I've experienced it several times during the period when we received gliders for type testing that had never before been flown in the size of a manufacturer's test pilot.
Podz-Glidz, the Lu-Glidz podcast, stories from the cosmos of paragliding. Today with Guido Reusch and Lucian Haas at the microphone. The history of the paragliding scene, especially that of the manufacturers, is shaped by many freaks. There are people working who have turned their hobby into a profession, pilots who somehow ended up behind a design PC, those who pose as test pilots, or who otherwise work to provide the necessary technical tools for their own dream of flying—namely the gliders and harnesses. One who doesn't quite fit into this pattern is Guido Reusch. The 56-year-old doesn't even have a paraglider pilot's license. Nevertheless, he must be counted among those personalities who have strongly shaped the development of gliders—especially in technical terms—over the past 10 to 15 years and continue to do so.
It was Guido Reusch who, with his – now inactive – model testing center EAPR, broke the DHV's testing monopoly. He ensured that testing centers have to undergo a strictly regulated, albeit expensive, accreditation process. He has been involved in the development of the EN standards, according to which paragliders and harnesses are tested, for years. And today, he is trying to test the gliders. Also as secretary of the manufacturers' association PMA, he gives the members impulses on where they can gain further advantages through common standards, in his view. In this 14th episode of Podz-Glidz, Guido Reusch tells, among other things, how he slipped from the parachute into the paraglider scene as a technician. He chats about the pitfalls and some dark insights from the work of a model testing center.
He talks about his work for the PMA and the upcoming first PMA Convention, a kind of paraglider congress for the trade public. And he explains why, from his perspective, many paraglider manufacturers still lack professionalism.
Guido, you've been one of the most influential people, or one of the most influential, one of the people who has shaped the paraglider scene in some way for years now, even though you don't fly a paraglider yourself. Tell me about the beginnings—when and how did you first come into contact with the topic of paragliding and then slide into this scene?
So, by trade, I'm actually a skydiver. Yes. I started in 1989, so from there on, I've been fairly connected to aviation and air sports. I then became a technician, based on the fact that, as I said, I want to stay connected to aviation for a long time. And unfortunately, skydivers get old and technicians get experienced, so the decision was made quickly. In 1989, I first came into contact with accreditation, certification, notices, declarations, approvals, etc., at my employer at the time. It was about the licensing of an operation for skydiving equipment, and then in 2001, I opened the first inspection point that didn't belong to an association, meaning an aviation association.
That was the German Parachuting Association and the German Aero Club. And as inspectors, specifically the class 5 parachute technicians, we founded a small independent association back then, the Association of Independent Inspectors, and opened an inspection center there because we weren't very happy with the procedures of the other two institutions at the time. That went on for quite a while, and I was the managing director of that association. And then a manufacturer introduced me to paragliding, as he manufactured both parachutes and paragliders. It was a good friend of mine, my former employer, Bernd Pohl, whom I had known for over 10 years at the time, who said, "Take a look at this, couldn't it be done better, couldn't it be done differently, and don't you want to do something about it?"
And that was the motivation to open a testing center, because I didn't come from paragliding, but actually from the field of quality assurance and certification of aviation equipment. I looked at it for three months back then and said, yeah, there's a lot of potential for improvement. And that led to the decision to get involved in paragliding at all, more or less. And then to set up this ERPR testing center for paragliding. So, the harness-pressure paragliders, paragliders, power kites, and everything else. At that time, it was already parachutes, so it was actually just about expanding that and pushing it through with the Federal Aviation Office.
With the founding of the ERPR, you entered into competition with the DHV back then. Did you enjoy that role, shaking up the scene a bit, since the DHV had been the king of the circle until then?
Well, I don't know if you can say the DHV was the king. They certainly did a lot of good things, but they also had absolutely no competition, and that's always a very difficult situation because you hardly question yourself. It just works, it's a monopoly, people are forced to go to them, you release a new price list every year, you set the requirements however you like, and you don't question yourself. So, that has nothing to do with pleasing anyone. There were a few things there that I, as a technician, didn't understand. Basically, I'm a technician and for me, it has to be logical, it has to be reproducible, traceable, and then I can accept things. I wouldn't have done it if the tests had shown that there wasn't, as I said, potential already contained.
I looked into that for three months beforehand. It wasn't about annoying anyone, not at all. The ERPR had already passed before and was just being expanded. The expansion of the model testing center, as it was back then, was certainly something the DAV didn't like, but who likes it when they lose their monopoly?
During your time with the ERPR, the transition of the testing centers also took place. They no longer had to be accredited by the LBA, but by the German accreditation body DAX. And if I remember correctly, you were one of the people who significantly pushed for that, so you basically did some political lobbying to ensure this transition happened. How did that come about? What drove you to do that? I mean...
