We can't switch from a glider with a 5-6 aspect ratio to anything, whether it's a 2- or 3-liner, with a 6-5 aspect ratio and feel like it's still the same. This means regarding the C2 topic, we always have to keep in mind that if the glider we're interested in, or perhaps even ultimately decide on, has a significantly higher aspect ratio, then the aspect ratio jump is added to the 2-liner topic, which in my view screams once again that you must go to an SIV training with this glider.
Podz-Glidz, the Lu-Glidz podcast.
Stories from the cosmos of paragliding.
Today with Melchior Lindenstrud. And I am Lucian Haas.
In the spring of 2022, a revolution started in the paraglider market. The EN certification standard was changed so that when testing paragliders in the EN-C category, folding lines may also be used to initiate side and front collapses. This paved the way for paraglider manufacturers to have so-called 2-liners, which only have A and B levels at the riser, in the EN-C class as well.
Airdesign was the pioneer with the Volt 4. Other manufacturers soon followed, and 2023 was the first season in which C-2-liners flew visibly at the front in various sport class competitions with their performance boost. To this day, the introduction of C-2-liners still evokes a divided echo. From fascination to scam. Aren't 2-liners significantly more demanding to fly than C-gliders in the EN-C category? That is a question we keep answering over and over again. Don't 2-liners represent too big of a leap for pilots wanting to move up from a B-glider to a C-glider? And what about SIV training with C-2-liners, when you can no longer trigger reproducible collapses without a collapse line?
One person who asked these kinds of questions early on is Melchior Lindenstrud from Switzerland. The 65-year-old himself switched from an EN-D to an EN-C 2-Liner. However, he also found it exciting to see how the collapse behaves in the EN-C class—how these new types of gliders are generally perceived and accepted in the scene. To get a better idea, he started an online survey. Through this, he gathered assessments on various performance, handling, and safety aspects of 2-Liners. Almost 300 pilots took part. In this episode 131 of Podz-Glidz, Melchior talks about various, sometimes surprising survey findings, but also his own 2-Liner experiences. The talk is not just about the 2-Liner experience, but also about the 2-Liner experience.
Melchior also provides some good food for thought on what to look out for before deciding on a potentially more demanding glider. If you enjoy this podcast, please support my work as a patron. You can find out how to do that very easily on my paraglider blog Lu-Glidz, specifically on the "Fördern" page.
Good question. I can tell you why I need it, for example, because I know and love 2-liners and because I'm actually stepping down, so to speak, due to my age, to C-gliders, very deliberately. And the ENC 2-liner is exactly the right one. The right time has come for me because now I can fly with a C-glider and still have that 2-liner feeling. And maybe it's the same for many others, that this is also a positive fact for many other older pilots. And on the other hand, the ENC 2-liner gives a larger group of pilots the opportunity to fly 2-liners.
You just said you love 2-liners. Why?
That you love them. Yes. Or what is it about 2-liners that fascinates you so much? That you say you're glad they're available in the C-class now, so you can step down and still fly with a 2-liner. What's the special thing about that for you? That is
Maybe it's the performance aspect, but also of course the flight feel—that you can fly with these B-handles, which is basically also possible with the full-span 3-liners. But with the 2-liner, a much more effortless and therefore very fluid, direct flying style can be maintained, which ultimately can also provide performance. It's fun.
How long had you been flying 2-liners before you sort of moved up to, or stepped back down to, your first C 2-liner?
In 2015, I did a sort of restart with paragliding. Before that, I had done about five years of very low-level flying. Then in 2015, I moved back up relatively quickly and went onto my first 2-liner with the Bumerang 10. After that, I continued with XC-Racers, also 2-liners, two good 2-liners, 2-3-liners, and then came the Fusion, where I moved back down to C.
The Fusion is a 2-1 semi-liner, where
you in the
Basically, you get a similar feeling, but maybe not quite the same feeling. Exactly.
Especially with the normal Fusion—I mean, there's Fusion and Fusion Light—on the normal Fusion, that looped C was so hard and heavy that it would jerk me upright when I pulled on it. And I'm saying now, that's of course the classic example of the downside of the looped versions of the 3-liners, because the pressure is just... very high on that C or the pull. That's completely different with the 2-liner. The B on the 2-liner is usually, I'd say, soft. That
That means with a real 2-liner, let's say, you can actually hold the B-risers with your arms for longer to say, I'm flying at full acceleration, but I'm pulling it back into trim position, and it works. What happens with a 3-liner or a 2-1 half-liner with the looped B-risers is a bit different. It's just a bit different. In terms of looped B-riser control, it's just too hard over time. Does it get exhausting?
It's more strenuous and it's confusing because you constantly have to resist the upper body being pulled upright. At least, that was the case for me. And with the Fusion Light, it had a completely different loop with Dynema cord instead of a strap, and that ran much easier. And that was actually... that was actually quite manageable, but the 2-Liner is even softer.
Then, about a year ago, the first ENC 2-Liners hit the market. Yeah, exactly. It was the Volt 4 from Air Design at first, but then other manufacturers followed suit. Was it like, "Hey, now I'm getting something new that actually gives me something?"
I got interested in it right away. And I ordered one pretty quickly, exactly. What was it?
What did you switch to?
I ordered the Niviuk Arctic because I knew Niviuk from... Well, that's a given anyway. So the question of what I ordered actually relates to the fact that I had already flown the Niviuk Kleinbad 2P before this introduction. That's an EN, I still have the C glider, homologated in 2021, but back then the figures were actually all in C. So it would have basically been a C-2 liner, but at that time, Faltliner was still classified as D. But I had a lot of fun with this Kleinbad 2P, I still fly it.
