolfo Saccani and the EHPU website maintainers.

Horst Barthelmes, towing expert from the DHV, gives a presentation about winch-towing in Germany. His research highlighted a problem with weaklinks. Main reason for breaks is that weaklinks aren't changed regularly, but used up until they break. In Germany it is mandatory to use 150-kg weaklings for towing single-paragliders. Horst proposes to change that requirement to 200-kg in the future, except for mobile winches and steel-ropes, and he asks the ESTC group about their experience with weaklinks.
France: Plastic weaklinks are normally in use, frequent replacement is necessary. Marion will report the matter to the committee in FFVL.
Norway: No standard for weaklinks
Denmark: Weaklinks are still used, won´t stop using them, started using weaklinks of greater strength (200kg instead of 150kg)
Switzerland: almost no winch towing, not a lot of knowledge
Sweden: A lot of towing is done; Chief instructor's statement about weak links: No standard for weaklinks. Rarely used nowdays. Very dangerous when weaklink releases below 30-40 meter above ground. Weaklinks are mandatory when towing with steel ropes.
Romania: Two schools use winches – no rules.
Netherlands: No weaklinks are in use at all.
UK: A lot of winching, weaklinks are used on everything, for paragliders usually 125 kg, sometimes 150 kg. Dave: the videos we have wathced showed human errors, not problems with weaklinks. Suggests huge foam ball around the weaklink, so pilot would not be hit by metal.
Austria: Only one school and two clubs have winches.

Symbol for paragliding/hanggliding-sites on the ICAO-Cards
Jens was asked by his safety chief, to bring up a new symbol to the ICAO Card . Sites should get a paraglider symbol not the hangglider symbol any longer, because there are ten times more paragliders in the air then hanggliders. Most of the participants agree, but Andre sees the danger, that the paraglider symbol could be confused with the already existing parachute symbol.
Recommendation: The matter should be discussed by the competent committees.

Place and time of next meeting
It comes clear that Herrsching is not the optimal solution for the wish of a central meeting point. Too far from the Munich airport (and too many mosquitoes). There are proposals about next year meeting to be held not too far from the Munich airport, which is easy to reach from all European countries, hoping to additionally motivate the participation of other EHPU members which have not participated the ESTC meetings until now. It is noted, though, that a more central location didn't improve the participation to this meeting. The current 2015 meeting has the same number of represented EHPU members as the previous year's meeting in Nice (Romania + Hungary -). Karl explained that a meeting closer to the Munich airport would generate much more costs for accommodation and the meeting room.
Miro proposes to hold the 2016 meeting in Prague, at a place near the airport. Everybody agrees.
Date: June, 11, 2016
Place: Prague, Cech Republic

No further topics

Rodolfo Saccani: Thanks to the DHV for the organisation and Luisa for taking the minutes.
Dave under applause of all participants: Thanks very much to Rodolfo Saccani for guiding his first ESTC Meeting as the chairman in an excellent way.

End: 6 PM
Minutes Secretary: Luisa Slezak

Minute del meeting ESTC 2015, traduzione di Rodolfo Saccani

ESTC Meeting 2015 – 13 giugno, Herrsching am Ammersee/Germania

Minute integrali

Persone presenti:
Arne Hillestad, Norvegia (NLF)
Jens Voetmann, Danimarca, (DHPU)
Jean Pierre, Francia, (FFVL)
Claude Bredat, Francia, (FFVL)
Marion Varner, Francia, (FFVL)
Miroslav Vejt, Repubblica Ceca, (LAA CR)
Martin Kinzl, Svizzera, (SHV)
Beni Stocker, Svizzera, (SHV)
Hans-Peter Fallesen, Svezia, (SSFF)
Valentin Popa , Romania, (AZLR)
Andre Bizot, Olanda, (KNVvL)
Dave Thompson, UK, (BHPA)
John Lovell, UK, (BHPA)
Ewald Kaltenhofer, Austria (ÖAeC)
Karl Slezak, Germania, (DHV)
Luisa Slezak, (Minute) Germania, (DHV)
Roland Börschel, Germania (DHV)
Horst Barthelmes, Germania, (DHV)
Rodolfo Saccani, Italia, (FIVL)

Dopo aver ucciso più zanzare possibile all'interno della sala riunioni, il meeting inizia alle 9.30.

Saluti a John
Come annunciato nello scorso meeting a Nizza, Jonh Lovell lascia il suo incarico di chairman dell'ESTC dopo 15 anni. A nome di tutto l'ESTC, Karl ringrazia John (e Yvonne per aver tenuto le minute in tutti questi anni) per il suo lungo impegno volontario.
Lungo applauso dei partecipanti.

Elezioni del nuovo chairman
Rodolfo Saccani è stato nominato chairman da Rasmus Rohlff, il precedente Segretario Generale di EHPU. Rodolfo Saccani chiede un'elezione formale del nuovo chairman da parte dei membri dell'ESTC.
Visto che non si presentano altri candidati, si tiene una elezione pubblica e Rodolfo Saccani viene eletto all'unanimità.
Alle 11 Rodolfo Saccani assume l'incarico di chairman dell'ESTC, incarico che dovrà essere confermato dal meeting EHPU di gennaio 2016.

L'associazione francese FFVL notifica il riconoscimento del laboratorio Aerotest
Marion(FFVL) consegna a Karl(DHV) una lettera inviata dal Ministero dei Trasporti tedesco ai legali della federazione francese (Karl ne era già a conoscenza). In questa lettera si conferma che le certificazioni in accordo alle norme EN 926-1 e 926-2 (test di carico e in volo per parapendio) emesse dal laboratorio Aerotest hanno pieno riconoscimento in Germania, allo stesso modo delle certificazioni rilasciate dai laboratori di test accreditati dal DAkkS. Per la legge tedesca sul traffico aereo infatti, le certificazioni rilasciate nei paesi membri della EU devono essere riconosciute dal governo tedesco per avere validità in quel paese.
Karl(DHV): Come procederà ora l'associazione francese?
Marion(FFVL): Siamo aperti a tutto, c'è una collaborazione in corso con Air Turquoise, ma anche la collaborazione con il DHV è ipotizzabile.
Andre(KNVvL): Quali ali da parapendio testate in Francia possono essere usate in Germania?
Karl(DHV): Solo quelle con certificazione rilasciata da Aerotest

EHPU finanzia ESTC
Rodolfo Saccani(FIVL) e il chairman di EHPU per il 2015 Arne(NLF) informano l'ESTC che EHPU ha deciso, nel corso dell'ultimo meeting annuale, di finanziare i meeting di ESTC con una somma di €2000 per anno. L'associazione che ospita il meeting annuale di ESTC può emettere una fattura ad EHPU fino a questa cifra come aiuto per la copertura dei costi.

Sondaggio sui piloti
Rodolfo Saccani(FIVL) chiede di elencare il numero di piloti realmente attivo nei vari paesi. Problema: in alcuni paesi le abilitazioni hanno validità illimitata, in altri sono limitate e devono essere rinnovate periodicamente. Alcuni dei numeri sono quindi delle stime.

