112. Steuertechnik - Simon Winkler

One of the biggest lessons is that those ugly 500 meters during a cross-country flight aren't as important as a perfect, spacious landing field that maybe doesn't create any thermals or lift zones; instead, you just say, hey, I'll start thinking about where a better option might be 500 meters of altitude earlier. I think that was the biggest lesson for me now, besides the fact that I really want to avoid thermals at low altitude when heading towards a landing.

Podz-Glidz, the Lu-Glidz podcast.

Stories from the cosmos of paragliding.

Today with Simon Winkler. And I'm Lucian Haas.

The DHV maintains a popular series of instructional videos on YouTube. It's all about flying better and safer. Thanks to good flight technique. You're shown how to initiate turns particularly effectively, stop pitch movements faster, react appropriately to side collapses, fly faster in thermals, land safely, or even soar well in weak conditions.

The instructor in all these videos is Simon Winkler. Over the years, he has essentially become the face and spokesperson of the DHV when it comes to bringing modern control techniques for the paraglider to the public. Lately, that also includes the idea of trim flaps. That is the simultaneous use of brakes and speed bars. That alone would have been reason enough to invite Simon Winkler to this 112th episode of Podz-Glidz to have him explain a lot of it.

Simon obviously has much more to tell. For example, about the coincidences that led him from being an ambitious Agropilot to the more established DHV, and how he helped shape the Safety Class tests there. We talk about the evolution of teaching methods and the idea of transferring safety approaches from commercial aviation into the paragliding scene. Simon Winkler only recently had to learn the hard way that this would be sensible. During a somewhat too-casual planned landing approach, he had a severe collapse just above the ground and crashed onto a hall roof. You could categorize the incident as residual risk, or you can try to learn from it. This talk also covers that.

If you like Podz-Glidz, why not support my work as a sponsor? You can find out how it works very easily on my Gleitschirm-Blog Lu-Glidz, specifically on the "Fördern" page.

Simon, tell me the story—how does someone like you, who's adventurous and in some ways risk-taking, end up with a rather flight-conservative association like the DHV?

Yeah, my path to the DHV was actually shaped by a few coincidences. After school—after my Abitur—I went to Achensee. I worked there at the Flugschule Achensee. Cordula Gröninger and Ecki Maute took me on. And they had always had some dealings with Karl Slezak, and then there was this initiative from the DHV where they wanted to test life jackets. They wanted to see which size is actually safe, what really provides enough buoyancy, and so on and so forth. And they basically needed a dummy to fly the life jackets into the lake with a glider—and harness. Since I was working there anyway, they asked me, and that's basically how it happened that I had my first assignment from the DHV.

Then it continued a few years later with the emergence of the Safety Class, where I was asked again, "Hey, wouldn't you like to do some deployment exercises with the gliders and give us your feedback?" And then it just flowed seamlessly from there, and suddenly I was working at the headquarters and, at the beginning, I mainly did the Safety Class tests there. So that was actually my start at the DHV, and yeah, because I just always liked saying yes whenever there were such exciting projects to do, because I was personally interested in them too. Yeah, that's why I was actually involved pretty quickly.

So in a way, you were thrown into the deep end from the very beginning with these life jackets. That actually describes it pretty well.

And that "thrown into the deep end" thing continued until the very end. Whether it was the flight instructor courses, where I was suddenly involved as an instructor, or now with the training board. That was, of course, also a very, very big task that came my way, since I had always been more on the operational side before, rather than in the big-picture conceptualizing or the final decision-making. That was, of course, another "cold water" moment, yeah.

What appeals to you about working for an association, or specifically, for the DHV?

It was actually already pretty deep down inside me. As a teenager, I was a huge fan of glacier flying. I still am today, but back then it was really extreme. I grew up in the lowlands, so I didn't get to fly that much. Especially since I started very early, and back then I was somehow trying to soak up every piece of information that could be found on the internet, and YouTube wasn't really a thing yet, so you had to look through blogs and some stuff that some pilots had uploaded as videos or written as blogs. I always tried to absorb as much information as possible, including from the magazines. And it somehow bothered me when I was with my club colleagues or on trips with them and I'd always hear these horror stories about glacier flying, where I'd then take the knowledge I'd already acquired and calculate it, and it just didn't really add up—that knowledge gap that simply existed in glacier flying.

that really motivated me to say, hey, this knowledge actually has to get out to the people and that we shouldn't hide anything, that we don't say, yeah, you'll learn that later or when you're as good as I am, then you can do that too, but hey, just take the direct route, tell people exactly how it works and they'll get better because of it. And that was sort of the motivation. To really go all out at the association, to make sure nothing is hidden, to ensure that the knowledge actually gets out to the people, and that worked quite well with the flight instructor courses, with the Safety Class of course too, by telling people, hey, what does a glider actually do in an extreme state, and by saying that relatively directly and clearly. Yes, and then of course with the tutorials, that was also a great project with Andi Schöpke and Peter Grüniger,

that we also take a look at, hey, we actually want so much, and it's clear that we want to get the knowledge out to the pilots as much as possible. That was my deep motivation at the DHV.

But you're also someone who lives on the side of paragliding sports that might not really fit the DHV's image. You fly aggro, and I believe you also do basejumping. At least I've seen videos where you do that from a tandem and jump out. At the same time, you're part of the team of, let's say, the association's safety apostles. What's it like living in that tension?

For me, it was that aggressive flying is actually my great love in paragliding, and I moved to Affensee with the motivation to get better at it and make it to the World Cup. I already had my first mentor there, Benni Bühan, who was already out there with Marvin Ogger and the like. So, Marvin Ogger actually became a world champion in aggressive flying.

And he actually showed me a very good way of doing things, which is that you don't just go out and try things, but that you think very carefully about the maneuver, the figure, whatever it is—that you completely understand the movement on the ground first and only then pull it up into the air. So, that you work in a simulator, do a lot of mental work, and thus bring this very extreme, sport-oriented field of paragliding—meaning acro flying—into as safe a framework as possible. So that was actually always my wish. I'm not a crazy person, let me put it that way, but I actually try to approach things quite deliberately. So if I'm doing something new, I think about it for weeks,

I try to identify all the dangers and then rule them out through pre-planned actions, so that you actually always know what the worst-case scenario is and what the best-case scenario is, and then, when it comes to the action, you basically block out the worst case. It's still there in the background, but you actually block it out and focus only on the positive. That's how it works, and that's how I do it now. And therefore, I'd say you can combine that quite well, because through that you learn a lot about risk assessment and hazard analysis, and you can then, of course, transfer that back to the normal sport. So that the lessons you draw from that can also be used to create as safe teaching methods as possible for the normal pilot, and so on.

Now, by dealing with safety and this topic of safety—especially for the DAV, of course—you've certainly seen many videos and all sorts of things that can happen, things that have already happened to other pilots and so on. Has your perspective or perhaps even your experience of paragliding changed over the years because of that? Have you perhaps even become more cautious yourself?

Maybe not right now. I mean, I haven't necessarily become more fearful because of seeing the accidents or the dangerous stunts that can happen.

But of course you grow, and you become more aware through your own experience. So, for me personally, when it comes to learning new things or new tricks that might be riskier, it's more about asking: do I actually need this right now? And also, who am I doing this for? And if I go through my risk analysis—let's take the new maneuver, that fullstyle tumbling to infinity, as an example—that would be a nice maneuver, of course, but if I go through all my risk analysis there, I actually see, oh, the risk of something going wrong, or the probability of something going wrong, is relatively high. And who would I actually be doing that for?

Am I doing this for myself now, or am I doing it so that I can still get my, my fame and honor in the scene? And then I actually decided for myself, yeah, I'd really only do it for others. And that was actually a point where I said, no, those are things I don't need anymore. And so that carries through many things, yeah, in paragliding, where you learn with age and experience that certain things are just pointless. So there I would just be taking a huge risk, but it doesn't really bring me much more for my future paragliding. And that's why. You could actually say you become a bit more cautious, more humble.

So, let me put this: a super-turn to the Infinity -Agro -Ass, Simon Winkler calls that pointless. A bit provocative.

That's already very provocative, yes. Pointless in the sense that if you don't need it for a competition, if you don't make a living from this aggressive flying, then I find it pointless for my current status, in terms of flight experience, for me personally. Yes, because if I don't need it, it's certainly a great feeling, but it's just not in proportion to the risk I would have to take for it.

In your view, what is the biggest risk in paragliding? Is it perhaps exactly what you just said, this point where you start doing things for others, for the show, for the ego, or something like that?