And that's why it was actually pretty clear that I ordered the Arctic Race as a real C-2. C-2-Liner. And a bit later, I intensively tested the Libra, which I'm flying now, and this winter I tried out the Photon in terms of glide performance. But of course, I only have a very limited perspective on the differences between these various paraglider models.
Even so, you're someone who's been very intensely into this ENC-2-Liner topic from the very beginning. As soon as it came out, you made a video right away, you already started building the case—it's interesting—now there are these ENC-2-Liners. How is it going to turn out? What can you do with them? Did you describe it a bit like that? But especially last year, you also launched a major survey and really said, "Pilots, here, I'm giving you a questionnaire, I want to find out how you experience these ENC-2-Liners, what you're hoping for from them, and so on." What prompted you, basically as a private person, a private pilot who flies for yourself, to say, "I'm going to ask the whole paragliding scene"?
And that, I mean, it takes work and costs time and all that. So why would someone like you do a survey?
Yeah, well, because the topic fundamentally interested me, because I was actually excited about the Kleinbad 2P. This experience with a relatively well-behaved 2-liner, the Boomerang 10. I had four total destroyers, you can't exactly call them well-behaved. The XC-Racer was very demanding. Overall, I experienced it as a solid D-glider 2-liner, but demanding. Then with the Kleinbad 2P, I experienced that 2-liner flying doesn't necessarily mean it's constantly rustling and I'm constantly intervening. Rather, it can actually be really nice.
That's why I found this topic of 2-liners so interesting, because I actually hoped that 2-liners would make things more pleasant. So I looked into it, made this video last February, and then in the fall, the idea came up: what do people say about this, what are their experiences, and how can I find out? By doing a survey—so that's how the idea for the survey came about. I was traveling in Italy on a vacation with my bus and had a lot of time, I had my laptop with me, so I created a survey. And overall, of course, I just have a lot of time because I'm retired.
And then you say as a retiree, someone who's on vacation and might have a bad weather day or something, I'll put this survey together and see what others have to say about these DNC-2 liners. What did you personally expect? What could come out of this survey? So, what were your ideas, or if you were to approach it scientifically, what was your thesis on what this survey might yield?
To be honest, I didn't have a thesis. I obviously had my own opinion and my own expectations, which I expressed in the video, and I did about 130 flight hours on C-2 Liners last year and gained my own experience with them, but I didn't have a fixed expectation of what the survey would specifically yield; rather, I was interested in what kind of experiences others had.
So before we talk about the survey, let's talk about your experiences first, where you say that was basically... that was probably like an internal comparison you made there as well. Yeah. What were your experiences with the 2-liners that made you wonder if others might be having the same experiences as I am?
So, my experience with the 2-liner wasn't new, but I think what was new for me with the C-2-liner—similar to the Kleinbar 2P as well—is the experience that 2-liner flying can also be experienced relatively effortlessly. And what I had in terms of experience before, as I already mentioned, the Boomerang, the XC-Racer, those were demanding, clearly, logically. With the C-2-liner, it suddenly became pleasant.
That means the Artic didn't occupy my attention much at all. Of course, I'm assuming active flying. Naturally, there are many situations where you've actively braked or controlled the glider, but in a completely different context than what I've experienced with a D-2-liner until now, right? I don't know if that answers your question.
Let's just recap. You're saying that, at least in comparison to the END 2-liners you've flown, you experienced flying with the ENC 2-liners as, let's say, significantly more relaxed. Exactly. Can we summarize it that way? Definitely, yes. Are there things, in comparison, where you would say you experienced the ENC 2-liners as more demanding in any way than what you experienced with the END 2-liners?
Yes, of course. So there is clearly a point. The question is more about how far you want to push it. But I've basically summarized it for myself as the problem with the ENC-2-liner being this ambivalence. On one hand, you have... well, this very high flight calm, this very high stability that comes partly from the 2-liner system, and on the other hand, probably also the combination with the lower aspect ratio compared to an END-2-liner. Then you have this very high stability that you experience, that you perceive, that you can enjoy, but no paraglider is stable forever.
And at the point where... where this stability, let me put it this way, collapses, I'm not talking about a collapse or something like that, but really something massive; I've experienced the C-2-liner as very demanding because these collapses, I would say or claim, happen at a higher level. I expressed it that way in my video too, but presented it differently. You just have to say, the glider holds longer, but when it does collapse, the whole thing just becomes more intense and demanding.
You mentioned earlier that with your Boomerang, the 10er, you even had four total collapses. With your END-2-Liners, the different ones you've flown so far, have you experienced total collapses with those as well?
Yeah, that's... The Boomerang always came from the front for me. That means they were never actually side collapses, but they were real destroyers. Front down, glider gone, wow, opened up again. You have to give it credit—it always reopened immediately. But still, at some point, it was just too much for me. I told myself, okay, that's it. And then the Boomerang was gone again. And I'd had that experience, this CCC flying, flying CCC gear. That was already pretty great. But I didn't do much with it. At some point I said, enough is enough. With the XC-Racer, it actually didn't come from the front, but from the side.
Very often with the Stabbys, and then also sometimes hard over the side. But the front was actually stable there. And I think that covers basic themes of how a glider works. It might be presented a bit simply, but for me, it either comes over the front or over the side. And the Arctic is actually very stable on the front. On the side too. But it came over the side for me. That was just a one-time thing, though.
Three-quarters collapse. I can't say that's typical for the Arctic, but the special thing was really the vehemence, the unexpectedness. And then, of course, the consequences afterwards, right? Because a three-quarters collapse usually doesn't just open back up like that.
