Paragliding 103: HPAC Novice/P2 vs. Asymmetric Collapses

Asymmetric Collapse

The asymmetric collapse, an inevitability of learning to fly in thermic air. We learn to first mitigate and then prevent them by flying in increasingly active air, preferably under instruction.

Mitigation can come by way of active weight shift and braking technique. The ultimate goal is collision avoidance, be it with the ground, terrain, or other pilots.

Another means of mitigation is wing selection (passive safety). A lower EN/LTF rated wing can help reduce the aftermath of the collapse. An instructor is the best place to start with deciding which wing is best suited to the pilot. That said, the first steps we take as a pilot-in-command is making and accepting responsibility for own decisions. The more information the new pilot has, the better the decision they can make.

The basic certification system (EN/LTF) is not perfect, as per Divide 'EN', Conquer. But the certification system is continually evolving. Part of this evolution is the trial testing of wings by the DHV using a data logger and documenting the post collapse behaviour beyond a simple change of direction/pitch.

DHV Safety Class

The core of the DHV Safety Class is a trio of safety ratings per wing: symmetric collapse, asymmetric collapse, and spiral dive. In addition, notes are provided on altitude loss, G forces experienced, cravat and cascade tendencies. It is these notes that are of interest.

Below are the DHV Safety Class Notes on unaccelerated asymmetric collapses for common paragliders used in the Fraser Valley (Vancouver) for student and novice pilots:

The source for these values and notes can be found under the DHV Safety Test webpage.

In addition, the suitability for training and manufacturer notes regarding the target pilot are included to give a more complete picture. This data was pulled from the manufacturer webpage and user manuals.

Wing Made/Model	Height Loss	Pitch Angle	G Force	Training Suitable	DHV Notes	Manufacturer Notes
Skywalk Mescal 4	20 - 29 m	-60 degrees	2.4G	Yes	Massive collapses and maximum deformations usually recover with little diving and course change.	Suitable for beginners on the training hill, the MESCAL4 also offers lasting satisfaction for ambitious hobby pilots for their first XC flying experiences.
Icaro Cyber TE	30 - 39 m	-65 degrees	2.3G	Yes	Relative moderate reactions, moderate dynamics	Beginners who are looking for a fun, but performant and fast glider, that—nevertheless—still is gentle and easy to fly, will find a good companion in the new Cyber TE.
Ozone Mojo 4	40 - 49 m	-65 degrees	2.3G	Yes	Greater height loss and course change angles than other [...] gliders.	The Mojo 5 is designed for new pilots. First and foremost it is a safe, fun, and easy high-performance wing suitable for students in training but ideal for the newly qualified.

Wing Made/Model	Height Loss	Pitch Angle	G Force	Training Suitable	DHV Notes	Manufacturer Notes
Ozone Buzz Z4	30 - 39 m	-60 degrees	2.3G	N/A*	Moderate dynamics, height loss < 40m. Maximum collapses result in large pitch forward dives and occasional opposing collapses, but without course changes.	The Buzz Z4 is an ideal choice for pilots who fly approximately 30-50 hours per year [...] .
Skywalk Tequila 4	40 - 49 m	-75 degrees	2.9G	Yes	Difficult to collapse to measurement field limits. Marked rotation with dive angles of up to 75° for large collapses. Opposing collapses observed with occasional cravats and course changes.	The T4 is quite forgiving, making it the right choice for talented beginners.
Icaro Instinct TE	40 - 49 m	-75 degrees	2.9G	Yes	Without using special collapse techniques the wing collapses very steeply and has high rotation and pitching dynamics, resulting in opposing collapses and cravats on both wingtips.	Since it performs at a very high level, but is also very pleasant and well-behaving at the same time, the Instinct TE is the perfect glider for all pilots who want to feel comfortable in the air.
Icaro Wildcat TE	40 - 49 m	> -75 degrees	2.6G	No	Height loss is average for its class, but reactions are very dynamic, dive forward angles are severe and course changes are rapid. The canopy folds steeply, creating a lot of resistance and turns abruptly and dives forward steeply. Total height loss was average for the class. Generally the canopy shows a tendency to dive forward steeply which often leads to cascades and cravats.	Recommended flight experience: 20 - 30 flying hours per year.
Gin Atlas	50 - 59 m	-60 degrees	2.3G	N/A*	Relatively low dynamics (pitching, G-forces, sink velocity) for its class, but delayed recovery resulting in higher height and course changes. In some cases, recovery had to be aided with a little pilot input.	The Atlas is suitable for beginning to intermediate pilots.

* There is no clear indication regarding suitability (or lack there of) for training. Consult your instructor.

Side note: notice any differences between the DHV and Manufacturer Notes?

The HPAC Novice/P-2

The current Hang Gliding/Paragliding Association of Canada (HPAC) requirement to be awarded a Novice/P-2 rating includes the following prerequisites:

B. Prerequisites

• Paragliding P1 Beginner Rating
• Thermal Endorsement or the Coastal/Ridge Endorsement

 The Thermal Endorsement includes the following:

• Demonstrates proper directional control and correction of full (i.e. 50% of the wing span) asymmetric collapses.