I think so. I still believe the biggest risk—and this actually applies to many things where humans are involved, the human, the pilot, the person doing it—is the human element. A fairly well-known base jumper who is also an instructor once said that the most dangerous things in extreme sports are the 3Cs: cameras, crowds, and chicks. Of course, he meant cameras, crowds, and the girls—the fact that you do it exactly for others, that you're motivated by it to take on more risk. You might be the center of attention, everyone is looking at you; that's obviously been amplified by social media and the internet and so on, and GoPro has certainly played its part in that too.

And I do think it encourages people to maybe do things they never would have done before. You see it, you see, okay, it looks cool, you might get praise and recognition, and then I think you're more likely to take those risks. So I do think that has changed in that regard. Of course, it doesn't apply to everyone, but I'd say it plays a bit of a role. Have you...

Have you ever had or made really negative experiences in that regard, where you took a way too big of a risk just for the sake of being cool or for the show?

Yes and no. For example, with demo flights or video recordings for TV or something similar, you take on a bit more risk for the sake of the production, and looking back, you realize you took on a bit more risk. So you have a demo flight at an event, you're booked, you obviously get paid for it, it's a highlight of the event, and then you want to deliver for them—you feel like you owe them something—and then it happens very quickly that you, for example, ignore the weather. I still remember, we were at an event once and a cold front was moving in; we could see it in the distance, but of course, you know with the cold air outflow that it can get dangerous quite quickly in those parts, and we just said, "Come on, let's do it now, we'll be down in five minutes anyway."

And it really came down to the last minute, so we landed, packed up, and then the first gust hit. Those are the kinds of experiences where you say, "Phew, thank God that went well again," but actually, it was incredibly stupid, you just can't put it any other way. And those are the situations where you realize how quickly things shift because of the desire to perform; the only thing you don't have anymore is that good feeling. You actually have your own risk perception, and you basically tune it out too much, when you should actually sit down at that exact moment and say, "Hey, do I need this right now? In this case, do I have to do this now? Who am I doing this for?" That would be a much smarter way to weigh things up, and I think those are the kinds of things you learn over time. You have your bucket of luck and your bucket of experience, and as soon as the bucket of luck is empty, the bucket of experience should be full, as I like to say.

Based on that experience, if a similar situation came up again, would you choose to say to the organizer, "Look, a cold front is coming; I've had something like this before where I barely made it out alive, so I'm not taking off now"? So, would you really be able to think that rationally in that moment?

That has actually happened before; we've had that two or three times in the last few years, where we really canceled because it just wasn't possible—where we just said, "Hey, we're actually glacier pilots who want to have fun. It's just not worth the risk right now, because then it wouldn't be fun." A flight isn't fun if you have in the back of your mind, "Hey, there's weather moving in" or something else that makes it dangerous. We have a very strong opinion on that now, especially if I involve my show colleagues, that we just don't do that anymore. The situation I mentioned earlier is already a good eight years ago. Of course, things have changed a bit in our heads since then. Thank God, I'd say.

How does that work then? Do you still get paid by the organizer, or does he say, "No, that's your weather risk; you didn't fly, so you don't get paid"?

It's always a bit of a negotiation. Some people will actually say, no, there's nothing there. But if you explain it well beforehand and say, hey, there are just these, how should I put it, unpredictable conditions and that has to be accepted. But of course, you have to agree on that beforehand; you can't say afterwards, no, I didn't like the lift, so I'm not coming at all and just taking the money. That's obviously not good manners either. That's why you just have to negotiate it well beforehand.

Now, something like an approaching cold front is a risk that you know or can at least recognize in some way. But in paragliding, there's also what I'll call a slightly nasty term, the residual risk, where it means that something can still happen out of the blue or some other way. You had an accident yourself recently that could certainly, certainly be put under that category. What happened there?

An accident actually occurred during a flight in weather conditions that were totally unspectacular. And that's why it actually fits the term "residual risk" very well, as you already said. It was a very relaxed cross-country flight day, at least in our region. We were in the lowlands, and I'd say it was moderately thermal. We had lift in the west, maybe 1.5 meters per second, and it was relatively, yeah, gentle and steady. And yeah, I went out to fly in the lowlands from a small hill, was able to turn nicely there. It was very relaxed until the base, then I flew on, turned again, and then the shading hit and it headed towards landing.

As it is with cross-country flying, you try to just glide out the last few meters. The terrain shape here was quite good for that, allowing you to just keep gliding over the meadows. And since the wind was also very weak, I just thought I'd fly with the wind—it was about 8 km/h of tailwind according to the GPS—just keep gliding further and then land, if necessary, with a slight tailwind landing and then cover a bit more distance. From the terrain perspective, it also looked quite nice, so I really wanted to glide through somehow.

And I kept sinking more and more, flew over a cool patch of forest, and behind that forest was a warehouse. Relatively large, with a black sheet metal roof, and yeah, the conditions beforehand were calm, the wind was weak, so I didn't really think much of it and just flew straight over it. And as I got closer to this roof, the sink rate suddenly increased. And that's always a bit of an alarm sign, yeah, maybe there are some movements or a lee or something similar. Or maybe a thermal is just pulling away somewhere. Yeah, exactly at the moment I actually thought, oh, now it's sinking a bit more, it did a sudden lurch. And I suddenly had a collapse, if you want to call it that, unspeakable. I had a 100% front collapse.

And when I looked down, the roof was suddenly quite close. At that point, you basically only have three considerations left. Either you open the glider, brake it, and let it pick up speed again. Of course, there's the risk of pendulum motion, where you build up a lot of speed again, especially forward speed. I open it and it works. Backward flight, where you know the sink rate is a bit lower. But I also have some horizontal speed again and might still have the chance to miss the roof and land in some construction site terrain, if you want to call it that. Or then there's the deep stall option, where you open the glider and land in a deep stall.

And that's exactly the option I chose. I opened the glider and tried to somehow hold it in a deep stall. I then slammed into that roof with my butt first—unfortunately, it did happen. So, it was a very high sink rate that resulted. I ended up lying there on the roof, but I was conscious, was still able to call my father as a first responder, and thankfully, I was seen and they alerted the rescue team immediately. And then it went relatively quickly, and it was a really great performance by the rescue services—how fast and well they handled it.

So the rescuers had to climb onto the roof too? Did they come up with a ladder and then haul you down in a stretcher or how did that work?

Funny enough, it was a construction site. So this warehouse was currently under construction and there was still scaffolding on it. That means my first responder came up to me right away, talked me through it nicely, and kept me company. And the rescue workers were also able to get up relatively easily. For the evacuation, they did use the turntable ladder to get me down, but thankfully, the access wasn't that difficult.

Before the impact, you said total destruction, and then you had these three options. Did you really think through these three options in that short amount of time and said, I'm choosing the deep stall now?

So I really thought about it for a long time afterwards. And I have to say, yeah. I mean, time often—I know this from wing-suit flying—when you have some kind of destroyer, like a maneuver fails, time suddenly slows down. And then, ironically, what you can no longer do always comes to mind. What you've experienced before, what you've thought about before, and then you could actually choose it for me, of course, in the whole action, maybe in two or three seconds. And in hindsight, you only ever find out if it was the right decision. So this VORDEX system—Facts, Options, Risks, Benefits, Decision, Execution, Control. You basically just limit yourself to the Execution and the Risks and Benefits.

You can maybe briefly consider that. But in that short timeframe, in this very, very dynamic environment, it's really about just making a choice. That's actually how it goes in glacier flying too. Doing nothing is always the wrong thing; instead, you should always choose something in a problem and then see if it worked. If not, choose another option, if you obviously have the time for it. But the important thing is actually that you do something, that you try something. And that is, of course, in most cases, for the normal pilot, the rescue glider. So if I deploy it, I actually already have the best cards, statistically speaking as well.

But that wasn't even possible at your altitude.

That just wasn't possible anymore, unfortunately, yeah. I was really shocked that, at such a low altitude and in those conditions, a turbulence that violent could actually occur. And that it happens so incredibly fast, as I already said. That you're suddenly on your roof in the blink of an eye.

Did you land on the protector or on your butt, as you said? Was that a conscious decision? Or were you just unable to get your feet down anymore? Or what happened?

It ended up being a slight backward flip movement after all. I still had it in my head like, yeah, legs out. Better to hurt your leg than have something happen to your spine. Actually, with glacier flying, the most fatal accident we have is a spinal injury. I mean, I thought about trying to get my legs out afterwards. But because of that backward movement, the protector just hit first, the impact movement.

But at least it absorbed enough of the impact so that you don't have a back injury. But you did break something.