Vehemenz means, or you said vehemenz and the unexpected, those probably couple together a bit. But the unexpected part is when you say, I don't feel anything. It feels so stable. I'm just flying along, fully accelerating or whatever state you were in, and then suddenly it drops below you. Exactly. And you'd say, with other gliders—maybe not two-liners—that don't stay stable for that long, you'd probably notice that earlier, that maybe not three-quarters of the wing, but maybe a quarter of the wing is just folding over, and you'd say, oh, it seems a bit more turbulent here. I'll take my foot off the gas a bit, or whatever.
Exactly, exactly. That was, for example, what I liked so much about the Fusion. It was like a little chatterbox, right? It would just rattle a bit over the stabilizers relatively quickly, completely harmless. But then you always knew, okay, it's turbulent. I have to be more careful. It was like an activation. I would just claim that a collapse like the one I had with the Arctic, I haven't experienced with the Fusion in three years, nor with the XC Racer in two years. I should probably mention that I've actually been flying two gliders at the same time since 2016. That means I've very often had different gliders together, so always two, or for example, high-performers, the Omega X Alps and a Carrera next to it, those combinations, right?
And yeah, in terms of intensity, on the Boomerang I had such violent total-destroyers over the front. But neither on the XC Racer nor on the Fusion did I have incidents like the one-off on the Arctic. And yet I think that was very symptomatic. It was something extremely random, or it's clearly and definitely statistically irrelevant, what I'm saying here. But still, it was symptomatic for me because otherwise I had nothing with the Arctic. Nothing at all, or practically no collapses—I don't get collapses anyway. No front. Nothing. But then, once, such a violent drop.
And what I ultimately find problematic or challenging is that this three-quarter collapse was actually only manageable with extreme flight experience. I mean, in Switzerland, we call it a safety course or extreme flight training, right? Because afterwards, by over-braking the still open side, I ended up in a twist. The glider was open again, and I had to get out of that twist and then approach again at the end. So I think, without extreme flight experience, without SIV training, I would have simply been overwhelmed. I was still very challenged, and I didn't do everything exactly right or optimally.
But I got the wing back flying relatively quickly and clearly.
At least based on this experience. If you were to put it like this, that's perhaps something symptomatic for this type of glider, like the two-liner, where so much load is on the A that they stay stable for so long. You could then say that with two-liners, depending on the construction—which still varies a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer and from glider model to glider model—you could say, okay, with two-liners you should rather expect it to work late. But when it does work, it's usually much larger than you would expect. Or than you would usually expect from three-liner gliders or something like that. They might work a bit earlier, but then you get the warning earlier too and know that they are also easier to handle in that case.
Exactly. I said earlier that my experience is statistically irrelevant, right? And you could talk to many people now and get all sorts of different experiences.
Why was this survey interesting for me? And ultimately, the statements from these nearly 300 pilots actually reinforced my own experience.
Now that you're bringing up the survey again, I wanted to get back to that anyway, but what actually came out of it? Did you find that your personal assessments were basically confirmed by those 300 people? Absolutely, yes. Or are there things, or points, where you're saying, hey, some things came out that I hadn't even had on my glider's radar until now? But where you can see, based on broad experience, there are things you should pay attention to when it comes to two-liners.
Effectively, nothing came out that I would have thought of differently regarding C-two-liners. But there were other findings that I obviously couldn't have guessed, things I didn't know about. A trivial example: the average age of C-two-liners, right? In my survey, it was 48 years, but then after checking XContest, they gave me statistical evaluations of 44 years. That's a relatively high average age for these pilots who fly C-two-liners.
44, off the top of my head, when I imagine German paragliders and stuff like that, isn't that roughly the average age of the paragliding scene anyway? I could imagine the average pilot being somewhere in their mid-40s.
Well, yeah, so you'd have to look at some statistics now
to that...
So I don't have any statistics from the DRW either. DRW or SAV or something like that.
available, but if you look at it—or if I look at my own club and other clubs I know—if you see that, okay, sure, there are a few younger people and whatnot, but I'd put the average age well beyond 40. So from that perspective, your question about who flies ENC two-liners would also hit roughly that average.
I can't really say anything more to that; I would have estimated the paragliding scene to be a bit younger, but I'll just say. These are the kinds of topics that emerged from the survey, or for example, the sentiment, the pilots' self-assessment of where they see themselves—I wouldn't have been able to say that from the outset, but the statements about the C2-liners didn't actually surprise me; they actually confirmed what I had thought myself.
What most people will probably be most interested in. That is, if I were, for example, an ENB pilot now and I wanted to step up, what can I read from your survey? Where are the possible sticking points and challenges? The more demanding flap behavior and those later flaps—we just talked about that, and it was confirmed again in your survey. Are there any other points where you have to say, hey, an ENC two-liner is already noticeable in some way, more demanding, and that's something you should consider before switching, especially if you're not moving back from, like you, from END, but moving up from ENB to ENC and then maybe saying, I'll try out a two-liner, where you'd say, hey, you have to at least deal with that mentally.
How do you want to handle that? That
I think that's a good question, because it's also an important one, I believe. Especially switching—the direct switch from a B-pilot who today always comes from a three-liner, right? To a C-two-liner, we have on one hand, of course, the class difference between B and C, higher glide ratio, more power, but also naturally a different challenge due to the C-glider in most cases. And additionally, we have the issue of two-liner technique. So it's a good question, because I think the B-pilot is very challenged by such a switch.