Un tentativo:
Norvegia: 2150 Para, 210 Delta
Danimarca: 850 in totale
Francia: 23000 Para, 1200 Delta
Repubblica Ceca: 2500 Para, 200 Delta
Svizzera: 15700 Para e Delta
Svezia: 1500 Para, 150 Delta
Romania: 1300 ara, 17 Delta (problemi a tenere sotto controllo le abilitazioni, sconosciuto il numero di piloti attivi senza abilitazione)
Olanda: 1526 Para, 327 Delta
UK: 4600 Para, 1500 Delta
Austria: 4000 Para, 500 Delta (in totale 26000 rilaciate)
Germania: 34000 Para, 3000 Delta
Italia: 9000 Para, 1000 Delta

Nuove norme per piloti stranieri in Austria
Ewald(ÖAeC) informa che presto ci sarà una norma per regolamentare i piloti stranieri in Austria. Non sarà basata sulla IPPI card di FAI (come ad esempio in Germania) ma su un riconoscimento delle specifiche abilitazioni nazionali. L'Aeroclub e il Ministero dei Trasporti stanno lavorando ad una lista delle licenze riconosciute. Per valutare se le licenze straniere sono almeno equivalenti a quelle austriache, l'Aeroclub austriaco ha inviato delle lettere a tutte le Federazioni/Aeroclub/Associazioni europee chiedendo informazioni sui requisiti per il rilascio delle licenze. Entro la fine dell'estate dovrebbe essere operativa la lista di licenze riconosciute. Al momento, le seguenti licenze sono state approvate dall'Aeroclub austriaco e proposte al Ministero dei Trasporti:
Australia, Danimarca, Germania, Francia, Italia, Croazia, Lituania, Olanda, Norvegia, Polonia, Portogallo, Romania, Svezia, Svizzera, Slovacchia, Slovenia, Repubbica Ceca, Ucraina, Ungheria, UK.

Evoluzione del numero di incidenti
Karl(DHV) presenta le statistiche relative agli incidenti di parapendio in Germania (piloti tedeschi in patria o all'estero) dal 1997. Il numero di piloti è cresciuto negli ultimi 15 anni da 20mila a 34mila. Il numero di incidenti e inconvenienti riportati è anch'esso cresciuto, ma confrontato al numero di piloti, la curva degli incidenti/inconvenienti è più piatta.
Il numero di incidenti fatali per anno è rimasto all'incirca stabile negli ultimi 15 anni, tra 8 e 12 in media.
Con la prudenza del caso, significa che durante gli ultimi 15 anni il parapendio è diventato più sicuro.

Rodolfo Saccani(FIVL): il numero di incidenti fatali è molto variabile e si può fare confronti solo di lungo periodo, con questo criterio in Italia è rimasto pressoché costante nel tempo, con un numero di piloti attivi pressoché costante. Le conoscenze tecniche e meteorologiche sono migliorate negli ultimi 15 anni, anche la sicurezza passiva nelle classi inferiori, ma oggi si vedono due distinte tendenze: piloti che si avvantaggiano di tutti questi progressi e volano in modo molto più sicuro rispetto a 15 anni fa e piloti che volano mezzi di classi superiori, con un approccio più competitivo (grazie anche alle competizioni online) e che si assumono più rischi. Il risultato finale è una frequenza di incidenti fatali pressoché invariata.
Domanda: perché il numero di piloti in Germania è in crescita?
Karl(DHV): probabilmente il motivo principale è che il DHV promuove intensivamente il volo sotto supervisione (tramite rivista e internet): ai piloti che non volano frequentemente si raccomanda di volare solo mezzi certificati A o al massimo B basici (comportano incidenti meno seri dal punto di vista statistico) e gli si raccomanda di volare sotto la supervisione delle scuole.

Campagna anti-collisioni

Karl(DHV) riferisce che le collisioni in volo sono ormai un problema serio – diversi incidenti fatali – con molte situazioni di pericolo che avrebbero potuto evolvere incidenti seri. DHV ha iniziato una campagna umoristica sulla sua rivista per ricordare ai piloti le regole dell'aria.
Proposta: EHPU dovrebbe creare un opuscolo informativo (con grafica semplice) che illustri le regole dell'aria comuni tra i paesi europei e informare circa le eventuali differenze. L'opuscolo (magari a due facce) dovrebbe essere distribuito una volta all'anno all'interno delle riviste delle associazioni e sui loro siti web.
DHV è disponibile a lavorarci e mandare una proposta al più presto. C'è accordo sul fatto che, a parte le regole specifiche, una regola principale deve sempre essere evidenziata: è dovere di tutti i piloti mantenere una distanza di sicurezza da tutti gli altri piloti.

Dave(BHPA) e Marion(FFVL) ricordano che bisogna fare attenzione nell'utilizzo dell'espressione “diritto di precedenza” perché i piloti che pensano di avere la precedenza smettono di pensare. In quasi tutte le situazioni c'è un dovere a “dare la precedenza” non un diritto a riceverla. Questo dovrebbe essere tenuto in considerazione in tutte le iniziative informative di EHPU sulle regole dell'aria.
Dave(BHPA) spiega che c'è differenza tra leggi e regole. Ad esempio le regole per il sorpasso o il volo in termica in UK non sono legge ma regole diramate dalla federazione.
Marion(FFVL) informa che in caso non ci siano leggi specifiche per determinate situazioni ma esistano regole emesse da un organismo responsabile, come una federazione, un tribunale farà sempre riferimento a tali regole. Pertanto, anche le regole meritano la stessa attenzione delle vere e proprie leggi.
Decisione: DHV lavorerà ad una proposta per regole dell'aria comuni per i paesi EHPU, per parapendio e deltaplano.

A nome del consiglio direttivo di DHV, Karl chiede di definire una regola comune per il volo a costone. E' necessario definire in modo più preciso se le regole valgono solo quando si vola accanto al costone o anche quando si è più alti.
Segue una lunga discussione con diverse proposte. Per i dettagli fare riferimento alla registrazione del meeting. Al termine, l'ESTC esprime accordo sulla seguente regola per il volo lungo il costone:
Decisione: in un incontro frontale accanto ad un costone o un ostacolo il mezzo con il costone/ostacolo alla sua sinistra deve dare la precedenza e cambiare direzione girando a destra.
Perché sia chiaro che la regola si applica sia alla quota del costone che sopra di esso, le informazioni fornite da EHPU saranno corredate da chiari disegni delle diverse situazioni.

Volo in termica: “In termica il pilota che sale più lentamente deve dare la precedenza al pilota che sale più velocemente”.
La situazione legale relativa a questa regola è questa: nella maggior parte dei paesi questa regola non esiste. In Svizzera è legge e in Germania è una delle regole dell'aria emesse dal DHV in qualità di rappresentante del Ministero dei Trasporti.
Dopo una lunga discussione, ESTC prende la seguente
Decisione: in termica nessun pilota ha precedenza in base alla propria o altrui velocità di salita. Tutti i piloti sono responsabili del mantenimento di una distanza di sicurezza.
A Svizzera e Germania è richiesto di lavorare per modificare le regole nazionali.

In accordo con la nuova SERA (Standardized Rules of the Air), gli alianti possono scegliere la direzione del sorpasso. Entrambi i lati, destra e sinistra, sono consentiti (precedentemente il sorpasso era consentito solo a destra). Domanda: riteniamo utile applicare la stessa regola a parapendio e deltaplano?
Decisione: non c'è necessità di modificare la regola attuale, si continua a sorpassare solo a destra.

Avvicinamento all'atterraggio
E' una norma comune in Europa che durante l'avvicinamento il mezzo più alto dia la precedenza al mezzo più basso. In accordo con questo, le regole EHPU dovranno contemplare che:
Durante l'avvicinamento all'atterraggio il pilota più alto deve dare la precedenza al pilota più basso di lui.

Alcool, Droghe
Dopo una lunga discussione sull'opportunità di includere nelle regole dell'aria EHPU una norma sul volo sotto l'influenza di alcool o droghe, la maggioranza dei membri vota contro questa proposta. Le regole dell'aria devono essere limitate all'essenziale con una chiara enfasi alla prevenzione di collisioni. Al di là di questo, il volo sotto l'influenza di alcool e droghe è già vietato dalla legge in tutti i paesi.
Decisione: Nessuna regola specifica su alcool/droghe sarà presente nel documento EHPU, il documento si limiterà alla prevenzione delle collisioni.