Exactly, I have to say, the protector worked excellently. I'm really grateful that it was a large, proper one. It was a nice 17 cm protector. It's also a classic one—foam with a fabric cover. But it really worked very, very well. Unfortunately, I still broke my pelvis on the side I landed on. That was the left side. Then the seat, the ilium, and the pelvic ring at the sacrum in the back were broken. You noticed that right away. So, that's a bit macabre here now. But you do realize that you've been injured. Of course, you're in such a state of shock that you block it out at first. And then I was even able to take off the harness. I could turn onto my back. I could use my helmet to fix my leg in place so that it all hurt a bit less.

So it's quite amazing,

what you're actually capable of in a situation like that. Although, mentally, it's already pretty intense.

Yeah, there's probably enough adrenaline in the body for them to keep functioning reasonably well at first, without fully feeling the pain.

Yeah, I found that very surprising, in any case.

But you'll get completely healthy again, or rather, your pelvis will be completely healed.

Everything looks very good. Yes, according to the prognosis from the doctors and the physiotherapists, there's no long-term damage, thank God.

What does something like that, like an accident like that, do to you? Especially with someone who, technically speaking, has his glider under control in his mind—like, yeah, Simon will always have his glider under control. And then some residual risk comes along and just knocks him down, and he slams onto the hot tin roof.

Yeah, what I believe in this case is, because if you're planning something more extreme, let's say, like you want to do a BASE jump, you want to fly an Ackerman maneuver, or you're mentally preparing for an Ackerman flight,

then I think you're much more on top of things. You're really in alert mode, you know exactly what you have to do, you're fully focused on the task. Because of that, I think basically less happens, because you're dealing so, so intensely with the current situation, with the here and now. Residual risk, and especially in my accident, I think hits harder when a routine kicks in where you say, "Yeah, I know this already, I can do this, oh, this isn't even wild anymore." And you're not really on top of things anymore, or maybe you're already thinking a bit too far ahead. So, my head was already more on the sliding over the meadows that followed and actually already more towards the landing.

and I didn't have on my glider at all that some kind of turbulence could occur or that a deformation could happen. So that was so far out of my head. I think that's what weighs most on the residual risk for me. That you simply think you have a lot of experience, that you're very practiced, and then you just don't take certain things seriously anymore. That you go into it with only 50 percent of your attention, and then, I think, that's often when the one who takes it so lightly gets hit. The surprising residual risk effect, where a situation suddenly occurs that you didn't account for, which then most likely ends up going wrong.

What lessons did you learn from the incident?

So one of the biggest lessons is that those remaining 500 meters during a cross-country flight aren't as important as a perfect, large-scale landing field that maybe doesn't create heating zones or lee areas, but that you simply say, I'll just start thinking about where a better option might be 500 meters of altitude earlier and then go land there. And that was, I think, the biggest lesson for me now. Besides the fact that I really want to avoid heating zones at low altitude when heading towards a landing. Because that can really create quite a bit of turbulence, I just really didn't have that on my glider.

So that was a very big lesson. Especially at that time of day, of course—so specifically for my case, the time of day, the sunlight, and so on—that you have to be a bit more cautious with those kinds of things. Because you actually know that when the sun is shining well on it and there are cooler areas around, something can actually happen. Maybe even if it's slightly sheltered from the wind—so not necessarily lee, but sheltered from the wind is enough. Correct me if I'm wrong there as a weather expert.

Being sheltered from the wind is completely enough for something to really blow out.

And yes, that you just have to take those situations and those areas much more seriously. I think that was already one of the biggest lessons learned.

Well, you're a professional pilot too. You fly large cargo planes and everything there follows real routines that you work through. And probably, a landing approach there is already a landing approach kilometers away. And you say, you go into landing mode 20 minutes out and then slowly approach an airport. Is it something that we, as paragliders, should actually think of more in the sense of those large-scale flights, to say, okay, we're really deciding on a landing now and doing a

...large-scale and time-consuming approaches, without always saying, "Oh, come on, maybe I can get another 50 meters over, or somehow still manage a low-safe or something." Instead, I'm really already in a landing mode very early on.

So, we've actually wanted to transfer the transition from professional aviation to paragliding for quite a long time, at least parts of it, because this professional field has actually spent years doing nothing else but eliminating human error and constantly advancing safety. I don't think there's any field where there's such detailed accident analysis, where so much is invested in training to avoid mistakes, to recognize situations, and to be able to handle stress. It's truly outstanding there; it really fascinated me when I entered this professional field, how much and how precisely things are analyzed, how intense the training actually is, and what enormous amount of knowledge actually exists regarding humans and aviation in general.

That is truly extremely impressive. Because you just mentioned this mode, even Kegel Maurer said relatively early on that for him, there are also different flight states where he programs his head accordingly—whether it's for the takeoff, for thermals, for the cross-country flight, or then again for the landing. So he really switches into a mode where his entire focus is actually only on that, so where he really puts his whole focus on it. Yes, in airline flying, a landing actually begins about an hour beforehand, where you look at the maps again carefully, the aircraft weight, the fuel, the weather conditions, and so on. And then it's like that, and then it's checked in the most detailed way.

So you talk to all the crew members, tell them what you're planning, and you're basically programming yourself in advance. But risks and threats are also mentioned. On one hand, internal things—what problems do we have, is something on the plane not right, do we have some minor malfunction? Or also threats, like the weather might not be right, or that some special situations could occur at the airport. And so, you're basically trying to eliminate all surprises. To be as well-prepared as possible so that everything runs smoothly. And that's something that could actually be transferred almost one-to-one to glacier flying. Maybe not with the

an hour before. No, an hour before is a bit...

difficult, exactly. But taking a few minutes beforehand to look again, very closely, hey, where might the turbulence zones be, if it's a climb flight where you're landing at an unknown landing field. What's the wind like? Where can I spot the wind? Which landing technique am I using? Which one makes the most sense here right now? And that you then really go into this mode of landing and try to handle it as best as possible. And as you already said, that you don't try a low-safe and then realize, oh, the circle isn't working out anymore and I'm on the ground ten seconds later. So, sort of unexpectedly. I think that increases the residual risk, where you then need a bit of luck at the exact location where you are. Whether it's a "friendly" wind, a "friendly" place, I'm saying it somewhat hyperbolically now, or rather not so friendly.

Should you even still call that a residual risk? You could say, okay, if you take the corresponding altitude and time three minutes before landing to look at it and say, okay, the wind is coming from there. I'll look at the possible turbulence areas. I might see, oh, there's a hot sheet of metal there, like in your accident. I probably shouldn't fly over that very low, because if something's going on there, it'll likely be turbulent. Something like that, assuming a certain amount of experience, could certainly be spotted. And in that case, the residual risk would actually be part of the normal risk, where you can say that's something I can avoid, or at least significantly reduce, by choosing a different route or a different landing field or whatever.

Yeah, I think what you just said hits the nail on the head regarding reduction. I believe the residual risk is a relatively large chunk. But if I analyze my situation beforehand, as you just called it, then I can minimize it very, very significantly. The more prepared I am for the situation, the more I've thought about it, the smaller it becomes. And of course, stupid things can still happen, like stepping into a hole in the meadow during landing or overlooking a boundary marker or something similar. I think that's still the small "idiot risk" that remains. But with an approach like that, I think I can reduce it very, very well.

I think you can see that in our paragliding sport too, that it's actually an extremely safe sport. I mean, the number of accidents isn't enormous. Given the number of pilots flying and the weather conditions, which are being pushed more and more, you can see that what we do is basically already pretty safe.

A lot of the risk from the accidents that happen is also related to the risk of what's hanging under the glider, seven meters below—namely the head, or the pilot in question, who might sometimes give the wrong inputs, react incorrectly, or sometimes not even know what they should actually do in terms of control to get their glider flying again, or simply let it fly at the right time instead of hindering it again. Now, you're someone who has released a whole series of videos with the DHV on all sorts of things, around launching, controlling, landing, and so on. You're always the one who explains all of that nicely, like how to do that with modern control techniques,

...how to keep a good grip on gliders. Is there actually a point or a technique, a trick or a tip, or something else that, in your opinion, hasn't really reached the pilot industry or the pilot community as much as it should, but would actually be particularly important?

There are perhaps two points that would be very important to mention. One is still ground handling. You see so many different techniques, and I think many people prefer to stick with a technique they once learned or were shown. Let's say the "low-flight" style, which works for the majority of the time, but then has certain limitations. And you just see that as soon as conditions deviate from the standard, people are very quickly overwhelmed by their paraglider. Even though ground handling is actually an option or a form of training that you can actually do almost all the time and almost everywhere, and where you could invest a lot of time.