And when you asked me just now, an example from Switzerland just came to mind. But that's just an example. A pilot who upgraded to an ENC two-liner from a B glider. He had eleven hours of flight experience on it and, here in the Appenzellerland above the sector at 2,900 meters, he had a very strong disturbance and pulled the reserve parachute, landing in the mountainous terrain without any injuries so far. What am I trying to say? Hardly any experience until then, eleven hours, that's not much yet.
And then, presumably in turbulent air and demanding terrain. So, the Sentis is at 2,500. He's at 2,900 meters, and then the wing just collapses on him.
Overwhelmed. Just guessing spontaneously, I'd say overwhelmed. Unable to react appropriately to the situation, to get the glider flying again. And the reserve, right? For me, it's actually like a symptomatic example of what such a... what such a transition might mean for a B-pilot. And why? Because he didn't expect it. He got the impression that, hey, the machine is super stable. Or? It's also great, it has power, it's fun. And then he's out there and suddenly some incident happens that he absolutely didn't expect and that is very severe.
He hasn't had any SIV training with that machine yet. I don't know if he'd had SIV training before, but certainly not with the C-glider. And then there's the being overwhelmed part. I'm of the absolute opinion that it's always good to pull a reserve. It would be better if he had gotten the situation under control, right? But it's always good to pull a reserve. Much, much better than hitting the ground without a reserve, right? Yes. That's very clear. I never say anything against pulling a reserve. And yet, that already has to be classified as an accident.
Let's talk about a few details that also came up a bit in your survey regarding where the challenges lie. One point was, for example, that with the ENC two-liners, or probably also the larger two-liners—so larger ones now also the END two-liners, with more stretch and such—but specifically referring to the ENC two-liner, that it's harder to form boggles, for instance. And with that, you naturally might have one fewer way to descend, or at least it's much more difficult to perform them. Why is it so hard to form boggles in the first place, in your experience?
That's related to the two-liner system. And that's actually closely linked to the topic of the fold line. The two-liner only has two line planes. And much more weight hangs on the A-plane. It supports a much larger wing area. And it's set further back compared to three-liners, from the nose's perspective. That, possibly combined with other causes, has the effect that you practically can't pull the A-lines down.
There's so much resistance on it. Basically, the lift on the A lines, the forces pull so strongly upwards that you end up doing pull-ups. Yes,
Exactly. You could maybe put it like this. There's so much surface area on that A-line. The lift is so great, you can't get it down. And we've seen that in footage during SIV training. When it's attempted, I saw a recording with the Bonanza 3. The canopy deforms in a completely weird way. But you can see extremely how it resists. It doesn't come down properly. And then maybe, if someone really, really exerts that force, then they manage to get a collapse. Otherwise, they have to give up and let the thing go again. And bloop, the glider is undeformed in its normal state again.
But you're talking about collapses right now. I only meant the topic of ear formation for now. That's basically a very small collapse that you pull there. Is there already so much load on the A line that it's difficult to get the ears in at all? Yes,
From what I've seen, that's consistent across the entire A-range. Of course, it can differ structurally. Fundamentally, it would be welcome if the ears were a bit softer. So that you take some of the load off there. The question is maybe how you even manage to do that? But presumably, it would be doable. And then, on one hand, the wing would naturally be more talkative, more communicative on the outside. The warning system would work better. And on the other hand, the ear-setting would probably also work better. But what I'm thinking now regarding the ear-setting. In the survey, several pilots said they had problems with it.
I've had text messages saying that it's not working at all. And I think, what needs to be said in principle now is that you simply have to deal with a glider like that. That means you can't just buy a new glider and go flying, yay, right? Instead, we have a new class here, so to speak, C2-Liner. And you have to deal with that. And when I look at my flight experience on the Artic, where the ear deployment works well, I have to say that it also works well with the A-Liner. When I flew the Libra in truly midsummer conditions in Valais, I noticed I couldn't get the ears in, right?
I hadn't looked into that either. Neither did the flight school tell me what to do, nor did I read through the manual where that might be explained in the operating instructions. So I was out there. It was very, very active. I noticed I couldn't get the ears in. And that worried me a lot. It was too late. I should have dealt with that beforehand. And that's the point I find very important. When you notice these kinds of issues, they have to be practiced until the moment I feel confident. And by now, I do feel confident. I know how to do it now.
With the Libra, for example, you have to do a half-wrap. That just doesn't occur to you normally. You can't get the A-line down, so you do a half-wrap, bloop, and you're down. I don't know why, I can't explain it aerodynamically, but it works, right? A half-wrap doesn't mean you
you don't half-wrap the A-line, you wrap the brake a bit. The control line, exactly. Okay, the angle of attack changes a bit differently from the center of the canopy to the outside or something like that. And because of that, it might never come. Yeah, for whatever reason. If we take that as an example now, it would mean, for some practical experience for people who are thinking, maybe I'll switch to the ENC-Liner, you could say, hey guys, maybe as a tip, if you switch, then switch like this or do the first flights in calm conditions, as a slider or whatever, and try out all sorts of things so you know what it's like before you throw yourselves into super-thermal conditions and then say, this thing flies so great, I'm flying around perfectly, until you get so close to the cloud that you say, yeah, now I want to fly it like with my three-liner, I just pulled the A, then I suddenly hang, I can't get anything in up there and have to push with panic all of a sudden, and of course, I might have ruined this glider emotionally in the end, because then you say, I don't want to go flying with this anymore.