Database di incidenti EHPU

Nuovo membro del database
La Francia si è appena unita al database europeo, giusto la settimana precedente il meeting ESTC. Questo rende felici tutti perché la Francia è un dei paesi principali in Europa per il volo libero. Più dati abbiamo in database su incidenti/inconvenienti, migliore sarà il risultato del lavoro di ricerca e e analisi.

Funzionalità di sola lettura
Karl(DHV) spiega che lo sviluppatore sta lavorando ad una funzionalità di sola lettura. Questo consentirà di avere account che possono consultare i dati ma non modificarli.

Accesso al database per i piloti
Hans-Peter(SSFF): tutti i piloti associati alle nostre organizzazioni dovrebbero poter accedere al database in sola lettura. In Svezia accadono pochi incidenti e solo una parte viene segnalata. Se i piloti potessero accedere al database questo li motiverebbe a segnalare gli incidenti. Un sondaggio condotto nella rivista svedese ha evidenziato un grande interesse sugli incidenti. Proprio a causa del nostro numero esiguo di incidenti, il database europeo è uno strumento fantastico per aiutare i piloti.

Karl(DHV): In Germania il DHV non rende i dati pubblici e accessibili a tutti i piloti. Si verificano oltre 250 incidenti l'anno – non è possibile per il responsabile sicurezza del DHV investigarli tutti in profondità. Alcuni rapporti di incidente sono inseriti con errori o informazioni poco corrette, quindi DHV pubblica sul suo sito solo gli incidenti su cui si è svolta una investigazione tecnica. Un altro problema del rendere i dati pubblici possono essere i falsi rapporti di incidente inseriti solo per danneggiare produttori o marchi.

Beni(SHV): Spesso il pilota leggendo i report tende ad incolpare il mezzo di errori che invece sono umani – pubblicare fatti non reali può danneggiare inutilmente i produttori.

Martin(SHV): Dobbiamo anche considerare che la pubblicazione senza filtri introduce la possibilità di identificare il pilota vittima dell'incidente, cosa che scoraggerebbe le segnalazioni.

John(BHPA), Dave(BHPA): La BHPA pubblica sul suo sito i dati principali degli incidenti a piloti inglesi. I dati vengono presi direttamente dal database nazionale mostrando le seguenti informazioni: Data, sesso, età, abilitazione, località, condizioni, mezzo, tipo di decollo, dinamica, esito. Naturalmente ciascuna federazione è libera di fare ciò che vuole con i propri dati.

Dopo la discussione che è seguita, ESTC ha preso la seguente
Decisione: Ciascuna federazione è libera di pubblicare i propri dati pubblicamente, i dati EHPU però hanno una confidenzialità maggiore. Per andare incontro alle federazioni minori che hanno un fondato interesse ad analizzare i dati europei (perché hanno troppo pochi incidenti per fare una propria analisi), ESTC chiede a Karl(DHV) di fare una analisi generale 3 o 4 volte l'anno e condividerla. Karl accetta, con la riserva dell'approvazione del consiglio direttivo e del presidente DHV.

Strumento di analisi statistica per il database
Attualmente il database europeo non ha funzionalità di analisi statistica ad esclusione delle funzioni di ricerca. Emerge un consenso sull'utilità di una funzionalità statistica in grado di generare diagrammi dai dati del database, Karl(DHV) si incarica di valutare con lo sviluppatore una soluzione ragionevole.

WG6, standard EN di certificazione per parapendio
Arne(NLF) apre l'argomento con la domanda “Chi deve essere aggiornato? Come possiamo avere visibilità sul WG6 e contribuire ad uno standard di sicurezza di qualità? Ci sono margini per migliorare la condivisione di informazioni?”
Beni(SHV): il lavoro sulle norme per le ali da parapendio e per i paracadute di soccorso si è concluso, si sta lavorando sulla norma per le sellette e gli elementi di connessione.
Nella discussione che segue appare evidente che alcuni membri di ESTC non hanno familiarità con le modalità di lavoro del WG6, non avendo un coinvolgimento diretto con lo stesso. Alcune delle domande che seguono sono state chiarite dai membri di ESTC che sono anche nel WG6. Rodolfo Saccani(FIVL), Marion(FFVL) e Arne(NLF) forniscono chiarimenti alle domande emerse.
E' ancora più ovvio che c'è una certa insoddisfazione circa i risultati delle certificazioni da parte dei laboratori di test. La critica di una parte dei partecipanti è che appare che i laboratori lavorino parzialmente secondo il principio del test “best case” cioè prendendo in considerazione solo i risultati migliori dei voli di test e ignorando i peggiori. Lo prova una certa quantità di certificazioni rilasciate, specialmente in EN-B, a mezzi che sembrano dover appartenere ad altre classi. Rodolfo Saccani(FIVL) ritiene inaccettabile che quando una manovra di test viene ripetuta più volte, sia possibile utilizzare solo le reazioni migliori per determinare la categoria del mezzo. La norma EN 926-2 non è chiara in proposito e questo dovrebbe essere corretto (ndr: c'è già una proposta di FIVL presso il WG6 per modificare questo aspetto).

Karl(DHV) spiega che il programma denominato “DHV-safety tests” incui il DHV ri-testa mezzi certificati in EN-A e in EN-B, è nato proprio dall'insoddisfazione per i risultati delle certificazioni. Sono stati ri-testati più di 60 mezzi A e B, in parte rilevando enormi differenze rispetto ai test EN. E' in corso la traduzione in inglese di questi test.

Beni(SHV) dice che i test eseguiti dal DHV rappresentano un sistema migliore di EN per testare a fondo un parapendio perché consentono al test pilot di fare test più approfonditi se ritiene ci sia un punto debole nel comportamento del mezzo. In EN il test pilot deve testare il mezzo seguendo alla lettera le regole EN, ad esempio nel caso di una asimmetrica, simulando una chiusura dle 40% anche se ci sono chiare evidenze che una chiusura leggermente più grande porterebbe ad un comportamento critico. (ndr: il test EN devono essere ripetibili e non possono quindi contemplare valutazioni soggettive)

L'ESTC ha poi discusso sul seguente tema: se i video dei voli di test fossero visionati da un gruppo di esperti di sicurezza del parapendio, questo non potrebbe essere un utile strumento per condividere la conoscenza sulle difficoltà che esistono nel processo di certificazione e allo stesso tempo aggiungere trasparenza e controllo sull'operato dei laboratori?
Marion(FFVL) chiede di considerare il fatto che i video dei voli di test sono proprietà dei produttori. Dice anche che ESTC non dovrebbe prendere decisioni sulle norme EN senza consultare i laboratori e il WG6.
Segue una lunga discussione al termine della quale si arriva alla seguente, comune
ESTC, in qualità di emanazione tecnica di EHPU, scriverà una lettera al WG6 e ai laboratori di test chiedendo che ogni manovra di test, quando eseguita in accordo con il protocollo, sia presa in considerazione per la classificazione del mezzo. Se una manovra viene eseguita più volte, il risultato peggiore deve determinare la classe di certificazione. Non deve più esserci possibilità di test “best case”. Nelle prossime modifiche allo standard EN 926-2 dovrà essere scritto in modo chiaro che ogni manovra valida deve essere presa in considerazione per la classificazione.