Because it's possible, as I said, for everyone to just do it briefly in the afternoon when there's a bit of wind on a hill or in a meadow. So I think that's really something where people should put in a bit more energy. And what I think is also somewhat underestimated is that ground handling actually needs coaching. So just playing with the glider in a meadow isn't necessarily the most effective way, because you don't really get certain tricks and things that way, I believe. So you need someone looking at it from the outside giving a few hints. And there, I believe, is really one lever that can be expanded, that ground handling coaching—ground handling courses—should be promoted a bit more strongly.

Of course, you also enjoy just doing ground handling, like having the joy of holding the glider over yourself or maybe being able to run up a slope with the glider somehow. But specifically this pure holding of the glider over yourself, I think that has a major disadvantage. It has a much too great focus on things that might be more important, like playing with the wingtip, laying the glider on its side, or even the fear of a tilted glider. When you observe it, people react immediately by braking it down and laying it back on the ground, instead of just letting it rise at the wingtip and learning to deal with that situation. I think that's exactly what I meant before: if you just play with it like that, you always take this supposedly easy path, you lay it down again, and start from the beginning, instead of learning to deal with this new situation.

And I think that would benefit a lot of pilots very, very much.

You said there are two things. Ground handling was point one. What is point...

two? Point two is that a stall with a paraglider is simply extremely demanding, and the normal pilot, the casual flyer, the beginner—if a stall occurs, they are actually immediately overwhelmed to the maximum. You can see that in almost all accidents. I also get that as a job now as a safety sender. If the glider is unintentionally stalled, meaning the flow is broken, the pilot usually reacts somehow. So these are no longer controlled movements; he's basically jerked out of his seat and then goes into all those human bracing postures and compensatory movements, which of course provide extremely many negative control inputs with the paraglider.

That's why I think this stall-avoidance flight technique is still not quite ingrained enough in people's minds. I don't want to encourage everyone to learn full stalls and all possible types of collapses, because that requires a lot of time and training. But you can take a slightly easier path and learn stall-avoidance flight techniques. On one hand, what we promote very strongly is releasing and pulling back for turns—that you don't stay on the brake, but instead give the glider the opportunity to take a smaller angle of attack, simply put, to build up speed again and only then continue the turn. And also, staying on the brakes. I mean, people are often taught from the very beginning of their training,

minimum sink, flying around slightly on the brake is the safest; it's more collapse-resistant there, and you have the possibility to fly actively. And that's true for most gliders and in most cases. But it's also a very comfortable position. That means the pilot likes to stay in this angled arm position with the lines slightly on the brake the whole time. And then, of course, I no longer have these advantages. I'm just flying a slower glider. But active flying doesn't happen then. And if a problem occurs where the pilot would have to give the hands up, i.e., forward toward the line pulleys for the steering role so that the glider can fly again, then actually this position, this comfortable one, is so ingrained,

that the hands don't go any further up, but that you stay in this basic position and can no longer get the paraglider out of the stall. And you see that very, very often. And that's something that really had to get out of people's heads—that you adapt your control line position to the situation you're in. Do you want to glide? Then the hands belong up high. Is it a bit turbulent? Yes, then with modern gliders I go to the rear level of the three-point harness, if they've designed it for that. Or I go slightly into control line pull and then fly really actively. Compensating for pitch movements with up and down movements. And in my opinion, that's still not quite ingrained enough in people's minds.

Since we're on the subject, let's talk about this point regarding the basic hand position again. Especially when you compare how paragliders were built a few years ago versus how they are today. Modern paragliders have much more pitch-damped profiles, but they have a slight S-curve or a slight reflex profile, which, if left alone, produce strong pitch movements on their own,

...quickly contain it, or at least not let it pitch forward too much. But you can destroy this S-swing by pulling the brake so far away from the trailing edge that the S-swing is basically pulled out of the profile, and then the profiles actually become more pitch-sensitive again in that position, even if they are slightly braked. Now, there are a few paraglider manufacturers or designers, like Bruce Goldsmith for example, who advocate for people not to fly with much brake input, but rather to fly with hands up, or at least, if you translate it exactly, in a contact position, let's say. You should still be able to feel the canopy somehow through the brakes. What is your recommendation on this topic?

I actually see it the same way as Bruce Goldsmith; he put it so well, 10% brake is bad for your paraglider, exactly for the reasons you just explained. And in my opinion, you should also adapt your brake position to the flight phase. So, I like to teach now that when it's calm and I want to glide somewhere, it's best to fly in glide—meaning hands all the way up, no contact—then the glider actually does everything beautifully on its own; it flies beautifully on track, and of course, I also have the performance I paid dearly for, which I can then actually call upon. And if I notice now that I'm perhaps getting closer to the terrain or I feel the first air movement where I might want to intervene as a pilot,

then I go to contact. Then I can just feel a bit of control pressure. I can tell if it's increasing or decreasing. Of course, I can accelerate the glider very little, but I can stop a forward neck movement at least. And I think you can also notice with the newer gliders that they tend to pitch forward more than to set themselves up. So the thermals

pulling back, if something like that comes along.

Exactly, so less of that pitching back where I'd actually have to actively accelerate the glider upwards with my hands. And that's why I think it's a very good tactic to fly like that, because the glider's first reaction would probably be to pitch forward. If it gets even more turbulent now, I'd go down one step further with the control lines, meaning flying a bit slower again, which also increases the angle of attack slightly because my flight path is changing. But now I have much more room to maneuver. That means I can really react if the glider happens to pitch back, so that I can lift my hands and accelerate it again. But I still have the option to pull down very hard. I would really only do that if the situation actually calls for it, like if it's turbulent and I really need to intervene actively as a pilot.

But

when it's turbulent, actually just from the idea of it, active flying means your hands are never still. Basically, you're trying to maintain a fairly even pull on the left and right all the time, or to keep the angle of attack under control so that the canopy stays above you. And a rigid position—I'll pull it up to my shoulder or a bit lower than shoulder height or something and just stay there—is actually counterproductive in that case.

Exactly, right. So that's what's in your head, as I said before. I'll just stay still and then I'm safe. And that's unfortunately a misconception because, in my experience, paragliders tend to get more turbulent. They become more prone to pitching, and some even more prone to rolling. If I were to just stay rigid, I'd actually be taking away all the advantages. But if I can intervene actively, I'm definitely on the safe side. And that's just like you said, the hands aren't rigid; I'm trying to follow the control pressure, trying to react to my flight path, and because of that, the hands are constantly in motion. The same thing is, of course, also important for the harness. Also here, which is a far too little-noticed part, is our flight seat, our control seat—that I also stay flexible there, keeping the load on the glider actually even, meaning I move with my hips, but also when I'm turning in a certain direction where I want to go, I don't just accept everything, but actually use that control actively as well.

Or, when it comes to gliding, you want to sit as calmly as possible again and try to transmit as few movements as possible to the glider.

Let's talk about turning flight and modern control techniques next, the way you'd like to teach them as the DAV, let's say. It still takes a while for that to really sink in with the pilots as a whole. One thing I noticed in the videos you're making is that it's actually a lot about impulsive control. And sometimes it almost looks like digital control, where you say, I'm initiating the turn now, and you don't do a slow initiation, but actually a relatively fast one. You don't pull the brake very deep, but there's still a certain momentum, and because of this sudden change on the wing, more happens faster. What's the point of that? There

the background of impulse control is actually about exploiting the glider's flight mechanics and bringing the whole thing back into a flight technique that avoids stalls. Our paraglider steers using drag. This pure parasitic drag, of course, works best when the speed is high. So, the higher the speed and I create a deformation at the trailing edge, the better the whole thing works. And if I do the whole thing relatively quickly, then this speed difference or this drag intensity is, of course, at its greatest. Then our flight mechanics actually work best because we are a pendulum and we actually steer via the pendulum. That means if I suddenly brake one side, the pilot pendulum can swing forward and outward, and the paraglider actually takes on the bank angle the fastest,

without needing a relatively large amount of control travel and thus having a lower angle of attack, since the profile isn't too curved. And that way, I'm actually further away from a stall or a dangerously high angle of attack. That's the main reason behind showing that, hey, you can still achieve high maneuverability with a paraglider that supposedly has long control travels or is sluggish, by using this control technique. Now, of course, in the videos, the whole thing is very clear, and also in a training form, like for example at a flight school, in a gym, or with a trainer, where you basically perform movements in isolation very clearly in order to then apply them appropriately in everyday practice.

So it's basically like a gym, where you train maneuvers or movements in isolation and should train them that way to then adapt them. So of course it makes no sense if I want to fly in weak thermals to pull around very impulsively, because I'd then have a lot of bank very quickly, which might eliminate the climb again due to my increased sink rate. So this is really more of a technique I should train so that I can apply it when I need it, when the glider just isn't maneuverable.