Anyone flying in the Fraser Valley will receive their Novice/P-2 with the Thermal Endorsement (due the lack of a consistent Coastal/Ridge Soaring Site). 

Under the current HPAC requirements, the Novice/P-2 candidate who satisfies the Thermal Endorsement will have demonstrated the proper response to a 50% asymmetric collapse. 

Re-read the above descriptions of asymmetric collapse behaviour and ask which wing would you want to be on with less than 25 flights and asked to demonstrate the 'proper directional control and correction of full (i.e. 50% of wing span) asymmetric collapses'. Demonstrating a response means experiencing the collapse to then demonstrate the proper response.

I suspect if this requirement was fully enforced by HPAC, we would see very few students on EN B wings.

It is better to have a wing you can grow out of than one you need to grow into.

Divide 'EN', Conquer

Limitations

One of the lessons I learned while on my paragliding pilgrimage last summer was that the statement, "I fly an EN-B wing because it is safe." frequently heralds the presence of a pilot who is courting a tree landing. This is in part because the pilot places too much emphasis on the rating of the wing, not realizing the limitations of the current rating system.

The rating system evaluates the characteristics of wings, with the majority of attention given to departure from normal flight. Collapses, spins, stalls are all evaluated by a test pilot and the results recorded. The most benign of behaviours are awarded an 'A', while increasingly energetic ones can see awards of up to 'D' or 'F' (failure). The key points to take away from these tests are:

1. To minimize atmospheric variations across different tests, the tests are done in calm air over a lake. This in no way reflects the conditions in which we may find ourselves (thermic, gusting, lee, etc).
2. Collapses are human initiated by pulling on lines. Collapses in real life are initiated by the air at the wing. 
3. The tests are human performed and the results are human judged. While the testers try to remain as objective as possible, subtle variations in pilot behaviour and observation can unknowingly influence the results. The test pilots do their best, but they are human.
4. The most important (in my mind and the reason for this blog post), these tests try to measure the outcome of a departure from normal flight. There is no real comprehensive measurement of behaviour prior to departure.

Simply put, there are limitations to what the current wing rating system can accomplish. Once we have an understanding of these limitations, we can determine how best to use the system as is and improve upon it for our own needs.

The dividing line

The wing rating system looks almost exclusively at the behaviour of the wing as it departs normal flight. What is normal flight? Normal flight is a loaded, inflated wing directly overhead and under the control of the pilot. Anything that violates these criteria can be considered a departure.

A collapse is one example.

A stall is another.

A spiral may or may not be - the wing is inflated, loaded, and overhead - but is it under the control of the pilot? What may be a welcome experience for the acro pilot may be completely overwhelming for the inexperienced (highlighting the need for continuing education after attainment of first license, see 'Right Pilot'). So, it depends.

So while the rating system deals reasonably well with what happens during and after the dividing line, before it is a different story. The characteristics of the wing before it departs normal flight plays a significant role in how often it will. If the wing is too demanding for the pilot given the conditions, departures could be frequent and overwhelming, even if recovery is quick and without incident.  The rating system may include pilot notes pertaining to the wing, but given that the test is performed in calm air over a lake, it is unlikely to include much commentary on the handing of the wing in thermic conditions. It is this behaviour that needs a standardized, simple to understand method of reporting, much akin to the wing rating system already in place.

Suitability

To cut to the chase, I would suggest splitting Suitability from Passive Safety.

Suitability would be derived from manufacturer data, but we cannot use the data outright
.
Why?

The current situation of manufacturer ratings is hit and miss, some indicate the type of pilot, some indicate if the wing is not suitable for students, others indicate the number of air hours.

 If we could standardize the manufacturer suitability data, we can make something approaching an apples to apples comparison.  What we need is the target pilot and the air hours per season to remain current on the wing.

So, a wing could come with a pair of standardized ratings -> One from the testing facility for passive safety (the wing rating as it currently stands) and a second from the manufacturer, clearly indicating the target pilot and air hours recommended per year to fly the wing.

Perhaps: (target pilot)-(hours/year) + (passive safety). For example:

School-10 EN A, Leisure-30 LTF B, Advanced-80 EN B, Advanced-100 EN C, etc, etc.

The School-10 EN A would be suitable for a pilot under instruction, a solo pilot pilot flying over 10 hours per year, and has a passive safety rating of EN A.

The Leisure-30 LTF B would be suited for a solo pilot flying over 30 hours per year and does not want the workload of the traditional sport wings. A possible second wing candidate.

The Advanced-80 EN B is meant for an experienced XC pilot who flies often and can manage a demanding wing but may not want to post departure behaviour of EN C.

The Advanced-100 EN C. If you are considering this, I can only hope you know what you are doing by this point.

The point of all of this?

Ultimately, the point of this proposed combined rating system is to divorce us from the idea that passive safety and suitability are one in the same. When we realize that a wing rating does not always reflect the workload we may face in the air under that wing, we begin to see the limitations of the current system. From there we can research further, hopefully finding the right wing to then combine with right conditions and pilot.

Happy Hunting.