Richiesta ai laboratori di test e produttori: chiediamo di condividere i video delle certificazioni con gli esperti di ESTC e WG6. Questo migliorerà la conoscenza delle problematice tra gli esperti di sicurezza e rappresenterà un salutare controllo super-partes sull'operato dei laboratori di test. Si chiede anche che la norma EN 926-2 includa in futuro l'obbligo di pubblicazione dei video dei voli di test.

Una maggiore comunicazione tra EHPU/ESTC e il WG6 è assolutamente necessaria. Gli esperti di sicurezza delle organizzazioni di volo libero europee, con la loro conoscenza approfondita delle problematiche di sicurezza e della loro evoluzione nel tempo, sono disponibili a contribuire allo sviluppo di EN e EN dovrebbe avvantaggiarsi di questa disponibilità.

Questo argomento sarà trattato nuovamente nel corso del prossimo meeting annuale ESTC.

Standard CE-EN 966 per i caschi da volo libero
Marion(FFVL) informa che l'organizzazione di volo libero americana consente l'utilizzo di caschi da sci.
Andre(KNVvL) completa: CIVIL consente l'uso di caschi da sci e snowboard nelle competizioni perché c'è più varietà di misure e forme.
Karl(DHV): per un utilizzo professionale (didattica, tandem) l'uso di caschi certificati EN-966 è obbligatorio in Germania e probabilmente in tutta Europa.
Decisione: ESTC non emetterà una raccomandazione sull'uso di soli caschi certificati EN-966 per il volo libero.

Migliore comunicazione da parte di ESTC
Rodolfo Saccani(FIVL) propone che le minute di ESTC siano rese pubbliche, insieme ad altri documenti di interesse pubblico, attraverso il sito internet di EHPU.
Decisione: ESTC chiede ad EHPU di fornire una sezione pubblica del sito di EHPU per la pubblicazione di minute, aggiornamenti e documenti di ESTC.

Verricello e traino
Horst Barthelmes, esperto di decollo al verricello traino del DHV, fornisce una presentazione sull'utilizzo di questo strumento in Germania. La sua ricerca ha evidenziato un problema con i weaklink. Il motivo principale all'origine della rottura degli stessi è il fatto che non vengono sostituiti con regolarità ma utilizzati fino alla rottura. In Germania è obbligatorio l'uso di weaklinks da 150kg per trainare mezzi monoposto. Horst propone di portare il requisito minimo a 200kg in futuro, eccetto che per i verricelli portatili e cavi di acciaio, e chiede a ESTC di condividere le esperienze con i weaklink.
Segue uno scambio di esperienze ed informazioni tra i membri di ESTC.

Simbolo per parapendio/deltaplano sulle carte ICAO
Jens(DHPU) ha ricevuto la proposta, dal suo responsabile sicurezza, di realizzare un nuovo simbolo per le carte ICAO. I siti di volo libero dovrebbero avere come simbolo un parapendio al posto di un deltaplano perché ormai ci sono più parapendii che deltaplani. La maggior parte dei partecipanti è d'accordo ma Andre(KNVvL) vede il pericolo che il simbolo del parapendio possa essere confuso con il pre-esistente simbolo del paracadutismo.
Raccomandazione: è un argomento che dovrebbe essere affrontato dai comitati competenti.

Luogo e data del prossimo meeting
Miro(LAACR) propone di tenere il meeting del 2016 a Praga, in località vicina all'aeroporto. C'è accordo generale.
Data: 11 giugno 2016
Località: Praga, Repubbica ceca

Non ci sono altri argomenti

Rodolfo Saccani(FIVL): Ringrazia il DHV per l'organizzazione del meeting e Luisa per le minute del meeting.
Dave(BHPA) con l'applauso dei partecipanti: grazie a Rodolfo Saccani per aver guidato il suo primo meeting ESTC in modo eccellente.

Termine: 6 PM
Segretaria: Luisa Slezak

ESTC meeting 2014 minutes (english)

European Safety and Training Committee
Minutes of the meeting held 14th. June 2014 in Nice, France.

Members Present Representing
Miroslav Fejt. LAA CR Czech Republic
Jens Voetmann. Chairman DHPU Denmark
Jean-Pierre Pouleau. President FFVL France
Claude Bredat. Safety Officer FFVL France
Marion Varner. FFVL France
Karl Slezak. DHV Germany
Laszlo Szollosi Hungary
Rodolfo Saccani. FIVL Italy
Andre Bizot. KNVvL Netherlands
Arne Hillestad. HP/NLF Norway
Par Jonsson. President SSFF. Sweden
Martin Kinzl. FSVL Switzerland
Beni Stocker. FSVL Switzerland
John Lovell. BHPA Chairman ESTC United Kingdom
Dave Thompson BHPA United Kingdom

Apologies Representing
Ewald Kaltenhofer. Aeroclub Austria Austria
Karel Vanderheyden. FBVL Belgium
Raymond Caux. CIVL Safety Officer CIVL

Marco Ghivarello To demonstrate new equipment
Angelo Conte "

The Chairman thanked Jean-Pierre Pouleau and FFVL for hosting this meeting and took the opportunity to welcome Par Jonsson the SSFF President as a new member of this Committee.


In order to obtain funding for future ESTC meetings, the chairman will pursue this by contacting EHPU direct. Action John Lovell

Discussion took place to determine whether it would be better to establish a regular location for our meetings rather than visiting different countries.
A majority voted to continue to vary the meeting location, but it was decided that consideration should be made to hold meetings in places that would be relatively central and easy to get to.

In response to a request to consider participation at our meetings by representatives from Poland, it was agreed that they would be welcome to attend purely as observers but that EHPU General Secretary should try to get them to join EHPU and thus be able to participate fully.


The accident database is now up and running, and steadily being improved and fine detail added.
The need for privacy is being respected, and although everyone felt that data should be available to all members, obviously some detail, for example, names, must remain only available to Federation Safety Officers. The database construction permits this.
It was generally felt that it would be very useful to include a statistical tool on the database, which, at the moment cannot collate statistics.
FFVL do have such a statistical tool on their database, and Rodolfo Saccani already makes a statistical analysis of the information, which he is willing to share.
However, Karl said that he doubted that DHV would be willing to bear the cost of adding a statistical tool to the database, but he will make enquiries to find out how much it would cost.
Jens would like anyone who spots a trend to report it to all Safety Officers. Karl said that he does already look for trends for himself on behalf of DHV and will continue to circulate this information.

The Swiss would like to be able to present data in French for those who speak French in their country. However it was pointed out that the accepted language within EHPU is English. Nevertheless Marion offered help to them where he could.
Karl said that he already contacts manufacturers when equipment- related issues are reported in Germany and would now do so for the rest of Europe
The publication of Safety Notices on the EHPU website was raised and an agreed system of how we do this needs to be established. This subject is very important and all ESTC members need to communicate their views on how we can establish an effective method.
Dave Thompson pointed out that more National Federations need to come on board the European database in order to increase its effectiveness.


a) The Standardised European Rules of the Air.
These will have minimal effect on us as these rules are already generally applied in all member States.

b) Rule of the Air specific to our Sport.
Although the rules as defined by each Federation are generally aligned,
It seems that the rules regarding thermalling which have been established in Austria differ from every other nation.
Two things emerged from the lengthy discussion:-
a) Each Country MUST ensure that their website page includes "Rules of the Air for visiting Pilots"
b) Germany will reconsider their alignment with Austria regarding their thermalling rules and will contact Austria with a view to get them to align with the rest of Europe. Action Karl Slezak

a) Helmets
The use of ski-ing helmets was raised as Arne reported that pilots in Norway prefer to use them instead of EN966 helmets which are approved for paragliding and hang gliding.
Rodolfo Saccani reported that he had made comparisons tests which showed that ski helmets would be acceptable but could not prove it.
Andre said that a lot of money is spent on ski helmet development, so the product should be safer.
However it is clear at this time that EN966 helmets should always be used in schools.