But maybe in the paragliding scene, it's still considered too opportunistic to say that this very soft, slow pulling and very steady flying, and gradually taking on the bank angle so that everything looks so smooth, is actually maybe even counterproductive in terms of performance?

Yes, of course, if I pull the control line very slowly, I need more travel because it takes a while for the resistance to build up. I'm also slowing down the paraglider, so I have to apply even more resistance. Ferdinand Vogel once said quite nicely that if I want to climb as powerfully as possible, I should actually try to use as little control line as possible on the inside of the turn and fly with the minimum sink on the outside, in terms of the control line. And he also mentioned using relatively a lot of weight. So, that you put in relatively a lot of weight to determine the radius. And if I'm flying around with a lot of control line input to initiate a turn or even maintain it, then of course I also have a lot of induced drag again.

And from the polar perspective, I'm gliding more poorly. That means I'm actually eliminating a relatively large amount of the glider's performance. What I also believe, or what I've felt while flying, is that especially in the performance range, the gliders work best the less I deform the profile. In other words, I try to get as little sink as possible while climbing. And it simply works best that way, rather than when I'm flying around here with deep brake and a strong deformation. I

I found that quite interesting. I went on a sailplane flight, and what I found most interesting in the comparison with paragliding is that when these sailplanes circle in thermals, they really pull the stick to the side or set their flaps, take on the bank, and you immediately feel the G-forces terribly—it's not like a soft glide into that curve, but rather, "now I'm going, now I want to circle," and then they throw in their bank. And afterwards, they try to center it properly in that bank, rather than this slow, so to speak, sliding into the thermal and searching for where the center might be, like we paragliders still often do. Can we learn something from that?

Yeah, well, I'd say that since thermals are usually something tighter, we should try to really reach the core so that we don't let ourselves get pushed around by the thermal. After all, compared to our forward speed, it often has a significant share—sometimes we're climbing as fast as we're flying forward, if we were to look at it in terms of, say, eight, nine, or ten meters per second. So, with moderate thermals, we already have a significant share of vertical speed compared to what we can achieve horizontally. That means there's a lot of power there that can actually leave us drifting around like a leaf in the wind, and I think that a decisive circling is definitely the better option.

That you say, now I want to circle, and I'm also trying to compensate for this air component hitting the glider from below, which increases our angle of attack and also increases the induced drag—the tip vortex on the side—by using this impulse control as long as I still have speed. Because the problem is, if we slow down, we have high induced drag on both sides, meaning a large tip vortex, and then the control line on the inside compensates for that a bit. So if I pull inside, I create parasitic drag through the brake on the left outside, where I might not be using the brake but have high induced drag, then the paraglider suddenly isn't very maneuverable anymore. And the longer I wait, the greater the effect becomes and the maneuverability decreases, and then there's the danger that the thermals will probably just push me away.

And that's why I'd already agree that the glider technique is the better option here.

There's another way. I fly into the thermals, the glider is in, I pull both brakes, slow my glider down, look and feel for where the strongest lift might be, want to circle there, and then I just release the outside brake. I do this relatively smoothly, without that rocking or swinging into the turn. Is that sensible, or would you say it's better to always work with more speed and then set the inside brake impulsively to pick up the bank angle accordingly as quickly as possible? That's the safer option in the end.

It's not an "or," but rather an "and." So that's also a second technique we promote in the curve flight video; I'd say it's actually always about minimizing drag rather than increasing it. So, for example, if I have both hands pulled in, it's of course always better to release the outside brake quickly here, rather than pulling the inside one in further. If I have both hands up, of course, that option is out. That means it's better to use impulsive control on the inside. But it actually remains relatively the same. It's about creating a drag difference and doing it relatively quickly—either a quick release of the outside brake or a quick pull on the inside of the curve—so that I need very little travel in each case, but still get the greatest effect.

That a difference in drag between the left and right side is created quickly, and then the paraglider reacts really fast and directly. As directly as possible.

Do you see differences there, or does it make a difference depending on the paraglider's brake setting? There are some where the brake acts very far out at the beginning, so where you have a larger lever quickly. There are others that are more... some manufacturers call it the thermals brake, they say no, we'll leave the outer wing relatively alone for now and we'll brake a bit from the—not the canopy center, but the center of the half—we'll act a bit more on that, because with that you can actually set a more pleasant thermals turn bank. The glider doesn't bore away as quickly. Should one perhaps also adjust their turn technique accordingly for something like that? You can control one very impulsively, the other perhaps a bit less?

That's completely right. So the leverage, where you're basically applying it to the wing, is obviously different. The further out, the more effective the brake is, let's just say, because the lever in the arm is naturally larger. I have to be a bit more sensitive there. Our turn technique is now mainly aimed at beginners, so that they have the highest possible maneuverability with A and Low B gliders. And in my opinion, they have a more pronounced thermals brake, as you call it. So they have more moderate handling. In that case, it would be even more important to use the impulse technique or the quick release. With the brake that grips the outer wing very strongly,

I can definitely apply it. I use it myself too, but with significantly less pull because the glider reacts much faster. In my opinion, it's more direct, with the downside that it probably has a higher turn sink. The profile doesn't arch as much either, which is quite good for thermals behavior in some profiles. So, that I basically set the profile everywhere for minimum sink or for thermal flight, that I arch it, make the lift stronger. Of course, they have disadvantages for climbing behavior there as well.

Small change of subject. Let's move on to the speed bar in flying. Lately, in the DRV, at least in the texts you can read in the DRV Info, it's always referred to as the foot trim. What are you trying to achieve with this new definition in the DRV?

Yes, we've put a lot of thought into that. Sure, classically speaking, the speed bar was a speed bar. I'd press the footbar, decrease the angle of attack, and simply get more speed.

But over time, this started with the ear-laying, where we realized, hey, we're creating so much drag when ear-laying and actually increasing the sink rate just because our angle of attack gets larger, because we're just flying steeper downwards since we simply don't have as much forward speed. And you could compensate for this increased, for this increased angle of attack by pressing the speed bar. And then it's actually not a speed bar anymore, but if you transfer this to other aircraft, it's the trim. And I can basically influence the angle directly with it. And because of that, we, under the requirements of Peter Gröninger, also with his many years of airliner pilot experience or normal fixed-wing aircraft experience, experimented more and more with the idea that in certain situations you can actually optimize the trim.

That is, if you steer normally with the control lines, you increase the angle of attack again, but by pressing the speed bar or the trimmer, you bring the glider back into a more optimal angle of attack. So, you're essentially just curving the profile more or less, but not additionally increasing the angle of attack extremely. And that's where the idea actually came from; the word trimmer actually gets a bit closer to the actual extreme range of functions that this pulley system has, rather than just implementing it in your head, where it actually just goes faster straight ahead. And that was actually the reason. Now we've tried it out.

to implement, to mention more and more, also in comparison, like, "foot trim is the same as the speed bar" and so on, as it's assumed. Of course, people always like to resist change and we've received a bit of pushback, like, "what's the point of this, why is he calling it a trimmer?" But we actually want to get people thinking, to say, "hey, you actually have quite a lot of options with the angle of attack changes this offers."

A special feature of this—or what you could call a specific type of foot trim application—are what you call trim flaps. What's the deal with those?

We also realized that, especially when top landing, landing in a small area, or just to correct the glide, people like to pull the brakes and move back a bit on the polar curve, gliding slightly worse and flying slower. But there's always the risk of a stall. There were several accidents for a while during wind gradients where people were flying with the brakes on, then there was a sudden drop in wind or even a wind shear, and then the glider suddenly stalled. We were thinking, yeah, actually, flying with the brakes on is good and it works great, but somehow the risk increases enormously.

And, yeah, then we thought, yeah, let's try again and press the speed bar and see if we can bring it into a safe shape, even though we have this highly curved profile that generates a lot of induced drag and doesn't glide well, so that we bring the angle of attack back a bit closer to normal. And we found that on most gliders, the profile was more controllable, it was more stable—also, of course, due to the higher angle of attack from the poorer glide—that it actually worked quite well, and we tried that out during top landings and noticed, wow, you somehow find it much easier to get to the ground because it simply, yeah, doesn't climb as much, doesn't glide as well, and also takes a bit less of the lift, so you just have a much larger landing funnel; you can approach more steeply, but also quickly transition back to a good glide.

And it's not even that new, so Richard Galant, who founded the RG brand back then and worked with many manufacturers, he was already before

...decades with this technology, landed at the top, and that's what we've actually picked up again.