You have to know the staffing situation at the Luftfahrtbundesamt. There was only one employee responsible for all the model testing centers. And that was far removed from any technical competence. Whether it was in the area of paragliding, parachuting—all those areas—it all fell under him in the aviation sector. But he lacked the technical competence, and he couldn't have had it anyway. Now, that's not a pressing accusation. You can't expect someone to have technical expertise across seven different sectors. But what he unfortunately lacked, or what the Luftfahrtbundesamt lacked, was structured thinking when it came to quality assurance and various measures within the testing centers.
So, since everyone finds reflection a bit difficult, it came to the point where we said we would really like an institution that monitors this more professionally. And that was ultimately the offer from the DAX, which had just been newly founded, to enter this field. We then presented this to the Federal Ministry of Transport, and they were very happy because they were—namely, the supervisory authority of the Luftfahrtbundesamt—which meant that every complaint received via a type certification body inevitably ended up at the Federal Ministry of Transport, and they were already at a point where they had other things to do than deal with the complaints.
So they were actually quite happy to be rid of the whole thing and be able to hand it over to the DAX.
Now DAX took over, and all the testing bodies had to get accredited. Many said, "Oh, that's insanely expensive," because you have to put in so much upfront, and I believe every accreditation costs tens of thousands of euros that you just have to pay. Looking back now, with everything that comes with those accreditations and such, would you say today that it was actually the right way to go?
You have to differentiate a bit here. The DAX didn't keep the promises it made to us or what it guaranteed back then. If the DAX had kept those promises and the procedures had been carried out as presented, I would still say it was the right path. Absolutely. It wasn't so immensely expensive that you'd have to say, no, this isn't possible at all. At that time, things were also being switched over within the Federal Aviation Office, which hadn't cost anything before and, in that case, perhaps didn't cost anything corresponding to the service provided. The Federal Aviation Office, which had brought that in, was now told, no, massive fees have to be collected now. So, the situation would have changed financially in any case.
As I said, the DAX didn't keep everything. So, A, it became much more expensive than the DAX had led us to believe, and also led the Federal Ministry of Transport to believe, and there are some real shockers in there, such that the BMV also had to ask the Bundesrat back then. There is a paper there describing the costs that the DAX had also provided, and it didn't add up at all. So the DAX—well, I don't know if it was intentional or unintentional, or maybe the parties involved didn't understand it correctly—blew the cost framework by five times afterwards. That was of course not in the inventor's interest, and some other promises from a technical perspective.
Simply weren't met.
Were those high costs also the reason why you eventually gave up on the ERPR as a testing body and didn't have it accredited anymore? You just let the accreditation lapse, and since then, has the ERPR stopped sending things, or does the ERPR no longer exist?
So, the ERPR still exists, but of course, they no longer perform audits in the accredited scope. That might be one difference, but I would have continued to bear the costs even if the other technical promises had been kept. We don't need an accreditation that costs a lot of money in that case—five times as much—if it's not worth it. If the promises had been kept that the DAX would also exert pressure on the other audit bodies to compulsorily sit down together, that the same procedures would be pursued, all these things we demanded from the accreditation, that no audits have to be done twice. So, if the ERPR does one, then everyone recognizes it, and not twice. If the Zoller does one, the DAV recognizes it.
If that had really been the case back then, I wouldn't have shied away from the costs. But the ratio of the costs involved to the benefit—that was the reason I eventually said I don't need it anymore. So I can just leave it, because it doesn't make any sense.
Well, you've worked for a while as a technical testing body, or not as the testing body itself, but as the head of this testing body and as managing director. In the process, you've certainly gained a lot of... a lot of insight into the working methods of various manufacturers. If you were to break it down now, in percentages, how many positive and how many concerning examples did you see there?
Well, you'd basically have to base a percentage on a certain benchmark. Where are the 100 percent? So, if I were to say in relation to the industrial customers I deal with, how professional are paraglider manufacturers, I'd say 95 percent are not professional. If I set the benchmark at where the manufacturers were back when I led the ERPA into pattern testing compared to how they are today, then I'd say it has become much, much better. But there is still enormous potential for what the manufacturers could achieve. And certainly one reason why I gave up the testing center was because I...
Yeah... I just had no interest anymore in preaching and presenting the same thing over and over again, only to eventually have to listen to them say it doesn't work. I mean, if you still have to correct manuals after ten years because the manufacturers simply still haven't grasped what's supposed to be in there, then at some point it just...
to be actually fun. You said 95 percent of the manufacturers... are rated as unprofessional compared to industrial clients. What are the worst areas in the paraglider sector where you say it's completely unprofessional from your perspective?