b) Brummel hooks
David Thompson showed images of brummel hooks with large gaps in their opening faces which have caused several incidents due to separation. These faulty hooks have been as-supplied by equipment manufacturers and not due to wear or strain in use.
The gaps were large enough to allow thin upper cascade lines to become trapped thus creating an extremely dangerous situation.
There are several suitable alternatives; pictures of one, a key-ring connector were shown by Andre.
EHPU should raise this issue with PMA and warn the manufacturers, recommending replacing these hooks with a more suitable product.

c) Gin Carrera
DHV feel that this glider has been classified as EN B incorrectly. They have carried out tests which indicate that it does not fall into this category, and have posted their findings on their website
There is a great danger that relatively inexperienced pilots could well choose this glider thinking that it would be suitable for them, which is not the case.
Gin are most unhappy with DHV as they feel that they are completely open with the test results, but the meeting felt that test results which include videos should be freely available. If some of the bigger manufacturers were prepared to do this then surely others would feel the need to follow.

d) Draft amendment A1 to Test Standard NF EN 926-2
Marion reported that the French Delegation to WG6 feels that these amendment proposals which define the application of folding lines are difficult to apply; specifically in the case of gliders with different design features, for example, air inlet design and suspension line variations.
They feel that the introduction of the folding line regulation is quite a big change in the certification philosophy. It has so far been based on measurement of behaviour after a collapse of a given geometry.With the folding line rules the norm becomes directly intrusive in glider design.
FFVL feel that the amendment decision was made too quickly.
It is important that this issue be raised at the next meeting of WG6.

e) FLARM. (Flight Alarm system)
Rodolfo Saccani reported that there have been many instances of high risk of collision between sailplanes and paragliders.
He said that most sailplane pilots seem to fly with their "eyes in the cockpit" and rely on their instruments more and more. Almost all sailplanes are now fitted with fully functional FLARM, i.e. reporting "SEE and BE SEEN".
FIVL investigated the possibility of using FLARM in passive mode (only to be seen by others, not to see others) on paragliders.
Currently only top level instruments from Flytec and Brauniger can be equipped with the passive FLARM option, FIVL are working with manufacturers in order to build a stand-alone and cheap FLARM option for paragliders and hang gliders.
During the discussion some members said that this is not an issue in their country. However others reported that they have had collisions in the past between sailplanes and paragliders.
In Switzerland about 1200 FLARM units have been sold to free flight pilots. Sailplane pilots report that in some crowded areas this generates a lot of alerts but in general the use of FLARM in free flight has been proved to be effective and is seen as an improvement.

f) Watchdog
Marco Ghivarello and Angelo Conte, the two visiting Italian engineers, gave a presentation of a device (currently under development) which can monitor the degradation of materials used in paraglider and hang glider manufacture.
The device which weighs only 15 grams can be sewn into the canopy and analyses the hours of sun exposure and temperature variations and thus is able to calculate the progressive deterioration of the material on which it is mounted. It has a 7-10 year long-life battery.
Several ESTC delegates were given prototype samples to help evaluate the product. If this device is seen to be useful it could be included by glider manufacturers for a cost of approximately 10 Euros.


1) Rodolfo Saccani reported that they have established a system of smoke to be used during helicopter rescue operations.
Red smoke to indicate that medical help is required.
Green smoke where medical helpis not required.

2) The next meeting will be held in Munich on 13th/14th June 2015.
Munich was chosen as a direct result of the need to be central, and with the possibility of Munich being more permanent if it means lots of the more Eastern countries turn up.

John Lovell, Chairman ESTC.

ESTC meeting 2013 minutes (english)

European Safety and Training Committee
Minutes of the meeting held 1st/2nd June 2013 in Oslo, Norway

Members Present Representing
Miroslav Fejt. LAA CR Czech Republic
Jens Voetmann. Chairman DHPU Denmark
Raymond Caux . CIVL Safety Officer CIVL
Jean-Pierre Pouleau. President FFVL France
Claude Bredat. Safety Officer FFVL France
Karl Slezak. DHV Germany
Rodolfo Saccani. FIVL Italy
Andre Bizot. KNVvL Netherlands
Arne Hillestad. HP/NLF Norway
Ane Pedersen HP/NLF Norway
Martin Kinzl. FSVL Switzerland
Beni Stocker. FSVL Switzerland
John Lovell. BHPA Chairman ESTC United Kingdom
Dave Thompson BHPA United Kingdom

Apologies Representing
Ewald Kaltenhofer. Aeroclub Austria Austria
Karel Vanderheyden. FBVL Belgium
Marion Varner . FFVL France
Hans Peter Fallesen. SSFF Sweden

The Chairman thanked Arne Hillestad and the Norwegian Federation for hosting this meeting and took the opportunity to welcome Ane Pedersen from the host nation,
and two new members attending from France, Jean-Pierre Pouleau, the new FFVL President,
as well as Claude Bredat, their new Safety Officer.

Actions from previous minutes.
European Qualification Framework.
Andre Bizot reported that due to work pressure he had been unable to allocate any time to this task. It has been put on hold at this time.



Karl gave a presentation showing that the European Online Accident Database is now complete. It is held on one server.
Each Federation can now utilise it. There will be a one off charge of 300 Euros.
The link to the EHPU database is:-
Karl reported that this is all legal from the Confidential Data viewpoint.
However each Federation needs I Frame installed on their own national Website.
Karl also reported that it will be available in all languages, and that the statistical tool will be added in the next couple of weeks.
Nationally several things must be in place:-

1. An online accident reporting system.
2. If more than one report comes in regarding the same accident the National Safety Officer must edit them into one incident.

The chairman congratulated Karl for the considerable work he had put in, and also said that everyone should use it as soon as possible in order to get it up and running.
Adjustments, modifications etc. can be carried out later and must not be a reason to delay its introduction.
Any proposals for improvement, such as France’s request to include a human factor and a flights/year field and Dave’s comment regarding wind speed should be sent direct to and

The following information is reported—
Austria 4,500 pilots No change reported.
Belgium 1,150 pilots No change reported.
Czech Republic 4,200 pg. 400 hg. No change reported.
Denmark 850 pilots No change reported.
France 30,000 pg. and hg. + 570 speed riding.
Germany 35,700 pilots. 80% pg. 20% hg. 300 increase.
Hungary 1000 registered, 1000 unregistered. No change reported.
Italy 10,000 pilots. No change reported.
Netherlands 2,150 pilots. 1,500 pg. 650 hg.
Norway 1,812 pilots. 1547 pg. 265 hg.
Switzerland 15,000 pilots. 325 increase.
Sweden 1700 pilots. No change reported.
United Kingdom 6,500 pilots. 5,000 pg. 1500 hg. No change reported.

The following issues are currently causing concern-

a) Hang glider suspension systems. Variations are appearing.
Should there not be an EN standard?

b) PG harnesses-
1) Back protection. DHV are working with Graz University to establish the most suitable impact protective material. Current harnesses do not provide
sufficient side or bottom protection. They hope to have results to present to EN Standards meeting of WG6 in the Autumn.

2) Pod (cocoon) type harnesses are still vulnerable to being launched with leg-loops unsecured. Manufacturers are producing a variety of designs in an attempt to resolve this issue. Perhaps an EN standard could be introduced.