What has happened with us now, in a way, is that it's a technique for top landing simply—so not slope landing or really in the strongest lift, but really for top landing, where you still have a bit of a lift component—we've found that it works extremely well there. We've tested it a lot, actually with all the gliders we've gotten our hands on, and yeah, we haven't actually been able to identify a problem with any of them. We did ask manufacturers, years ago, what they think, if they could please try it out with every new glider they bring to market, so they could explicitly say, no, don't do it with our glider, or stay neutral, or even say, yeah, hey, you can do that.

The response there was unfortunately very, very low, so almost no one actually replied and it was also talked about a bit like, yeah, that's nonsense, it doesn't do anything, you shouldn't do that. That's why I would still advise that if you try this as a pilot now, you should approach it very carefully—so, don't try it out right away with a new glider—and in the best-case scenario, still do the whole thing for the first time in an SIV training, because like any other maneuver, it needs an instruction, and that's obviously safest in an SIV training. That's just because we don't have full confirmation from the manufacturer yet. Nevertheless, we still haven't had any bad experiences with it, and that's why we've now dared to publish it.

Based on your tests and everything you've flown, did you ever have any negative experiences with it? I mean, I can imagine that when you're flying like that—with the speed bar half down, half braked, and so on—if a collapse were to occur, everything becomes completely more complex mentally. What do I do with the speed bar, what do I do with the brakes now? Do I hit the brake, do I let go of the speed bar at the same time? During the transition, the profile deforms completely, from that strong hollow profile back to its normal profile and stuff like that. You probably won't have much experience in your head of what a profile like that can actually do in a situation like that. Did you ever experience something where you said, oh, that was difficult?

Actually, I haven't really noticed anything more flexible or difficult. I actually found it rather more pleasant—so if you use it for active flying as well, in the thermals, of course not in extreme positions, but you're just a bit more on the springs and sinking on the brake, and from the perspective of the pulley, you're two or three centimeters away from the three-strap speed bar, which means you gain a bit more travel and active flying becomes significantly more effective. So you can release the glider more, accelerate more, prevent a stall even more, but also of course brake much deeper, by a few centimeters, because the travel increases a bit with it. Because of that, you actually have more advantages in active flying, as you can react to it a bit better.

And of course, it always comes back to stall-avoidance flying, which you can also see in the soaring video—that you can make the brake more effective again. So you can see that I can then compensate for the increased angle of attack a bit through the speed bar, and that simply has advantages again, which of course becomes a lot of fiddling and is also a demanding flight technique. So if I want to fly with my legs and control lines all the time, that is of course a lot, motorically speaking, and also in a certain way exhausting, which in my opinion isn't always applicable for long cross-country flights. So I have to apply it selectively, in situations where I feel I need it.

Should a technique like this already be taught in flight schools? Or is it actually, through the combination of having to press the speed bar or your foot trim while already having pulled the brake a bit beforehand, and stuff like that, probably way too complex for the beginner in the end?

I think it depends on the beginner. You always have people who learn very quickly, who are very motorically fit, and some who are a bit slower. I think with fit pilots—where you can see there's a good learning curve, a good understanding, a good feel—then I don't see any problem at all, as long as you don't overdo it, meaning staying within a healthy framework and applying the whole thing more or less for a straight flight first. So, in other words, you just fly straight ahead, steer with the brake lines to somewhere below the speed bar along the three-point harness or up to the main carabiner where it's connected to the harness. And then you press the speed bar, just so you can get a feel for it and also learn the understanding: hey, I'm changing the angle of attack. You go through that beforehand in theory, maybe show it on the wing model, so they already have a different approach to this component.

I think that's definitely doable, and I think it can also be applied to the final approach. I believe it's learnable for everyone. Of course, if I take it to the more complex side—well, in training, you don't usually do top landings or use it as an active flying aid. I think that's a bit of a stretch, but for flying at high altitude and also, if it works really well, applying it in the final approach in a long, straight-line final, I don't see any problem with that. It's of course always weather and area-dependent. So in an area where I can do a large, long final approach, I don't see any problems with incorporating that into the training.

More towards the end, because it's a bit much. At the beginning, the landing itself is still so exciting. I don't think it makes sense to introduce another distraction there. But I think it would certainly be possible, and I also mean that a few flight schools do do it, apply it.

How much does that actually change the rate of descent of my glider? You have a lower angle of attack, I'm slower, I'm obviously descending faster. Could that be an alternative to the...

pulling the brakes? At least smaller brakes, like some people also pull, saying, I still want to come down to land. I'm landing now with the brakes in. Would this trim-flap landing then maybe even be the better alternative?

So the descent isn't like you have to imagine that you fly this maneuver, maybe even in the extreme position, and then it goes down like an elevator. That's not how it is. I also think it's a bit glider-dependent. Some gliders increase the descent enormously. Now, let's say, to two meters per second. And with some, it feels like very, very little happens. They just get slower. Because of that, the glide is naturally worse again, but there isn't such a drastic difference noticeable. I find that very glider-dependent. I don't see an alternative to the ear-laying. So, ear-laying is still, I think, more effective. But where I have the advantage, when I see it during landing, is that I take away a bit of glide performance but still have the possibility of active flying.

When doing the ear tuck, I'm more or less, let's just say, bound and can only react with my body. I'm a bit more restricted there. On top of that, as a teacher, I really have to know the glider, if I look at it in the context of the training. Is it just as nice and calm in the ear tuck position, or does it start to roll, which many gliders love to do? And especially this rolling during landing is often a problem for beginners. They make fine corrections, unfortunately always at exactly the right time for rolling movements, and then it just builds up. And that can, of course, become even stronger with the ear tuck. And that's where I think the trim flaps maneuver is already better. I have the possibility of steering, the glider is usually not as prone to pitch or roll, and

with that, I have the advantage of only being able to do something active.

Another topic that's becoming more and more prominent is the so-called BC control—meaning steering via the rear risers, where C is also connected to B via a pulley or something similar, so that you really

the angle of attack control of the normal profile of the paraglider is handled simply via the rear risers, instead of the brake taking over.

From what I've seen lately, the trend is moving towards even some Low-B gliders having corresponding risers that offer this possibility. Do you think this is a good development, or does it actually assume too much from the pilots?

So personally, I think the development is actually extremely good. Anyone who has ever flown a pure two-liner in the sense of two risers knows that it's amazing. The angle of attack control I have there, the control movements—it's truly outstanding. And especially when I want to glide. I naturally use the profile as little as possible and have a lot of usable power there. And I think if you train for it, it has very, very many advantages in the lower categories too. Precisely because I can call on my power, I can use the profile little

deform, especially when sliding out. I don't have to go to the brake to react, but I can just do that with the rear riser without strongly deforming the profile, which happens with the newer constructions. Personally, I've always practiced this with people, and I've even flown it myself back when there were still four-liners and classic three-liners, where I went to the rear risers in glide to do pitch control, or even light turning flight, and also to feel it—because I didn't want to pull the brake, which would have cost me a few km/h and made the glide a bit worse—instead, I preferred to go to the rear riser and used it almost like a control line, feeling into the canopy or steering the canopy with it.

And I think you simply get the big advantages of the whole thing working more powerfully. Especially when flying in acceleration, where you still have the problem of the profile suddenly bowing over the brake when flying very fast, meaning the profile becomes briefly unstable, or in some cases with certain wings, it even leads to a collapse. And I simply don't have that danger there. What I can also do well is correct disturbances with the rear three-strap, especially when we're back to acceleration flying. I then have something in my hand, a very short control path that is also effective, and could then make the first reaction quickly to a disturbance. So, to put it briefly, I see only advantages in this for flying for now.

You know it from ground handling too, it often has some disadvantages with braking down, like the emergency brake when inflating or something similar, or in high winds. In those cases, I obviously have some disadvantages for the beginner, especially.

you just don't get the glider to stall over C very well then.

A special topic regarding this BC control in terms of safety—there was a very interesting discussion recently, I think it was in the paraglider Drachenforum. It was about, okay, how long do I basically stay on the BC handles, even in turbulent situations, how much do I correct through them, when do I switch to the brake, when should I work with the brake in turbulent situations, and then also the question, okay, is there perhaps right in the transition situation, I let go of the handles, go to the brake, which has a certain lead time—so I have a time lag of maybe half a second, depending on how fast I react—or I might even have the transition from, I had the BC slightly pulled, so I had the angle of attack there,

increased, I want to go to the brake now, I basically let it glide, pull the brake down, but I really have this transition where for a short moment the angle of attack basically decreases until the brake then starts to grip accordingly or I've even managed to pull it down deep enough. That actually means, and here's the question, when I'm on the B-C level, should I actually correct all the disturbances that come in through it first? Does the brake only come into play later?