So that you really say, hey, try out how you can actually deploy the ears properly, what a spiral entry feels like, how strong they are, what the forces are like, how you can handle that and all that, and maybe also just read the fucking manual beforehand, so that you really take the time to look at what's in there as a tip. There's also the thing where some people say, okay, deploying the ears not with the A, but with the B-line, so that something works, that you pull a kind of B-stall accordingly and that the surface area is reduced as a result. Depending on the model, that's possible for some, but not so possible for others, but that you maybe try it all out and also notice how high they are, the pull forces to pull them down, how high the forces are when holding them, how fast the ears open again, and all that, but that you basically say before the big cross-country flights,
I'm getting to know my glider first.
Yes, I'd even go as far as to say that's actually part of the evaluation. So, simply put, in the survey, for example, I received a feedback value of 1.7 gliders being tested. On average. A very, very large number of pilots don't test at all, and some test until the end of their lives. The whole spectrum is there, but for me, testing actually belongs to it as well, in the normal case. And when testing, you should definitely try out those sticking points if they are already known. Then you can already find out if this behavior with the ear-laying is perhaps a point where you don't feel comfortable.
You fly the wing very relaxed, but somehow you don't feel comfortable at this point. And in the survey, regarding the question of whether people have problems with the ear-laying and the fast descent, quite a few said yes, I have problems—specifically 11%. Sixteen percent felt insecure. So, all put together, that's already 25% of the people who don't feel 100% comfortable with this topic.
have. Is that maybe also the 25%? I don't know what the distribution was in your survey. Maybe you have a rough idea of it. Are these 25% maybe the people who came from below, meaning they progressed, while the 75% are those who maybe had already flown an END two-liner in some way before and can say, I already knew those difficulties. Now I'm flying an END two-liner, say, they might be similar, maybe even lower in some respects. I feel comfortable with it then. Whereas the person coming from below says, no, I feel uncomfortable with that because it's suddenly more demanding. And where an END glider was already more demanding than an ENB, the jump to a two-liner now makes the jump in demand basically even larger.
Specifically regarding the question of whether the pilots who moved up from B had more problems with this topic, I can't tell you. That would have to be filtered. But I've saved three basic statistics. You're linking the... Yes, they'll go into the show notes. And you can take a look at those. Also, the database for this survey is saved as an anonymized Excel file. That means anyone can download it and then use filters to look at the topics that interest them, right? But what I can say for sure, or what I've definitely determined, is that the B pilots—meaning those who switched from B to a C two-liner—
...rated the C two-liner as more demanding more than 60 percent of the time. Actually, that's completely logical. On the other hand, those who were already experienced with two-liners found it wasn't more demanding 100 percent of the time. So they were already used to the whole thing and found it completely okay. Whereas the ones moving up from the B clearly felt that higher level of demand, and that made them feel insecure at times.
Following your survey, you also had another online meeting with the Swissleague. Exactly. Where pilots who fly there, and maybe Jensee two-liner or other two-liners for a longer time, were there to present your results to them on the one hand, but also to discuss them. Did anything else actually come out of that, something you'd say should also be shared? Here in a podcast like this?
So, at this Swiss XC League event, I simply introduced the topic with a presentation of my survey and what I did there. I didn't participate in the discussion myself, and not much else was discussed afterwards. The most significant contribution actually came from Dani Loritz. He is a professional SIV trainer and he dealt with the C2 line topic in his presentation. He also provided examples from SIV trainings with video recordings.
That means, from my point of view, simply put, the focus of this event was actually on extreme flight behavior and handling. His conclusion was basically that he saw the pilots challenged significantly more by the C2 lines than pilots usually are by C2 lines. And from his experience, a C glider would achieve that. That was the first season, of course, that he experienced with C2 lines. And what also needs to be said, of course, is that hardly anyone—I think he said nobody—came with a C2 line, including the folding line.
And I think, if I can quickly address this point, from my perspective, it's a really problematic point if we assume that we do flight school on an A-glider. We get a lot of information, we do flight exercises under supervision, we get a license, and we're ready to be out there with an A-glider, right? Even the transition to a B-glider happens without the A-glider. Further school training usually works well, though. The flight school is usually still close by, also accompanying you.
And Dani also said that the A and B gliders according to the EN standard have been constantly readjusted over the last few years. So, they've always been refining the testing procedures to make them as safe and easy to handle as possible, to keep up with technical developments, and so on. But with the C gliders, that hasn't happened for many years, he said, for very many years. From that perspective, he also found that this is a difference now—if someone comes from a B glider and switches to a C glider, then there is actually a higher demand that comes with it, a new challenge.
And we do that again, almost entirely without any supervision from a flight instructor as a rule. Instead, it's all learning by doing or gaining experience through self-testing.
Would you be in favor of introducing something like a C-license? I mean, you have to get a B-license—at least according to German aviation law, you get an A-license and then later a B-license to basically have cross-country flight authorization. Do you think it would make sense to introduce something like a C-license and say, hey, if you want to fly with technologies like two-liners, which pose significantly different challenges, that we should actually introduce something like that? That we say, hey people, if you want to move up to a two-liner, then at least do... it doesn't have to be an eternity of training, but maybe do a training session where you're shown the specific characteristics of such a two-liner, where you get to experience them, so you can go over water and now try to put on some ears, and now try this, and so on.
You also get shown, okay, how to handle a folding line, for example, how to mount something like that for an SIV training so that you can actually fly collapses with it at all, because with gliders without folding lines, you can hardly pull any decent collapses—collapses that are actually manageable. So, it shouldn't just be left to the goodwill or the interest of the pilot; instead, we should just say, hey, let's introduce something regulated, so that people can do it more easily without everyone having to think about it completely. Instead, you say, I'll take you there with a clear program of everything that belongs to it. And try pulling a steep spiral, and you'll get an anti-G glider with you, so you can also notice how much more pleasant spiraling might be if you have an anti-G, which is especially demanding regarding spiral behavior with these ENC two-liners, just like with the END two-liners, because the G-loads simply get so high and it might only be reasonably bearable for many if they also use such an anti-G glider.