3) Reserve deployment under G forces. The increasing use of the G-Force trainers (There are now 4 in regular use) is identifying severe problems with some systems when attempting to deploy under the sort of G force experienced when in a locked-in spiral.
We would recommend WG 6 look into this problem and consider including this parameter in testing for reserve deployment.

c) Helmets
An increase in the use of helmets with long tails again raises the likelihood
of neck twist injuries.
We feel that EN966 should reflect this issue.

Speed gliders
As expected, the use of small paragliders, sometimes called speed gliders, sometimes mini-gliders or sub 20 gliders, which were initially intended for fast gliding descents, are becoming widely used for soaring in winds that would be too strong for standard sized paragliders.
This has led to a need to clarify the two activities in order to ensure that all pilots using these gliders for soaring, i.e. normal paragliding but in strong winds MUST be trained as paraglider pilots. This is to ensure that they are aware of Rules of the Air, flying site practises etc.
In Switzerland they do not differentiate between the two activities. They have decided that ALL pilots must be qualified as paraglider pilots.

Raymond gave a brief review of his work on his Safepro update for CIVL.
A suggestion was made by Jens Voetmann, Denmark, that level 3 trainees
be considered as Pilots rather than students. Raymond will look at this.
The proposal is to be be considered by CIVL Hg. Committee for approval.
He reported that Igor Ertzen has similar update plans for Parapro.
The IPPI card system provides evidence of a pilot’s qualification level regardless of his national association’s system and is a valuable tool for the sport now that pilots travel to fly in Countries other than their own.
The website used by this organisation has been designed to appear official in order to attract members, but APPI is not recognised either by FAI or EHPU.
Their comparison with FAI and IPPI is incorrect, and they have no right to the use of the FAI logo. We feel that EHPU should take this further.

1) CIVL ANNEX 19F, THE PILOT EXPERIENCE DECLARATION FORM This document was discussed, and several issues were raised:-

a) For 2013 and 2014 the entire document is only “advisory”, and from 2015 only section A, Pilot skills will be mandatory. Therefore it would appear that Section B, Pilot Experience will continue to be only “Advisory”.
So should Annex 19F not be entitled THE PILOT SKILLS DECLARATION FORM?

b) It was suggested that the sole purpose of this document could be seen purely as protection from Insurance claims, and served no other real function.

This has been set in place by Mads Syndergaard, a Danish competition pilot who has strenuously opposed the current decisions taken by CIVL regarding
the use of certified gliders only. His aim is to organise competitions outside the control of any governing body. We believe his intentions are misguided, and hope they do not prove to be disastrous.

The suggestion that in-flight tests be done at trim speed appears to be in conflict with EN test methods.
Quote: “The CECC speed limit is set at 65km/h and manufacturers will test at this speed and check the glider behaviour. Repeatedly testing at full speed is needlessly exposing the test pilots to danger”, so the “tests will be carried out at trim speed”.
But competition gliders spend most of their time at full speed, not at trim speed so it seems to be strange logic.
It is difficult to see that this would be acceptable to either WG6 or EN.
Who wants to fly a wing that top test pilots don’t want to fly?!!

CIVL’s hope to have a new EN-competition class glider certified by 2015 is hardly likely to reach fruition due to the time scales involved.
Therefore it seems that the ban on the use of uncertified gliders will remain in place for some time to come. The BHPA still hold the view that the ban should remain in place until a suitable alternative is available.

ESTC also propose to cease using the term “serial gliders”, and only describe “certified gliders” as such.

This is being looked into by Rodolfo Saccani. He said he would like to see videos made available of the test manoeuvres being carried out, but Karl said that this would not be possible due to legal reasons.
As several ESTC members indicated that their failure to attend this meeting in Oslo was due to tight budget finances, a request was made as follows:-
To investigate the possibility of EHPU providing some funding for meetings.
The next meeting will take place in Nice, France, on 14th/15th June 2014.
However it was suggested that, in order to minimise costs, a regular meeting location be sought rather than the current rotation system.

John Lovell
Chairman ESTC.

ESTC 2012 minutes (english)

European Safety and Training Committee
Minutes of the meeting held 9th/10th June 2012 in Grobming, Austria


Members present: Representing

Miroslav Fejt LAA CR Czech Republic
Raymond Caux CIVL
Igor Erzen CIVL
Jens Voetmann DHPU Denmark
Marion Varner FFVL France
Karl Slezak DHV Germany
Laszlo Szollosi HFFA Hungary
Attilla Hollo HFFA Hungary
Rodolfo Saccani FIVL Italy
Andre Bizot KNVVL Netherlands
Arne Hillestad HP/NLF Norway
Martin Kinzl SHV Switzerland
Beni Stocker SHV Switzerland
Dave Thompson BHPA United Kingdom
John Lovell, BHPA. Chairman ESTC United Kingdom

Apologies Representing

Karel Vanderheyden FBVL Belgium
Nick Godfrey DHPU Denmark
Chris Borra KNVVL Netherlands
Hanspeter Fallesen SSFF Sweden


Ewald Kaltenhofer Aeroclub Austria
Diana David DHV
Laszlo Kerekes President HFFA
Thomas Grabner G-Force Trainer

The Chairman thanked Ewald Kaltenhofer of Aeroclub Austria for hosting the meeting this year.
Ewald expressed his intention to attend in future as the Austrian representative.

The Chairman also welcomed Igor Erzen and Raymond Caux, both representing CIVL.

He also introduced Thomas Grabner who would be demonstrating his G-ForceTrainer
later during the meeting.

Karl also took the opportunity to introduce Diana David, his new assistant at DHV.



The aim is to establish a readily accessible data base available to all Federations which would be web-based.
Karl stated that an on-line database can be programmed by DHV and provided to all Federations
without costs, hosted by DHV
Each Nation would be able to send their national data automatically to this new EHPU database
It was agreed that the current database is too unwieldy for such a tool due to the large number of fields contained therein, so a group will be set up to establish a reduced list comprising those
fields considered important by each Federation.
This group will be managed by Karl Slezak, and comprise:

Andre Bizot
Igor Erzen
Nick Godfrey
Arne Hillestadt
Ewald Kaltenhofer
Rodolfo Saccani
Beni Stocker
Laszlo Szollosi
Dave Thompson
Marion Varner
These members will liaise with Karl through Diana David who would co-ordinate the work.
It is hoped to complete this stage as soon as possible and progress will be reviewed after a period of
approximately 4 weeks, say by the end of July.


The following information is reported:
Austria 4500 pilots 2200 of which are members of flying clubs.
Belgium 1150 pilots No change reported)
Czech Republic 4600 pilots 4200 Pg., 400 Hg.
Denmark 850 pilots 150 increase
France 23,770 pilots 22229 Pg, 1012 Hg, 13559 Kite surfing, 537 Speed riding.
Germany 35,400 pilots Up 900 ( 80% Pg and 20% Hg.)
Hungary 1,000 pilots Registered pilots.
1,000 pilots Un-registered pilots
Italy 10,000 pilots No change.
Netherlands 2150 pilots 1500 Pg, 650 Hg.
Norway 1,750 pilots Plus 150 Speed flying.
Switzerland 14,675 pilots Including hang-gliding and speed flying.
Sweden 1,700 pilots No change reported
United Kingdom 6,500 pilots 5000 Pg, 1500 Hg.




DHV are developing a new class system for harnesses:-

1. Those with protection only under the seat.

2. Those with under-seat and back protection

3. Those with the above plus side protection.

They wish to conclude this plan before the EN Harness Standard is reviewed next year by WG6.