Oh, those are actually the ones who buy a laptop, rent the software from Dave Aberdeen for two years, and then go to Sri Lanka or Thailand and say, let's produce something. Sometimes there are even very clever minds behind it, but of course, there's no form of sustainability. There's also no experienced team behind it that actually tests gliders in all sizes. I've experienced it several times during that period that we received gliders for type testing that had never before been flown in the size of a manufacturer's test pilot. The M size was flown or the L size was flown, and then we got an XS that no one had ever touched.
And it was simply downsized. By four, five, or six percent, and then presented to us. And the test pilots just put their hands over their heads in disbelief. So, for me, that is far from the word professionalism. And these are, for me, the absolute worst that we actually still have today, who simply have far too small or no test teams at all, who just believe in themselves because they fly well themselves. And I don't want to get into that at all. I've also asked myself the question of whether they are actually capable of bringing out and putting new gliders on the market.
How can you as a testing authority verify that a glider, for example an XS size, has never been flown before by any tester? You ask about it. And then they say it quite openly, saying, "No, we just downsized it, now test it and if it passes, that's great." Exactly.
That has nothing to do with the testing center; that's more like an outsourced development operation. And in the accreditation, it was simply that the test pilots had to really stay out of the development area. It was a bit different before with the LBA's prototype testing. Well, we give the test pilot the glider and then he can tell us what he thinks. Pre-tests were done like that and so on. And that is development work. And let's not kid ourselves, if I, as a test pilot, tell him, "Okay, do this here and there and there," then it becomes a very good thing. And the manufacturer does that too, then gives it back to me, and then I'm judging my own work. That can't be the purpose of such tests.
At least there, we were promised that the accreditation would be handled much more strictly, which wasn't really the case. It did get better, but it was still not optimal. So these pre-tests were still being done under the table. And I also... I also caught one or two test pilots doing it and then let them go.
I assume you won't want to or won't be allowed to mention the names of manufacturers in this context. So, what I...
is your assumption.
Okay, then let me ask it differently. If I wanted a tip from you as a customer, how can I tell if a manufacturer works professionally in your sense or not? I mean, what simple things can I look for? How can I find out?
I don't know. I also don't know if the pilots are even interested. Whether a manufacturer does it beforehand and, above all, afterwards, meaning in the post-inspection, etc.
take that seriously. So, the experience I've had is completely different. Many people just aren't interested. They just want to have fun flying. I think that's good too. Basically, that's our foundation for practicing the sport. But then, to really say... well, he can do it and he can't. It's always amazing how many new, young manufacturers can't demonstrate that kind of sustainability at all,
...then they're being praised to the skies in the media, on the forums, on Facebook, as if they're the best thing ever. And I say, yeah, okay, whoever follows them, has fun with their sport, and doesn't crash, they've done everything right. That's just my perspective behind the scenes, because I'd say I wouldn't recommend that to my daughter. But it's not all my kids out there.
Often, new brands—at least lately—are actually the brands of very experienced designers. On the other hand, you have examples like Hannes Papisch founding Vieh, or Bruce Goldsmith founding his own brand, and so on.
Can't we assume that you can say these people... these people understand their craft, and so I'd rather trust such highly experienced designers than perhaps other brands that have had a good name for many years, but where you don't know how experienced the designers actually are?
So, certainly, the examples you just mentioned are two designers who... I mean, when Bruce started with Airwave, he wasn't really a good designer yet, nor was he a well-known, experienced designer. He was world champion back then and made the gliders. However, he has certainly proven over the last ten years that he builds gliders there that are forgiving and so on. That fits. We can say the same about Hannes. I mean, those aren't the examples we should be reflecting on. Whether someone starts a new company or not doesn't matter; what really matters is whether he has the experience and the ambition to make good gliders there. So there are certainly completely different examples.
But what's added to that now is that larger companies—and let's talk about the top ten—they have investments in the company that reach into the seven-figure range. And they're simply no longer in a position to just pull a quick shot out of nowhere. Yes, you can certainly name the really big ones. Advance, Ozone, Gin—there's 30 years of experience in there. There's a lot of money in there too. There are a lot of people behind it. And they can't afford that anymore. They have a better glider and sometimes a worse one. Sure, you can't have the same best glider in its class for seven, eight, or ten years every time.
That's just not possible. But what they can't afford are real medium-scale catastrophes. They also can't afford to give an XS to a testing center that has never been flown. Because the testing is... one thing, and the testing in thermals in the spring, in the autumn, etc., that's something completely different. So you can't equate certification with saying it's a good glider. I would never do that either, and I haven't. That's a baseline. It's like an NCAP crash test. Yes, in proportion, it's a safe car. But that doesn't mean it can't fly off the curve. And that's where you have to look a bit at what kind of risk a company is taking.
if they were to actually release a really bad glider. And that probably happens less to the big ones right now than to the small, young companies that are under pressure to release their first glider. It's still relatively easy to release the second one. So the successor model, the 2.0 model, that's the problem. It has to be better than the first one. And certainly... it can't fail in any way. And that's where certain risks are sometimes willingly taken. And then it's also delivered green and let to mature a bit with the customer. Yeah, I'd be more cautious about that.