So my spontaneous reaction was, yeah, that's a German speaking, because you have, for example, a launch director at the launch site, possibly, who is responsible for the spiral, for the flight maneuvers. In Switzerland, of course, we are set up completely differently, and our license isn't two-part either; from the beginning, it's designed as much as possible so that the pilot can be released into the freedom of the complete one afterwards. But basically, I think that offering such further training—I wouldn't call it an exam or a training session, but rather further education—offering pilots the chance to deal with two-liner technology, to deal with the jump from B to C, that would be quite interesting in terms of how much it would be taken up.
I don't know if people would take it up voluntarily, because the offer would naturally cost something; you can't offer it for free. But basically, I would say—and that's the point I was trying to make earlier—that for the C two-liner, or even for the C glider in general, SIV training is actually something important, isn't it? In my view, if I switch to a C glider, whether it's a two-liner or a three-liner, the consensus in Switzerland is that it's actually important that you go to SIV training with this glider.
you get to know the extreme flight behavior of this glider and deal with it. Of course, that also includes putting on ear protection; you can also try out an anti-G, which I think is very good. The point is, as we also discussed earlier, we have these C-two-liners now, we have, or we know that it is practically impossible to pull a collapse, front, doll, and so on with this C-two-liner with real hands, just on the A-line, it actually doesn't work. Now the SIV trainer says no one comes with fold lines with these devices, right?
The essence of it is that we're seeing a development here that's only about a year old, but if it continues, it could definitely become a problem—namely, a trend where pilots who are moving up no longer go to SIV training with these devices, and thus end up with a handling deficit compared to the past. I'd say that could certainly have a negative impact.
So it's like a safety gap that's basically widening, where you're saying that because the gliders are more demanding, you should actually be training more to handle them?
Yeah, maybe you do it less. But you just have
fewer options, or because of no glider or whatever, you at least don't do it with this glider, but you say, okay, maybe I'll train a few more collapses, I also have a B-glider with me, I can fly large, accelerated collapses with that too, but they might behave completely differently than when my INC-two-liner box really takes off.
Exactly. I also mentioned that as a quintessence in my survey. I already knew from Dani Loritz back then that people aren't using fold lines with their C two-liners, and I knew that was bad. And that's why I wrote as a quintessence, or a conclusion from that, that the fold line shouldn't be sold as an accessory, but should be included with the C two-liner. Why? Because first, it's most likely cheaper than buying the fold line as an accessory kit if it's included right away.
And secondly, that situation is no longer there where I can say, I don't have a glider, so I'm not going to SIV, right? Instead, I have it, so I might actually go to a safety course with it. And from what I've heard now, in this XC League meeting, there are already manufacturers doing that. Two were mentioned who deliver the glider inserts along with the glider. Now, of course, you could say, yeah, but that's a bit of a waste, because what are the people who don't go to a safety course, an SIV training, going to do with them? But I actually think that's the wrong way of thinking.
The more important point is, if we include them, then the chance that someone goes to an SIV training with the C2 liner is significantly greater. And above all, the chance that they'll have more relevant experiences during the SIV training, because without the fold-ins, the possible training exercises are strongly limited or reduced.
Have you already done an SIV training with your ENC two-liner?
No, I haven't yet. However, I do have the Faltlein for the Libra, and I'm planning to go do that this year. But it should be said that I did my SIV training on high-performance gliders in the past. And I've already done that fundamental training. Of course, you could always refresh that, repeat it with the more modern gliders. How do they behave? I'm planning to do that now too. But I haven't felt like anything is missing on my end. And specifically regarding the incident I had, I actually managed to get the situation back under control quite clearly.
However, in the reflection, I already noticed that I would have recovered to flight more smoothly from the stall, for example, than by letting it pick up from the deep stall. Because picking up from the deep stall really produced a very vehement forward surge. You know that, right? Whereas from the stall, you usually get the wing back to picking up a bit more calmly. Not with that kind of vehemence, normally.
I saw that video from the Swissleague, your online conference. And I found one small detail that Dani also mentioned interesting, even though it's a detail that can't really be proven, it was more of an impression he described there. He said that compared to the END two-liners he also has in his training, he observed that some of the ENC two-liners actually behave even more demanding when performing a stall than the more stretched-out END two-liners.
Have you had experiences like that yourself? Where you find your two-liner, your ENC two-liner, more demanding in certain areas than the END two-liner you've already flown?
Yes, as I said, I don't have any experience with extreme flight behavior. I haven't done any SIV training with the C two-liner. But Dani gave a few examples of how they behave. And his essence is simply that the behavior can be more demanding than with a C two-liner. That was his statement. And he backed that up with a few examples. From my perspective, it's just that the C two-liner, due to the lack of greater glide ratio, is generally, or is still quite compact. And that, in combination with the two-liner system, certainly has its effects.
An exciting question for the future is how the ENC class as a whole will develop. Currently, basically all the new C gliders that have come onto the market recently—not all, but almost all—have been ENC two-liners. Naturally, because all the manufacturers want to score points in that area for now. The question that arises is: okay, will we eventually see, in quotation marks, normal ENC three-liners or something even lower, like two-liners with even less stretch, that are a bit smoother, so that the transition you might eventually have from ENB to the C class can somehow be a bit smoother in an intermediate step, so to speak, or not?