Rodolfo Saccani reported as follows;

EN Standards do not make it mandatory for test houses to publish this information as part of the test report.
This information should be made public along with the test report for the following reasons:-

1. Such information is crucial for glider maintenance and therefore for safety.
2. Some manufacturers give such documentation only to "friendly" repairers, those they have a business partnership with (for example an exclusivity agreement for a specific area).
3. Repair facilities that have such business relationships are more prone to hide safety issues with materials.
4. Some repair facilities either cannot perform maintenance on such gliders or have to limit the checks they can do. (for example only symmetry checks and no line length checks)
5. There are risks of using wrong materials for repairs, etc.
6. Some manufacturers refuse to give such documentation to Federations for accident investigations.
We strongly believe that transparency on this matter is very important for safety.



Rodolfo Saccani also reported that some uncertified gliders have appeared on the market with an EN sticker, for
example, Windtech Zenith and Zenith Evolution.
The same has happened in the past with gliders being marketed before the certification had been completed.
In such cases an EN sticker should not be used because the manufacturer cannot guarantee that the glider is compliant with the stated EN level, or that it will even pass the certification.
Paramania GoFly is advertised as EN926 certified but no certification documentation can be found, and
the manufacturer has refused to provide either documentation, line plan or a list of materials used.
This situation is not acceptable and ESTC feel that pressure should be brought to bear through PMA to resolve these issues.



Beni Stocker reported an Increasing number of accidents with Cocoon-type harnesses:
There have been several incidents lately with this kind of harness (for instance Advance Impress), because pilots forget to reclose their leg straps. This mainly happens after a top landing when pilots open their leg straps in order to prepare the glider for the next takeoff. Then they forget to reclose the straps, as the tightness of the speedbag and the frontcockpit make them feel that all straps are closed OK.
Karl reported that there have been 8 fatalities due to this problem in the last 2 years.
He reported that there are already systems available that can prevent this potentially dangerous situation (for instance: dual ring system by Woody Valley).
ESTC proposes that WG6 should make recommendations for safety measures regarding this type of harness at their EN Harness Standard Review.



Karl gave a small presentation of DHV’s data logging system which can be seen to remove the subjective assessments when testing gliders. This could well become a definitive method of glider testing.
We trust WG6 will look into to possible use of such a system in the future




Further discussion took place regarding the possibility of having a deployment handle on both sides to cover the situation when a pilot was denied the use of one hand. Last year Karl reported that the manufacturers say that such a system would be too complicated, but Marion believes that Air Bulle produced such a system in the past.
Marion will investigate this.


The practise of using 2 reserves ( one with the handle on the left, the other with the handle on the right )
was again discussed in order to resolve the problem of being unable to deploy a single reserve due to
an arm being trapped in lines or high G forces.
This problem has been the cause of fatalities in the past.
Harnesses used for Acro are already fitted with such a system and are widely used.
This is an immediate solution to the problem, but would probably not be popular due to cost and weight


There are no known issues relating to this branch of the sport at this time other than to issue a warning
that WADA are now taking an interest in our competition scene.
It was stated that more people in our sport are now taking drugs, (not only smoking), than can be imagined.
It can be anticipated that WADA will be making un-announced appearances at competitions soon.


It is known that Switzerland has had a large problem with speedflying incidents in the past.
Since speedflying there is now officially considered a risk sport by the Insurance Companies, the number
of active pilots has decreased dramatically, with a commensurate reduction in accidents.
But now some speedgliders are being labelled as miniwings by the manufacturers, and therefore escape
the risk sport definition of the Insurance Companies.
Similar names for small foot launched gliders are being developed,i.e. ( hybrid, miniparaglider etc.).
Switzerland is expecting an increase of problems and accidents just as they had with the speedglider.
At the moment a new SHV working group is attempting to deal with this evolution.

This branch of the sport is not accepted by DHV.

The Norwegian Federation authorises a qualification but applicants must already be licensed pilots.

It is still being discussed. It is not legally organised, but not against the law.

No one is licensed for this activity, and there are many accidents.

Around 100 people are involved, from a paragliding or parachuting background. A training programme should be ready soon for this activity.




This was discussed at some length and it would appear that there would be several problems introducing this.
However it is a European Recommendation which has been in force since since April 2008, with a target for Countries to ensure that this document is used as a reference relating to instructor qualification by 2012. Therefore we have a duty to consider this Directive with regard to our instructor qualifications.

Marion said that it will be better if all instructors have the same level of expertise.

Rodolfo Saccani reported that the Italian Aeroclub had had altercations with FIVL and would not sanction a European framework.

Karl said that he felt the legal aspects woud be insurmountable.

Andre said that having alll instructors on a similar high level would raise the safety level of students. He also said that other sports have made it work.

Miroslav also reported difficulties in the Czech Republic as the government there require extra legislation, such as medicals for all.

In order to move this forward Marion and Andre will set up a working group. Marion will involve Joel Yout of ENSA as well.



It was reported that this training technique is now established and in use in Austria, Germany, France and Switzerland.




Igor Erzen, representing CIVL, clarified their desire to introduce a new homologation category to embrace gliders only suitable for competition pilots. It was noted that it would take a minimum of 2 years to complete this work.
In the interim it would appear that attempts are currently being made by manufacturers to get competition-type gliders classified as EN-D thus making them acceptable in competition restricted to “Serial” gliders.
Some of the members expressed opinions which were diametrically opposite, thus making it impossible to reach a definitive conclusion.
However the general view was noted that, in the interest of safety, provided the existing homologation categories remain as currently established and are not adulterated in any way, there should be no need for an additional category of glider requiring piloting abilities beyond those recommended for EN-D gliders, which are :-
Paragliders with demanding flying characteristics and potentially violent reaction to turbulence and pilot errors. Recovery to normal flight requires precise pilot input. Designed for pilots well-practised in recovery techniques, who fly very actively, have significant experience of flying in turbulent conditions, and who accept the implications of flying such a wing.
ESTC recommend that EHPU write to PMA and the Test houses demanding that they comply with current homologation classification parameters, and that the support of WG 6 be sought in this matter.


Raymond stated that he saw it as CIVL’s responsibility to set tasks that were safe.
Perhaps it is time to consider tasks other than race to goal.
However Igor said that to make competition interesting the tasks will become more difficult.
He also pointed out that you can’t teach all pilots to be sensible.



Igor Erzen said that he is a neighbour of Jurij Franko who has represented Slovenia in the past, and he will be happy to represent his Country either with Jurij or alone in future.
Laszlo said he would contact the Romanian Federation with a view to getting their involvement.



Thomas Grabner of G-Force Trainer invited the committee to a practical demonstration of his Paraglider centrifuge which was located close-by.
This was a very interesting presentation of commercial equipment aimed purely at the paragliding community to experience high g-forces such as those experienced when performing spiral dives.
Thomas explained that this equipment enables pilots to improve their ability to handle high g-forces.
Several members of the committee experienced this equipment first-hand, even up to 7G.
The Committee also visited a local paragliding school, Sky Club Austria, which had a well stocked shop in addition to a wide range of courses available to students and experienced pilots alike.



The Chairman thanked Ewald and the Austrian Aero Club for their kind hospitality in hosting the meeting.