Years ago, it was already said in the paragliding industry that there would have to be a major consolidation at some point. There are so many manufacturers, but actually, just like you're saying, the big ones are the ones who perhaps work professionally or have the corresponding team. Nevertheless, so many small manufacturers can still hold their own. Why is that?
So I think it's because the term manufacturer hasn't been defined at all in the paragliding sport. Yes, who is a manufacturer? Well, nowadays anyone can be a manufacturer. In other areas, in other industries, it's different. There, you have to meet certain criteria from the start. I'm saying, open your laptop, call Aberdeen, have them produce it, and away you go. That's all you need. You don't need a structure. You don't need established testing facilities. That's also a huge downside. You can just put it on the market and then say, play with it, be happy. And as long as this structure exists, there will always be the possibility for new small companies to emerge, which isn't fundamentally wrong. So, nothing worse than having a set-in-its-ways beast like in German automotive manufacturing.
And they say a new car manufacturer can't even intervene. Because the big players are so powerful that they would suppress everything. So I'm not against small new companies, definitely not. I'm just in favor of them setting them up properly.
But for that, you'd probably need so much money from the start that, at least in the paraglider sector today, no one would want to invest it anymore. That
I don't even want to say. I mean, if you look at the example of Hannes Papisch, he didn't invest so much that it wouldn't have been feasible. You have to invest a lot if you set up your own production. That's true. You have to go all in. But nobody does that, nobody has to. You still have to, and Hannes certainly did, think your gliders through well. And you also need a corresponding creative test team. And I know those two test pilots very well. They both worked for me. They'll let loose if they have to. And they push the gliders to the performance limit or even beyond it. And they say, okay, up to this point and no further.
That is the responsibility the manufacturer has to bring to the table. And then you can also prove that as a small manufacturer, you can achieve great things.
Now, there are manufacturers who actually have their own production in terms of sewing and so on. If we were to really distinguish what a manufacturer in the paraglider sector is, wouldn't that be the real manufacturer who says, I have everything from the first stitch to delivery and quality control, etc., in my own hands?
That is of course desirable if the depth of manufacturing goes all the way down to the individual seamstress. But that's actually not the case with the very large ones either. No one can have their own production in Vietnam without having a Vietnamese partner in the company. So you can't really draw a line there. You can say at most, a conditional own production, perhaps a production that doesn't serve anyone else. If you were to frame it that way. Of course, there is then a continuous system from the quality control of the materials, lines, fabrics, and tapes, right down to the finished product. But I don't necessarily want to badmouth the large contract sewing factories in the process.
So there are also qualities involved that might be better than those of a small operation that still does its own sewing. Yes, well, "not own" doesn't necessarily mean good. You just can't say that. What it means is that you have control. You can influence the process at a high level of manufacturing depth and say, I'm doing a needle policy to my liking. And here, the sewing needle is changed every six hours, or this and that is done every five hours, or recalibrated, and so on. Of course, the availability over it. Sure, they are an advantage, but they also have to use them. And that doesn't mean that the contract sewing factories haven't learned how to do the same by now.
In terms of production quality. In which areas do you currently see the biggest flaws or the greatest opportunities for development in the paragliding scene?
We need to separate development opportunities from flaws for a moment. One huge flaw is that manufacturers are inevitably required to provide a piece test—under the German system or European systems—which means the delivered model is identical to the tested one. That is the biggest problem we have right now because that isn't the case. The glider tested at a sample testing center has already had many flights. In some cases, they've even been flown before being handed over. And in the textile area, elongation processes have already been completed; the gliders have already changed. Then they are measured, put into the sample test, and actually, the manufacturer should deliver this new model exactly as it is, which hasn't been flown and would change compared to the tested one after 2,030 starts.
And that is the biggest flaw right now. This was broken down by the aircraft industry back then—aluminum, steel, that doesn't change. I have an aircraft, I test it, I measure it, and I can deliver all of them exactly the same. I just can't do that with paragliders; that's the biggest flaw, and the manufacturers are sometimes very inventive about it to ultimately deliver a good piece of equipment to the pilots without completely chasing after the legal situation. That's of course difficult, let's not kid ourselves, and that's why I think the legal situation simply has to adapt for the area of textile fabrics and that stuff like that needs to be completely struck out in order to make legally secure and sensible gliders at all.