That's a really complicated topic, actually a very complex question, because in my opinion, it also depends on the glider—how is it constructed? I mean, how does this B-C level work? Do I increase the angle of attack completely evenly across the entire span, or do I decrease it? Do I only do it in the inner part of the wing, or do I maybe even increase it a bit more on the outside than on the inside, depending on how the risers are made? So, if you look at a pure 2-3-line glider, a 2-liner, I think you can stay on the B-level for a very, very long time and really intervene a lot there, but with gliders with a bridge and a riser—so with 3-3 lines—I personally think I'd go to the brake sooner.

Now, in terms of the sequence, let's assume I'm flying in speed bar, so with the trim on fast, to use the new wording. Then, of course, I'd first stay in my speed bar, take the rear 3 lines—whether it's with a bridge or as a 2-liner—and use the speed bar more or less very little. I set my desired top speed with that, and then I do everything else with my hands. Also because I'm naturally faster and more sensitive there. If I notice now, oh, it's getting turbulent and somehow it's becoming too unstable for me, I might also just have that uneasy feeling, oh, a collapse could happen now, then I'd already go back in the speed bar, so take the foot trim back, maybe even back to trim speed, and then, if I still want to move forward, I'd stay in the

rear 3-lines. And if I then notice, oh, now it's getting difficult to handle or it's getting very turbulent, then I think I would switch to the brake very quickly. But then also with a pulling movement, so I would let go of the rear 3-line and immediately go a bit on the brake until I have a nice control pressure, so that this, as you already hinted before, this releasing of the C-lines or B-lines leading to a forward pitch can be compensated for immediately. This topic from the competition pilots came up quite early, where they said, yes, this transition is simply extremely critical and often, in really turbulent conditions, the glider collapses exactly during that transition.

So that's exactly what happened: there was a pull on the B or on the C, it was released, the glider pitched forward, and then the brakes were pulled. The profile arched instantly, even though it had already pitched forward and had a smaller angle of attack, and because of this sudden arching, Ralf Reiter called it the bungee effect back then—or we call it high-speed ballooning now—where you get a slight lifting movement from the arching, and that might have even been the reason the gliders collapsed, alongside the turbulence. So, there's really a problem in that transition, I think, and my strategy would be, as I briefly summarized before: I try to reduce my speed bit by bit.

and in the best-case scenario, before I get into situations and air movements where I really have to expect disturbances, I'm already on the brake. That would be my approach for someone who doesn't have to fly competitively and just wants to get from A to B as quickly as possible.

To wrap up, one last different topic. For years, the DRV—you mentioned it at the beginning too—had this Safety Class and promoted it. It was about a safety rating within the A and B classes, where the DRV said they basically check them inside and out, even going beyond the classic EN tests, pulling even larger collapses, even more accelerated and larger ones, to see what a canopy actually does. And they offered an additional rating.

This Safety Class eventually sort of disappeared into a drawer and you didn't hear anything about it anymore. You've actually flown most of these tests yourself for the DRV, I believe. Did it go into the drawer because you just didn't feel like doing it anymore?

It was a bit more complex. I mean, we obviously had a strong goal of always bringing this data logger technology, which provided a very, very lot of information, into the type testing facility. So that it would already be factored into their assessment. Of course, it was also the case that these angles they identified didn't quite match what you'd estimate from a video at the type testing facility. So they were sometimes larger. By angles, I mean pitch angles. Exactly, thanks for the clarification. These pitch angles. And yes, that's actually how this Safety Class first came into being with its own classification. As for why it's disappeared now?

The effort was simply enormous, but we already saw that it reached the manufacturers—that they built their gliders a bit more defensively again and are now also increasingly picking up this classification again with Low R, High R, and so on for the other classes. That it was coming along a bit more efficiently, also thanks to this wide range that most manufacturers offer. And we simply noticed and were of the opinion that it showed an effect. And we also communicated to the manufacturers that if we see something on the market again that might be very high-performance but has been scaled back a bit in terms of the safety component, we reserve the right at any time to take that device out again and do a Safety Class test on it—specifically for conspicuous gliders.

And in my opinion, that wasn't actually that relevant. We didn't really have any gliders on the market anymore that were extremely conspicuous, where there were practically rows of malfunctions right after the device was released. So, for now, that's actually just a folder. It can be opened at any time if needed.

Where do you currently see the biggest safety issue in the glider area?

I think it's still a bit the communication—so, a slightly more detailed description of the paraglider's character right now, if we stay on that topic, would be good. In other words, what kind of tendency does it have in terms of the profile? Does it already have a reflex character, or is it a classic profile, like people used to know, regarding the effects with the brake? Is the glider rather strongly collapse-resistant, or does it have a progressive collapse behavior, if we reduce it as much as possible to safety? Because I think that's already a problem, since fundamentally, gliders are always becoming more collapse-resistant, and that's simply an enormous...

has a safety advantage. But then the pilot also dares more because they don't perceive the environment or the air as extremely anymore. So I think things are becoming more dampened, and because of that, the flight horizon—or rather the possibility of flying in certain conditions—is expanding a bit. But if something does happen, it's still the case that it takes more energy to cause a disturbance, and that will then be correspondingly more dynamic. This development is also showing up in SIV training, where it's becoming increasingly difficult for participants to simulate realistic collapses. So gliders are increasingly moving towards being extremely easy to fly, having great performance, starting well, landing well, and so on. But this training aspect for an SIV training is actually declining more and more.

So it's really difficult for a normal pilot—it's really difficult for me too—to initiate a somewhat realistic collapse with a mid-to-high B glider. You have to use specific techniques, like how you pull, how far you pull, and in which direction you pull, just to make the collapse somewhat realistic, especially when it moves towards an accelerated asymmetric collapse. And I think that's a point to consider, and in a way, it creates a risk. As a solution for that, I recommend that people go for SIV training relatively early, to train these fall deformations with a glider that simply has very docile collapse behavior in the simulation, just to completely understand and apply that technique, because in principle, nothing changes as the class gets higher.

So the reaction remains more or less the same. But the point is that it's already become second nature, so you can more or less compensate for those simulation issues with the larger gliders. Or maybe, when it comes to C-class, you don't really have to do collapse training at all anymore, because sometimes it's just really, really unrealistic—way too dynamic in the simulation. And yeah, that's more of an anxiety-building exercise than actual SIV training.

That means there's one more reason to stay longer at

low-class paragliders, with which you can actually still train properly.

Exactly, I really see it as this training glider should get more weight, and you should really do a lot, a lot of work with it before moving to another class, because then the training just gets harder and harder. Even with ground handling, the higher the class, the more the gliders are built for flying, for optimal speed bar or trim use, so they all become a bit more complex during ground handling as well. And that goes great with the low classes. You should just build your basis really well with the low classes, and then I don't see any problem with transitioning to slightly more complex gear.

How do you see the new ENC 2-liners that are increasingly hitting the market? Of course, many people are saying, "Oh, let's try that out. If it's a C, flying 2-liners probably won't be that hard."

Basically, because of these control options and the potential in active flying, as we just discussed, I think it's a very good development. I mean, it's simple, it makes accelerated flying safer in my opinion because I simply have more input options, I feel more. Where you obviously have to say clearly, where you have to be careful, is that the fewer lines, the larger the gaps become, let's say, in the line setup. And more tangles can occur, so you really have to master the technique of untangling via the control line, the stabilizer line, or even via deformations, collapses—you have to master those. I also think that before moving to such gliders, you really need to be able to master the full stall, because that becomes more relevant because of the danger of tangling.

...intensifies. And of course, the higher speed, especially at top speed, is just more kinetic energy; everything will inevitably happen a bit faster. That's something you should keep in mind when switching to such gear. But I believe that for someone who can fly, it's a very good development.

Last question. You're now the head of training at the DHV. Have you set any personal goals for yourself, like something you want to leave your mark on at the DHV?

Yes, so the goals are still to train people better, more deeply, and actually for longer. But the whole thing is naturally determined by several factors, and you can't just prescribe the dream training, like simply telling people out of the blue to do 80 flights, ground handling hours and so on, thermals and so on, because there's obviously an economic component against that. It can't become too expensive. The training has to stay within a certain minimum framework, otherwise we'll naturally lose new recruits too. And that's exactly the biggest hurdle here. And that was also something we worked out together in the teaching team, which is that we naturally have a training amendment.

We also wanted to have many more flights and so on, but in our discussions with the training committee, we realized that would change the overall structure of the training too abruptly. And it would simply make the training too expensive. And it's not just the price factor; above all, in this day and age, it's increasingly the time factor—meaning, a glider training can be done by most people during their annual vacation. And if that's no longer feasible for a person who also has to plan other holidays with family or something similar, then I believe we will lose too many recruits. And that's the big hurdle here: how do we continue to optimize the training so that more content is included, but it's still feasible, without blowing the time and price factors.