Next year’s meeting will be held in Oslo Norway on 1st/2nd June.2013

John Lovell BHPA
European Safety and Training Committee


ESTC meeeting 2011 minutes (english)

European Safety and Training Committee
Minutes of the meeting held 5th / 6th November 2011 in Budapest.,


Members present: Representing

Miroslav Fejt LAA CR Czech Republic
Nick Godfrey DHPU Denmark
Marion Varner FFVL France
Karl Slezak DHV Germany
Laszlo Szollosi HFFA Hungary
Attilla Hollo HFFA Hungary
Rodolfo Saccani FIVL Italy
Chris Borra KNVVL Netherlands
Arne Hillestadt HP/NFL Norway
Martin Kinzl SHV Switzerland
Beni Stocker SHV Switzerland
Dave Thompson BHPA United Kingdom
John Lovell, BHPA. Chairman ESTC United Kingdom

Apologies Representing

Karel Vanderheyden FBVL Belgium
Jurij Franko SFFA Slovenia
Hanspeter Fallesen SSFF Sweden

Stefan Klett EADS Eurocopter Germany
Martin Wiedenthaler EADS Eurocopter Germany




Dave Thompson reported that people were slow in sending him their data. He reminded everyone
there is a template available for this purpose which had been circulated to all parties.
We should all be contributing by sending him the required data.
Can we all please do this by April 1st. each year.



The following information is reported:
Belgium 1150 pilots (no change reported)
Czech Republic 3900 pilots 170,000 hours
Denmark 700 pilots (200 increase)
France 23,770 pilots ( 22230 Paragliding, 1000 Delta, 540 Speed flying.)
Germany 34,500 pilots 250,000 hours ( 80% Pg and 20% Hg.)
Hungary 1,000 pilots 50,000 hours NOTE: Registered pilots.
1,000 pilots NOT registered
Italy 10,000 pilots 350,000 hours
Netherlands 2150 pilots (1500 Pg, 650 Hg.)
Norway 1,750 pilots (50 increase) 25,000 hours
Switzerland 14,318 pilots Between 250,000 and 350,000 hours
Sweden 1,700 pilots (no change reported)
United Kingdom 6,500 pilots 190,000 hours




Karl said that DHV had sent out a questionnaire to all pilots who had suffered back injuries to try
to ascertain the effectiveness of current harness back protection.
45% said that current protection was good, but 55% reported that the impact they had experienced
required a different form of protection, i.e. under the seat and knees or protection from lateral impacts.
Frequently in a lateral impact the airbag type slipped sideways and became ineffective.
A suggestion was made for manufacturers to introduce a “Protection Grade” system, but it was soon
realised that this would not be feasible across the various manufacturers.
Karl said that the new norm will be coming up for revision next year, and that in the meantime he
will discuss this with Rodolfo Saccani, Chris and Nick.



Stefan Klett and Martin Wiedenthaler from EADS Eurocopter in Germany gave a presentation of
their work relating to an automatic system of reserve deployment. They believe such a system
could become an accepted way of overcoming the situation where, for whatever reason, the pilot
fails to deploy his reserve parachute.
The system is called Automatic Rescue and Alert System,...ARAS.
In simple terms it utilises height above the ground data coupled with vertical descent speed, to fire
a Cypres system similar to that widely used by parachutists.
The presentation of the system described was received with considerable interest, in that it may
well prove to be a practical method of reserve parachute deployment in the event of the pilot failing
to do so himself. Such a system, if fully developed and available, could certainly have saved lives in
the past. We look forward to being kept up-to-date with its development.




Dave Thompson will continue to liaise with Rodolfo Saccani Saccani regarding the following issues:

a) Add to Description Flight Phase a specific manoeuvre code for unusual manoeuvres,
i.e (collapses and other manoeuvres induced by the pilot for simulation or other purposes).
Currently there is no distinction between these manoeuvres and aerobatics.

b) Add two new Yes/No fields (one for pilot and one for passenger) to record permanent
disabilities caused by accident injuries

c) Add new code and field to Description/Initial/Abnormal Flight Condition to report on
twisted risers.

Hungary will also liaise with Dave regarding the input of their data.



The following information is reported:

Belgium 1150 pilots
Czech Republic 2800 pilots 170,000 hours
Denmark 500 pilots
France 21,500 pilots 770,190 hours
Germany 25,000 pilots 250,000 hours
Hungary 1700 pilots 50,500 hours
Italy 10000 pilots 350,000 hours
Switzerland 14000 pilots Between 250,000 and 350,000 hours
Sweden 1700 pilots
United Kingdom 6,627 pilots 190,000 hours



The subject of overtaking when flying along a ridge was discussed and it appears that no standard rule can be applied throughout Europe.
However it was stressed that member nations should prominently publish their specific rules, or any local overtaking conventions, on their Federation's website for visiting Pilots.

The practise of using 2 reserves was raised by Rodolfo Saccani. It seems that most Acro pilots now
carry 2 reserves. This is because due to their style of flying they sometimes find it not possible
to deploy the first reserve and so need a second one.
Rodolfo Saccani asked what would be the situation if a pilot finds himself under 2 reserves.
Dave said that the British parachute manufacturers have test results available for this situation.
However Nick pointed out that pilots were usually late in throwing one, giving little time to throw a second.
Karl stressed that the principle of throwing your reserve in the direction of your legs was advisable.
Rodolfo Saccani also added the recommendation to throw in the direction of any rotation.
Discussion took place regarding the possibility of having a deployment handle on both sides to cover
the situation when a pilot was denied the use of one hand. Karl reported that the manufacturers say
that such a system would be too complicated.


The availability of emergency services such as helicopter rescue varies across Europe, and the following information has been ascertained.:

Austria Health Insurance pays only a portion of the costs. It is VERY expensive.
Czech Republic Free for pilots with insurance.
Denmark Free
Italy Free in general but not everywhere.
France Free in general but not everywhere. (Free in Annecy)
Germany Not free but pilots own insurance pays for it.
Hungary Free, but before flight you must inform Centre, and report on safe return.
Norway Free.
Slovenia Free.
Spain Free.
Sweden Free.
Switzerland Free if you are a patron. Current annual cost is 30 SwFr.
UK Free


AUSTRIA It is not legal but they have had 3 recent fatalities.

BELGIUM It is acceptable to their insurance provider, but wings must be
15 sq.metres or more.

CZECH REPUBLIC It is not an authorised activity here.

GERMANY It is forbidden because it is seen as too dangerous. It is run by the
German Speed Gliding Federation.

ITALY After many accidents most people have given up speed flying.

NORWAY There are 94 pilots involved and have had no accidents.

SWITZERLAND They have had 2 fatalities this year. The insurers class it as a high risk
sport so will not pay for lost wages in the event of an insurance claim.

SWEDEN They consider it speed skiing only.

DENMARK There is no speed flying as they do not have any mountains.

FRANCE It is controlled by FFVL instructors. There have been 26 accidents
2 of which were fatal.

UK This activity is being incorporated into the BHPA and a training programme
will be in place next year.



It was noted that at the moment CIVL are addressing the issue of safety in competitions, and
their Paragliding Competition Safety Task Force has now issued its first Interim Report.
It may be viewed on the FAI Website.
It is anticipated that this subject will be discussed in depth at the forthcoming EHPU General Conference with a view to reaching formal agreement with CIVL.




Karl reported that he was having considerable success in Germany following the introduction
of the pilot training programme being presented and monitored electronically.
A novel feature is that it provides links which student’s can follow to find answers and the reason
behind those answers, .i.e. a complete learning package. We await an update with interest.


Chris Borra gave a presentation where he described the European Qualification Framework so
that we could consider the possibility of using it as a way of structuring our training systems.
Dave Thompson said that we had tried to incorporate a similar system, the National Vocational Qualification, in the BHPA some time ago but the idea was dropped due to lack of funds.
The general feeling was that to introduce the system across EHPU nations was impracticable.



The Chairman thanked Laszlo and the HFFA for their kind hospitality in hosting the meeting.

Next year’s meeting will be held in Salzburg, Austria, on 9th/10th. June.

John Lovell BHPA
European Safety and Training Committee.

Altri articoli...


Go to top