That doesn't mean the manufacturers have to change anything, but rather that the legal situation actually needs to be changed to say, okay, for textiles, there must be different tolerances or different testing methods, so that you can also say the trim must be relative; you don't just have to say the line length is 7.80 meters, but in relation to the other lines, it can also be 7.70 meters, but if the trim is correct on the glider, everything is fine—or how is this supposed to work?
Yes, that's roughly how you have to imagine it. So if it says "must be identical" or "corresponds to the tested sample," then you simply have to define these terms for paragliders—but just as well for parachutes, so for all textiles—you have to define and say, for example, "identical" or "equivalent" is when a certain tolerance level is met, and that's missing, it's just missing. The problem with that is that there is a lot of mistrust within the industry; I mean, we deal with the associations, we deal with the authorities, with the manufacturers and pilots, and these four areas have very little overlap when it comes to trust. The pilot doesn't trust the manufacturer, the association doesn't trust the manufacturer either, but they also don't trust their customers.
He doesn't trust his pilots and so on. So there are some very difficult constellations involved because you could easily grasp that. There's just a fear that someone might then exploit that to their advantage, to put it very carefully. We've already seen that in the scene when people say that a 40-centimeter difference in the trailing edge is a sewing tolerance, and a tolerance wasn't fundamentally described. You have to say, yeah, we just have to take note of that for now. At some point, of course, you're going to shake your head at it. So the problem is finding something that can't be exploited, but can be defined in a way that makes sense for everyone.
That you say it's a reasonable measure, and I would see that as a huge, huge step forward if that's really the case, because the sample gliders—well, one of the manufacturers didn't say those for nothing, that the best gliders of all are in the basements of the certification bodies. And I definitely know cases of manufacturers who submitted the glider for certification at the ERPR and never built it like that again. Never again. It was released exactly as the designer originally envisioned it, not as it was tested. There are loan sets out there that don't have anything to do at all with what is in the
...as it was tested. I naturally consider that to be bad. It wouldn't have to be that way if, for instance, a different, more flexible regulation could be found during the piece inspection.
That means in this case, without naming names again, it was that you're really saying the manufacturer then makes the glider the way they say it flies best. Whether it would still get a B or whatever is a question, but we believe that's the point. The safer glider or the better glider for our customers.
Yes, exactly. So they submit gliders for type testing and fail once or twice, then they correct them just enough to pass the type testing and basically deliver what they originally thought was best for the pilot. That makes the whole system absurd.
How often does this happen? 20 percent. That means, if you don't scale it up, but if I imagine it like this, every fifth glider flying around that I buy. Maybe the manufacturer did something better in the interest of the pilots, or worse from your perspective? Because maybe these gliders that then hit the market are actually better than the ones that were tested.
That might even be the case. It might even be that the manufacturer is absolutely right. But we have to distinguish between things now: the template for the sample test is clear, and as long as we have that, he has to stick to it. So I have two basic principles. The first principle is that where a law is presented, I have to comply with that law. And the second principle is that if something needs to be changed, then it must be done.
But as long as Principle 1 still stands, I can't get creative and do something else just because I say, well, nothing's changing. No, I have to work hard at it. I have to create new templates and say, it has to be changed in this specific form. So, in that regard, I'm relatively uncompromising.
Because otherwise, the whole system would descend into chaos. But I'm willing to change that. And I've shown that too. That's what some people really didn't like over the past few years. Where it just didn't work, yeah, I tried to change that. And in some areas, I also...
...managed. If you say you tried to change that. There was also a case where you had a court process with your EAPR, where it was said you hadn't made it fully compliant with the LBA law or something at the time. Was that also a bit of a creative interpretation to get things moving?
No, not really. I mean, they obviously took it upon themselves to bring the DAX into play. And the employee naturally lost a huge amount of competence when the BMVI handed over the accreditation to other hands. And that was just a massive backlash. The procedure was already underway. It was foreseeable that it would be implemented. And it was just a massive backlash. And there was, for example, one point where it was about the certification of a reflex glider from a manufacturer, and it couldn't be folded under normal conditions. And I said, if it's not foldable, that doesn't mean it necessarily failed that maneuver. And the Luftfahrtbundesamt clearly stated that if a maneuver cannot be flown, the glider has failed.
And I still stand by that today and say that what they said back then is absolute nonsense. If I can't collapse the glider, if I need a jack and a crowbar to do it, then it just doesn't work. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad glider. Reflex gliders were, in certain profile settings—or are they still today—extremely stable against collapse. Why do I have to hang on with three people under tension just to provoke a collapse that doesn't correspond to reality anyway regarding what can happen? That was the point of contention. And for example, another point was about a manual. That was the second point the LBA brought up. We issued a type test for the weight range of 120 - 135 kilos.