What do you think, how will the manufacturers be? Or can the ENC class be so broad that you really end up having two models in the ENC range, to say, one that's pleasant to fly or maybe a two-and-a-half-liner or something, and a real ENC two-liner, where one might have glides of 6.5 and above and the other only sits at glides of 6 to 6.2 or something like that?
That's a good question. I'd like to start perhaps with something Lani Loritz said. Technical development is always moving forward, right? And every innovation leads to new experiences and reactions. Now, two-liner technology is obviously no longer new by any means, but in the ENC category, it is new, and that's why the manufacturers—I'll put it this way—have to gain certain experiences first. They do this, of course, on one hand during development and testing, but they also do it through the reactions that the pilot community gives to these products afterwards.
And I think, those are two different things, because a manufacturer's and developer's self-assessment of a glider isn't always exactly the same as the one that might come from the pilots later, simply because the perspective is missing; because you deal with it so much that you might not even notice where a problem could be, because you might have a level where the problems aren't there anyway, right? But when the pilots then fly it and the reactions come in, the manufacturer also learns from them, and I would say the same for the C2-Land—in that area, the development will certainly lead to recognizing certain problems, ones you might identify or hear about, and you'll work against them and find solutions for them.
Specifically, I would find it good, for example, if a C2 liner could be felt a bit better through the canopy, right? And that the manufacturers are working on it so that it might even be slightly more labile on the ears, that it works better with ear placement, but also that it becomes more communicative again and doesn't just feel as stiff as it does now. That is cool, but if we think about a beginner glider, it's also relatively hard, right? Because that brings with it a high requirement.
And what I also find to be an interesting observation regarding this topic is that Ziad Basil asked the manufacturers what they thought about these C2 liners ahead of the change in the Ehen norm. At that moment, there weren't any yet. And surprisingly for me, the manufacturers were extremely divided. A large portion expressed themselves negatively in this survey, very many were waiting to see, and only a few were positive and expectant. This means that even among the manufacturers, there was far from any consensus on such a topic, and especially beforehand, there was a very high level of uncertainty and, perhaps you could also say, caution.
That means they definitely didn't want to enter a development path that could potentially lead to more risks, more problems, or specifically more accidents, right? And that means the manufacturers have to learn from this now, and interestingly, AirDesign has already released the Volt 5. I haven't heard any feedback on it yet, but they've already released the second C2-liner, and it should be interesting to see what the development step from the predecessor, the Volt 4, is—and for the other manufacturers too. What do they change afterwards?
In which direction are they developing? Another important point: I had various participants in my survey, and everyone surely knows Alex Robé, an absolute top pilot from Austria. He wrote that he doesn't find the C2-liners more demanding, provided they have the same glide ratio as the C3-liners. Of course, he's at a super level—maybe for him no glider is a problem anyway—but the point about the glide ratio is definitely important. That means we can't switch from a glider with a 5.6 glide ratio to anything, whether it's a 2- or 3-liner, with a 6.5 glide ratio and feel like it's still the same.
And similarly, we can't switch from a C3-liner with a 5-9 glide ratio to one with a 6-5 from the same house and assume it's the same, because it is also a C-glider. That's a glider that comes with a significantly higher glide ratio. That means with the C2 topic, we always have to keep in mind that if the glider we're interested in, or perhaps even ultimately decide on, has a significantly higher glide ratio, then the jump in glide ratio is added to the 2-liner topic, which in my view, screams for it even more, with this glider in a
having to go to SIV training.
What we can take away from this might also be an idea for the manufacturers—maybe it will happen in the near future—where they say, okay, you currently have these ENC-2-liners built with an average of 6.5 stretch, because before that, not everyone, but many still had normal ENC-3-liners with a stretch of 6.0, 6.2, or something in that range. Now, maybe in the near future, in this lower segment, I'd say, perhaps the 2-liner technology will also be tried out, where they say, let's try it with slightly fatter or chunkier wings, even if a 6.2 stretch is still not chunky, but at least a bit so compared to 6.5. And that the transition there might then become a bit slower and lighter, and you might eventually be able to say, okay, there is a progression for a pilot moving from A to B class, from B class to High-B, where the B class with B are all 3-liners, while the High-B will probably all be 2-1-half-liners in the future, where you can already get relatively well used to this rear riser control.
Then you can switch to something like a Low-C, which might already be a 2-liner or maybe a 2-1 semi-stretched one, whatever it is, but one that already has a very strong—more of a C-characteristic—and then in the next step, you can add another 0.3 of stretch and eventually land in those middle or intermediate steps with the 6-1 semi-stretched ENC-2-liner, and as long as you keep doing your Sikus and so on, you can fly those safely too.
It's certainly the case that every step up from one glider category to the next higher one is a demanding situation for all pilots, and of course, we all go through that—so someone who is flying a CCC today or who has made all these jumps, maybe even two at once, but it's simply demanding, and fundamentally, you could probably say that you should only make these jumps if you're ready to engage with it, and for me, that includes an SIV training in a timely manner—not flying through the summer for the first season and going to an SIV training in the autumn, but going to an SIV training with the glider promptly when it's the first time you're flying that category; on the other hand, you also have to constantly ask yourself why or for what purpose I'm flying a C-2 liner.
In the survey, the 200 pilots who decided on a C-2 expressed themselves this way: 4% identified as pleasure pilots, which means 96% of these pilots, who decided to fly a C-2 in the survey, describe themselves as sport-oriented pilots, and I think that's actually completely fine. There, the sport is the focus, performance is the focus somewhere, and then I think the attitude is there: I have to engage with the gear and I want to go for performance.