And yes, maybe that's also an idea to increase the continuing education character again, and perhaps you could imagine something like with kiting, where you do a kind of DHV license additionally, like a stamp card where you check off individual course levels. To get an increase in motivation for continuing education, which now isn't just limited to thermals and SIV training courses, but focuses more on individual offers for ground handling, takeoff and landing training, so that it simply comes more to the forefront, and that would actually be my personal goal, that we manage to

Flight schools offer actual ground handling, pure ground handling weeks, or pure launch and landing training, so that basic training becomes a stronger focus again. That's what I've set out to achieve. Besides flight instructor training, which has also undergone a very significant change in recent years, we actually tried a few things, and we noticed that some of them didn't work out so well. Unfortunately, you always only see that a bit later.

And what didn't go so well? An example?

That we put very, very much emphasis on flight technique at the beginning. Especially while I was very active, we trained a lot of flight technique and were very strict about it, but then we realized that although the people finished at a good level, they tried to apply this high level of flight technique—like more pronounced pitching and rolling, or the trim flap technique and stuff like that—very early in their training.

and we actually skipped a few steps there. And then we realized, oh, this has developed a bit negatively. The training has become a bit too aggressive. And now we've changed the whole thing so that the focus is back more on the craft of the flight instructor, that radio communication and instruction are put more into the foreground and really integrated into the course. Before, the idea was actually that this would happen at the flight school, that you'd basically be trained by the existing instructor during your internship. They'd basically always be standing next to you and really coach you on radio technique. That didn't work very well, and now we want to put that into our training course instead and train it more heavily there. The Austrians started doing that a bit earlier, and it was received quite well.

We have a very active exchange there, of course. And now we're moving in that direction, and it's the same with the Performance Trainer. That one was also very heavily focused on ground handling, landings, and maneuvers. There's a shift happening there now, also at the request of the instructors and the flight schools, to put more focus back on thermals training, because that's simply what the students want relatively early on. So, just learning to fly the lift. And now there's a shift again. Unfortunately, it's just this time lag we always have. And then you see in the first few years whether that decision was a good one. Because of that, we've had a lot of change now, which of course doesn't always look good from the outside. People think, what do they actually want now?

But it's simple: if you don't try anything, you won't get any further. That's our approach there.

That could be a future option, where you just said that more further education and such, that we say you do a classic A-license, which you can manage during your annual vacation and so on. But in order to be able to do a B-license, for example, that you should have more of a logbook, as you said, where it says not just this 15-kilometer cross-country flight, but where it says, okay, you get an introduction to WC control and can nod and roll only over the rear risers. And you have to have learned and demonstrated that. So, such individual building blocks where you have to say, okay, if you master these techniques, for ground handling you shouldn't just be able to hold the glider above you, but also be able to move it from left to right in a controlled manner.

That people have to have learned these techniques at least once for it. You never know if they'll apply them later. Everyone has to continue their own training. But it's about saying that for a B-license, for example, certain flight techniques should at least be included—especially for these modern gliders with their different profiles and control techniques, which are best taught properly so that you can actually fly them efficiently and accelerate on a cross-country flight, rather than everyone just fumbling around with "learning by doing" and thinking, "Yeah, I'm also controlling the rear via the WC level," when in reality they aren't controlling it, but just holding on to the back a bit. But if the glider then moves forward, nobody actually goes down with the C-straps in the back to catch it.

Yes, that is actually pretty much the path we've taken. So, we've only minimally increased the A-license training for 2024. With this Corona regulation, where you can basically pay for lower mountains as high-altitude flight, we've essentially set a total altitude sum that's a bit higher than before. We've specified ground handling a bit more precisely and included it as examples. So, the A-license is still within a framework of how it should work with the current course structure, and the B-license is now really going to get more intensive training.

The difficulty in the conceptualization is that there might be certain people who are already very good, and we don't want to push them into what people from the outside like to call a "money-making scheme," where they have to go through a complete training course again even though they already know how to do it. So the difficulty is how to get them to just a test on certain points that is still appropriately priced and fair for everyone. That is the current conceptual difficulty, but that is the approach we see right now. The B-license will truly be a training program, and the whole thing has to be tested so that, on one hand, independent learning is rewarded, but on the other hand, it's still taught properly during the training for those who didn't have that access.

Now, of course, everything is being shifted very heavily towards SIV training. In SIV training, everything is taught, from active flying and malfunctions to, in some cases, ground handling and landing techniques—they are really packed to the brim. You can see it in the demand too; I don't think I know a single SIV training center that isn't fully booked, even before the season starts. It's a great development that it's being accepted like this, but we are slowly reaching the capacity limit. The areas are full, there aren't many new areas to open up, and yes, we just have to find other ways now. I would also take this opportunity to push for this desire for one-on-one supervision a bit more, especially in the tandem, so that maybe flight schools can offer things like private days.

...or maybe the pilots themselves could take a look at who offers something like that or actively inquire, because of course, demand determines supply. Tandem coaching has enormous potential and is unfortunately used far too little. We recently tried this in the flight courses as well and simply noticed that one flight for a maneuver with the school in a tandem brings as much as ten previous times on the aircraft, where they try to manage it via voice commands. And that is really a point that can take a lot of pressure off SIV training, and something that can actually be done anywhere in a safe environment—descent aids, active flying, thermals flying, all of that can be trained extremely well in a tandem.

and yes, one day is enough and you really make enormous leaps, so it would be truly brilliant if flight schools embraced and built that up more.

Wonderful, Simon. Let's leave that as an outlook.

Guys, flight schools train more with tandems and teach your students what they need to know in the air right there on site. On the other hand, pilots, if you want to learn something, feel free to book a tandem flight with a really experienced pilot and tell him you want to learn something and not just look at the scenery, and talk it through with him and say, show me how you circle thermals or what you look out for or other specific things, like how do you do a steep spiral entry or something else, so that you can get a bit of a feel for it. Actually, I think it's a very, very sensible setup and I fly tandems myself; I just flew with someone the other day who doesn't fly at all yet but thinks a lot about it, and during the flight, I explained a lot to him about why I'm doing certain things, and he took away an insane amount of that, which he told me himself.

His wife also flies, so he understood so much more about all that dynamics with a flight, or why the thermals are like that, or ah, that's what it feels like. You can say, look, we're here now, it's already a bit shaky, it'll probably go up in a second, and over there, based on that terrain structure—so, explaining a bit of the surroundings too—I think you can get so much out of that. So this idea, Simon, if you push for it as the head of training, I can only agree, I think it's great.

Yeah, thanks for the feedback that it worked out so well for you. It shows that it's already being applied in practice and it just works. So, I'm really happy about that.

Simon, thanks for your story and for taking the time. I wish you many more great flights and a speedy recovery from your, yeah, hip surgery—you didn't have surgery, it was just broken and they're putting it back together now. May it be as quick as possible so you can get back into the air and fully enjoy that great hobby again, instead of just telling me about it into the mic here theoretically.

Yeah, thanks a lot, Lucian, and thanks for having me on your podcast, it's a real honor. You're already a huge name with your blog and your podcast, especially in the German scene, but I was really happy to be here. I wish you a great season and, above all, stay safe. Thanks.

That was the Podz-Glidz episode on flight techniques with Simon Winkler. You can find the link to the YouTube channel with the DRV instructional videos in the show notes for this episode on the Gleitschirm-Blog Looglights. If you enjoyed the episode, please leave a positive review on Spotify, iTunes, or whatever audio platform you use for listening to podcasts. This helps make Podz-Glidz better known in the paraglider scene. Or you can recommend the podcast right away in personal conversations with your flying friends.

I'm Lucian Haas, the producer of Podz-Glidz and Looglights. As a freelance journalist, I also make a living from these offerings. However, I deliberately forgo ads, paywalls, or subscription models for funding. Just as nature gives me the lift while flying, I count on you as an enthusiastic listener and reader to provide me with financial lift. As a supporter, you can give as much as you want—it's up to you to decide what such an offering is worth to you. A commonly chosen support amount works out to 5 euros per month. But no matter what you pay, every amount contributes an important part to ensuring that Podz-Glidz and Looglights can continue to be operated and developed in the service of the paraglider scene in the future.

And specifically, independently and ad-free. You can find all the necessary information on how your contribution reaches me at looglights.blogspot.com. There, you'll find the "Support" menu item. Looglights writes Lu-Glidz until

And specifically, independently and ad-free. All the necessary information on how your contribution reaches me can be found at looglights.blogspot.com. There, you'll find the "Förderung" menu item. Looglights will write Lu-Glidz next time. It doesn't fall from the sky. Ciao.