And the manufacturer wrote 120 - 145. We didn't notice that in the sample test. That part escaped our notice. From that, they said, well, he's not doing his job properly. Fine, you can see it that way if you really want to. But it's just like if a cook takes a pinch of salt instead of a tip of a knife. You can argue about that too and say, actually, really, is the manual to be rated higher than the certification? Because that was issued correctly. Just as we tested it. And in the manual, I definitely missed that. I overlooked it. Yes, whoever is of the opinion that that's enough to then say I'm not working correctly, I have to agree with that opinion.
Let's change the subject a bit or jump around a little. The EAPR is basically history as a testing center, I'd say. You say it still exists, but now with different tasks. That means the DRV isn't a direct competitor for you anymore. If you look at the DRV today, in your view, where is this association doing a good job?
In almost all areas. So, the DRV is very important. And in the areas they are entrusted with as the representative of the Federal Ministry of Transport, they do a consistently good job. Whether they are without criticism is another point entirely. But I consider the DRV indispensable and very important because otherwise, paragliding would probably have already ceased to exist in some areas in Germany in its current form.
no longer possible. Are there points where you'd like to fundamentally change something at the DRV?
Yes, certainly in the technology side. That's my home turf. Even there, the thinking is still, and that's partly why the accreditation failed, that if DRV is involved, DRV has to be on it. So, back then, DRV basically didn't recognize the tests from other accredited testing bodies. Not because they had formal errors or a different approach. No, we do everything alone. And we do everything for ourselves. And that's, of course, a very limited pool of thought. I ask myself exactly these critical questions, like how do the others actually do it, but I don't ask them.
And I don't question myself. That was a huge problem back then. Now, one or another might say, "Here he goes again," but it was the protectionist system that had a 400 percent error rate. No one questioned anything there. Yeah, zero. In no way. And I... I find that very unfortunate. People should cooperate much better, be more open. That has changed a bit over time, though. Since I no longer have the testing center, you can sit down with the DRV a bit better again. The dialogue has improved. But fundamentally, I still consider it critical if the pilots feel looked after there, if the type examination—which is still mandatory—is being carried out there.
And for example, when the accident investigation takes place afterwards. I consider that to be very, very difficult at some point. Especially regarding accidents and type testing. Those are two areas that should certainly be kept separate. And the argument alone that, yes, we have the best experts sitting here. That's nothing you can really follow. So then the best accident experts for BNR, BMW vehicles—people who want to work at BMW—they know the cars best.
Well, from the perspective of an outsider, you've moved from a neutral testing body over to the manufacturers, in a way. You're now the secretary of the PMA manufacturers' association. Now, "secretary" always sounds a bit like a helper, an assistant, or something like that at first glance. What exactly do you do there? What's your role? Are you a helper and an assistant? And in what sense? I mean, what do you help with and what do you work on?
So, my field of expertise covers several areas that the manufacturers simply can't handle themselves. These are many legal questions. These are the structural questions of the type testing. I still represent them in several committees. And there are so many regulations that simply have to be complied with, where the manufacturers say, "No, we can't deal with that." That's specialized knowledge; we don't have it. It takes years to acquire. And that is my area—how to create standards, how to change standards. And also, across the board, quality assurance, production setup, etc. That's what keeps me busy. But I am working towards something.
That means I provide templates to the board in certain areas, and then the board decides how to proceed with them.
...how to deal with it. Now, the PMA as such is actually an association of many competitors, meaning manufacturers who are in competition with each other. What topics can a PMA still push forward together in this way? Where is there a common denominator, where we can say, we all want to pull on this? Where does it make sense to work together?
So everything that doesn't have to do with construction, like performance data and the like. But rather original things, like if there are templates, for example, the line color scheme or material changes. That actually affects everyone. And that's regardless of whether I'm releasing an A-glider or a D-glider. We're dealing with questions about what happens if a certain material is no longer available after a while. How can I replace it at all? Under what conditions can I replace it? Those are things that affect all manufacturers. Or right now, the checkers. What about the checking operations? How far are they allowed to check?
And what should checkers be able to do in that case? Basically, we deal with questions that are relevant to the pilots afterwards. And yes, the manufacturers—that's right—are all competitors with one another. You can feel that very clearly within the PMA. So, things are questioned three times before anyone agrees to them. That's also somewhat my job: taking in ideas and suggestions from one manufacturer and feeding them back to the other manufacturers as neutrally as possible, because we've often experienced that—well, the proposal comes from this and that person. What's their advantage there? That's always the first thing asked, instead of seeing the benefit for everyone. It's also a difficult task within the PMA to present certain things neutrally.