But if I don't actually want that at all, if I just want to fly nicely, to fly for two or three hours for pleasure, then the question really arises as to whether a C-2 is even necessary, or if maybe I should just make the jump a bit smaller, start with the C first, or even stay with the C-3 instead of taking a C-2 right away. What hasn't been mentioned yet, but also belongs there, is this question: what does the C-2 bring compared to a C-3 or maybe even an H-B? Well, it only really brings something if you're ready and you actually implement it—flying in accelerated flight, right?
In terms of performance, it only offers advantages in accelerated flight, which means someone who doesn't intend to do that, who doesn't want to use it to accelerate occasionally or just a bit when there's a headwind, right? They can fly a C-2, but they won't have any significant advantage or difference in terms of performance compared to a C-3, will they?
That's actually a nice closing word. People, look at where you stand yourselves, what kind of flight style you actually have, what demands you place on yourselves, and then see if the glider's requirements match what you actually have. But I want to ask you one last question. You're 65 now and you've already said you've even had CCC gliders and END two-liners, and you've basically stepped back to ENC two-liners. How long do you reckon you'll still be flying with those, or will you eventually say, "No, at my age, movements might get slower, reaction time and so on." How long can you still fly ENC two-liners as you get older, and when is it perhaps time, maybe for you, to say, "Hey, I still want to fly, but I'll do it with an ENB 2.5-liner" or maybe eventually just a Low-B?
Exactly, so that would be looking into the future again. I can't tell you what's in the crystal ball, of course, but the trend is clear for me: I have to scale back. You can actually tell that if you're honest with yourself, by your feelings, right? Specifically, I was once with Martina Hauri—she's been on your podcast too, exactly—out in Ticino.
And I'm on my XC-Racer and she's on her Fusion heading into the lee, getting all hyped up, and I told myself, no, I'm not going into the lee, no, I'm not doing it. That means my high-performance D-glider actually cost me performance in the end, because I didn't dare to fly over the mountain into the lee with it anymore. If you take that kind of feedback, those kinds of feelings—let me be honest—to heart, then at some point you have to realize: you're actually flying a category that's fun, you've got it under control to some extent, but you're still limiting yourself because you're not always comfortable with it anymore, right?
And that can be dangerous on one hand, or just limiting. Dangerous if I go into the lee anyway, if
I would then fly
and it just has to be, I have to do it afterwards, I can't let Martina down either, right?
And then I go into the lee and maybe I'm overwhelmed, right? Or I'm just limiting myself because I say, no, I'm not doing it, I don't feel comfortable going into the lee here, and then I have to cut the performance that's possible in that flight. And quite simply put, to be honest, just like when I came down from the CCC again, I had to say here too: END is simply no longer the right category for me. It's fun, it's great, it's awesome, in quotes, to fly a machine like that, but considering my deteriorating reactions, it's simply smarter and also feels better to downsize to the C.
And I'm saying "downsize" now. You can still do great flights, and ultimately, it's possible that you'll do better flights in a lower category because you're not limiting yourself. What's the point of flying the D-machine if I basically abort the flight at that location, can't fly further, can't achieve that performance, just because I don't feel comfortable? A very, very large number of XC pilots prove this, who do massive flights on B-gliders that C-pilots might only dream of, including me, right? It doesn't necessarily need the higher performance of a higher category; primarily, it's the pilot who determines the performance, and the lower the performance—the lower the category—we can fly that we envision, the safer we are on the way, in principle.
I'll take that...
So, as a real closing statement, a quintessence pulled out now, basically that more power can ultimately cost us performance in the end. Definitely, yes. Thanks to you, Melchior, for this assessment and your entire approach to the ENC two-liner topic, the survey you did, and with it, you've certainly provided the paraglider scene with some information—especially in terms of food for thought—where one can say, what should we be thinking about here? You can then talk about it with others and say, am I ready to move up, or maybe even move down, depending on which direction you're coming from? And what does that mean then? What should I perhaps do then, with additional training and thoughts, approaches, or to say, okay, I definitely need folding lines so I can do a Siku and things like that.
What is it about? You can think of anything. So, thanks Melchior for all these assessments.
You're welcome. Maybe as a tip from my side, there's also the database that's available, which contains a lot of voice messages. I've always offered a free-text option for every question, and you can actually browse through it quite well to find the full range of feedback that's come in from the pilots. For someone who wants to deal with the topic a bit more intensively, it's definitely interesting to take a look into this Excel sheet sometime. Great. Thanks, Melchior. Yes, thank you.
That was episode number 131 of Podz-Glidz with Melchior Lindenstrud. In the show notes for this episode on the Luglite Gleitschirm-Blog, you'll find a small collection of links with more information on the topic of C-Zweilein. If you enjoyed the episode, then please subscribe to Podz-Glidz. You can do that anywhere there are podcasts. If you also leave a positive rating there, you're helping to make Podz-Glidz even better known. Or tell your flying friends about it directly. Podz-Glidz and Luglite are free of paid advertising. I do this out of conviction and in the interest of independence. Nevertheless, a lot of professional work and, of course, costs are involved in these offerings. To finance them, I rely on the concept of voluntary support.
If you've listened this far, the podcast should have provided some value for you. As a supporter, you can simply give something back. You can decide the amount yourself. A commonly chosen contribution, by the way, is 60 euros a year or about 5 euros a month. But no matter what you pay, every amount helps ensure that Podz-Glidz and Luglite can continue to operate and develop for the paragliding scene in the future. I'm grateful for that. All the necessary information, such as how to reach me regarding your support or contribution, can be found at www.Lu-Glidz.blogspot.com. There is a menu item called Support. Lu-Glidz is spelled Lu-Glidz.
Until next time. Don't fall from the sky. Ciao.