Now in November, a kind of paraglider congress is taking place in Fürstenhausen, Feldbruck. It's now called the PMA Convention. It goes back to an idea of yours, which was initially filmed as the EPC, European Paragliding Convention. Why does the paragliding scene need such a format from your perspective? And how does it differ from a classic paraglider trade fair?
So, this is about further education. It's not about every manufacturer presenting and offering their product; it's about professional development for professionals. This is a B2B trade fair—business to business. And let's just say, the gap between manufacturer and pilot isn't being sufficiently closed by specialist personnel. The manufacturers have learned this over many years. They know it too. They just don't know exactly how to handle it. But it simply can't be that the chief designer or the owner of a product or a company stands at a trade fair booth and then has to answer the very, very simplest technical questions from every single pilot.
And if things go wrong, you're answering the same questions 40 times a day. You simply need an intermediary where you can say, no, that's the job of the schools, the dealers, the checkers, and so on. And that's where the manufacturers have a certain shortcoming. That's also been noted—an information deficit. And that's exactly what we're trying to change with the convention through technical lectures where detailed insights are provided. That's why it's a B2B event where a certain level of prior knowledge can be assumed. And that is the reason and purpose for changing this—simply to better bridge the gap between manufacturer and pilot with professional staff.
to support the others, to support the others. Define exactly again, what is the target audience for the EPC for you? So, who should come there and who rather shouldn't?
So, people who are just interested in paragliding shouldn't really come. It's definitely not for pedestrians. It's for anyone who deals with it professionally, whether they're a club chairman or a flight instructor, tandem master, safety trainer, or travel instructor. The trade fair is intended for the people who are interested in the EPC, the people who will then lead others to fly in Namibia or southern Spain. And of course, all the dealers of the individual manufacturers, so they can look beyond their own horizons. So, not just getting information from one of their main suppliers, but also getting completely neutral information.
So many suppliers. They'll be there, Liros, Edelried, Pochet. And they'll simply provide insights into material science. Why does an Aramid line shrink in the outdoor area and what can I do about it? And how does a Dynastar line behave in the gallery area or in the main line area? So these are simply technically important pieces of information that the pilot doesn't necessarily have to know themselves; it's just not their field, it assumes a bit of prior knowledge. Here we're talking about trim and such again. And we simply had to provide further training for this specialist personnel. And that is also the model and main task of the convention, whether it's the IPC or in this case, the new PMA convention.
That doesn't matter. It's about the further training of specialist personnel.
Well, the IPC is originally your child. You were the one who pushed this idea forward. How did it happen that the PMA took it over under the name PMA Convention? Why?
So, the idea had been around for a bit longer. Of course, it's my "baby," but basically, I care about the content of the convention itself. And that's where I ultimately saw the biggest opportunities if the PMA were to launch its own event again. Something that is actually needed. Back then, it was the Super Paragliding Festival in Kössen. That was also originally a PMA event. We certainly don't need a new festival, absolutely not. But here, the PMA members are naturally given the opportunity to present themselves and to show, yes, it's important to be a member of this association and to stand together.
And that was it for me afterwards—whether it's called the IPC or the PMA Convention, I don't care at all. My concern is simply providing further training for professionals. And it felt right to me to consider saying, hey, the PMA is looking for something, come on, will you take this on, yes or no? And that's what's being offered. And then they also said, in perfect harmony, yes, that's a good idea.
We don't want to go to any more normal trade fairs. We're getting dozens of inquiries from Aero in Friedrichshafen and again from Stuttgart and so on. We're just fed up. We want a different concept. And the concept you're presenting, we like that. And that's why we're getting on board.
...we're getting in. Is this also being seen as a kind of test balloon, to see how far one can get? How do you reach the intermediaries, like flight schools or others? Do they actually show up there? I mean...
The first trade fair is always a test balloon. No question. And the first fair doesn't have any goals at all regarding things like visitor numbers. For example, visitor numbers like in Saint-Hilaire or at the thermals are not being aimed for at all; it's about the conceptual implementation, which we will then look at after the EPC, after the PMA Convention, which we have to analyze and say, where is there potential for improvement? I'm quite satisfied with a three-digit visitor count if we can get it off the ground there. You can't expect more from it. And it won't fail the first time either. Certainly not. But it will show us for the first time at which points there is potential for improvement.
Now, there are some interesting lectures to be heard. Will these lectures be recorded in any way, like at the thermals, and then be available on YouTube later? Also for the people who say, I can't go there right now or it's too much effort to drive there during the week or something like that?
So that's not my decision, but a decision by the PMA. Quite clearly.
And for me, I have to say, it wasn't planned that way, because it involves exactly what you just said. Oh, I'm not going there. I'll just watch it on the internet in four weeks. And that's just different. We have a different program here at the convention. PowerPoint is avoided as much as possible. You can show a photo to give an example. But here, we don't want dull lectures being rattled off; instead, there should be dialogue with the speakers, and even after the lecture, conversations should be held where you can go into more detail. Each speaker only has 28 minutes for their presentation. And that's not much. You have to get straight to the point. And I am, personally, against a publication,
free publication on YouTube from every channel, because it simply leads very quickly to people saying, oh, I don't even need to go there anymore. Yes. But here, the manufacturers and the partners—so the second B, Business to Business—naturally want to get competent feedback. Yes. And not from a pilot. Listen, is paragliding actually dangerous? A lot of people's neck hairs stand on end at that. No, they're interested in constructive conversations. Really from flight instructors who say, I've been doing this for 25 years and I'm sorry, your new glider starts like shit. Yes. That's seen very differently than from a pilot who doesn't know anything at all.
And he says, I can't handle this. I'm always so scared during the launch run. So, this is actually supposed to be a mutual event. And because of that, a one-sided release of videos on YouTube only benefits those who didn't really want to come in the first place. And they probably have nothing to say either.
Well, the IPC is your current baby, so to speak. It's taking place on November 14th and 15th. That's the exciting time for you. What follows after that? What does the future look like for you? What tasks do you still want to set for yourself in the paragliding scene?
So, I'm still on many committees, both in the DIN and the WOG 6. That takes up more than you'd imagine. And the BMA is also keeping me busy with the new board. There are many things we've planned for the next two years. So, I don't think I'll get bored with that. As I said, the analysis of the convention will be up next, along with the new planning, the changes, etc. So, I won't be getting bored. On top of that, there are several areas where I actually earn money, which also need to be dealt with. At least, that's what my wife says.
And I'll have to make sure to keep that in mind as well.
Would it also be a goal, maybe one day, to get your paragliding license?
I tried it. It's not for me. I'll say that quite openly. I used to be a skydiver. I've done more than 2,000 jumps. I did that with passion and heart. And I'm an adrenaline junkie. For me, it could never go fast enough. And I did the training, cleared some hurdles. And I have to be honest, it's just not my thing. Plus, I simply don't have the time for a sport like that. So I think if you do paragliding, you really have to have the time. I have two children. One is studying, the other just started school.
And I can't imagine doing such a sport half-heartedly just to tell someone, "But I have a license now," and then doing ten wings a year. I would never do that. The risk would simply be too great for me. If I do it, I do it intensively. And I have other hobbies too. I would never, ever be a good paraglider again—not even by my own standards, and certainly not in the eyes of others. The time is just gone. Therefore, the question of whether I would ever get a paragliding license again definitely doesn't arise for me. I tried it. I can say, no, it's just not my thing. Everything is nice and calm up there. But pff.
Yeah, then I'd just go back to landing. I'm not saying that's anything bad. But I'm one of those people who say, no, if I'm going to do something, I'm going to do it properly. I don't have the time to actually do it properly. And I have no interest in just messing around.
That's also a good perspective, or at least a consistent one. Whether all paragliders will understand that is another matter. But Guido, I thank you for your remarks about what you do there, formerly for the testing center, today for the PMA. As a manufacturers' association and your very own thoughts on the paragliding scene. I think there was a lot in there that could certainly lead to thinking further about which direction things could go there.
Okay. I'm very happy that you gave me the time. Very
You're welcome.
That was Guido Reusch in conversation with Lucian Haas. If you are interested in the PMA Convention mentioned in the interview, you can find more information on the website www.epc.aero. Finally, an important note on a personal matter. The podcast Podz-Glidz and the associated Gleitschirm-Blog Lu-Glidz are completely free to access online. However, the work involved is quite demanding. A professionally produced offering like this can only exist in the long run if there are listeners and readers who are willing to support Podz-Glidz and Lu-Glidz as sponsors. Some people already do this. Thank you very much for that. Without you, Lu-Glidz would have died a long time ago. However, the majority of users still follow the motto: I appreciate this work very much, as long as it costs nothing.
Maybe you're one of those people too. In that case, I invite you to change that. What would you be willing to pay to be able to listen to Podz-Glidz in the future? Maybe 50 cents or one euro per episode? What is it worth to you to read, on average, more than 20 in-depth posts every month with news from various angles of the paraglider world on Lu-Glidz? You pay 7.90 euros per week for the Thermik magazine. Available at the kiosk. What amount would you consider appropriate for Lu-Glidz? The answer to this question is entirely up to you. Your contribution for Lu-Glidz and Podz-Glidz is completely up to you. You can pay simply via PayPal or bank transfer. You can find the relevant details on the Lu-Glidz website. Thanks in advance for the support. The next episodes of Podz-Glidz are already in the works.
I'll just say goodbye for now. Ciao.