you can control easily; doesn't collapse often (with your input) and recovers fast for you.
You've probably guessed it already: the biggest element of paraglider safety is the pilot.
If you haven't done SIV training recently, you can do more to improve your safety. The
reaction speed and clear thinking that you bring to a collapse scenario determines the
outcome more than anything the wing designer can do.
There's a huge disconnect here. The EN test protocol tests wings for most classes by simulating
a collapsed wing with an unresponsive pilot. In real life, the pilot will do one of three
things: large panicked responses that make matters worse, moderate corrective input that
fixes the problem, or freezing up and doing nothing. The last response can be better than
the first, but why put your life in the hands of fate? Learn what the wing does when it
shuts down, become familiar with the sensations of high-G manoeuvres, and train regularly.
Now we can have a discussion about the safety of the wing itself.
Simulating collapses is a tricky business. The EN test is a very controlled environment
with strict protocols and highly skilled pilots. No doubt their results are accurate but it
can be different in real life. In other words, if you just whack in a 50% asymmetric, it's
likely that it won't recover within EN test norms. A slight bit of weightshift, a whiff
of turbulence, or an over-enthusiastic yank on the risers, and you get something rather
hotter than you were expecting. This has become more noticeable in recent years, as manufacturers
push wings up to the limit of the classes. This means that your friend who owns the Wrockit5
can't tell you much about the wing's safety. This caveat applies to wing reviewers as well.
I can't resist the temptation to 'try out a few collapses' on new wings, but I'm wary
of the information value. It just helps me form an opinion of the feeling of security.
Broadly speaking, the higher the class, the lower the passive safety of the wing. The
higher class wings tend to jump around more and suffer more collapses. If you have good
active flying skills you can minimise this: the wing responds faster to corrective inputs,
and because the feedback from the wing is higher you can feel what's coming a moment
before the wing deforms. Collapse resistance is improved by loading
and tensioning the leading edge area. For example, I have flown an Icepeak 6 for many
years in some really stonking conditions, and had no collapses apart from small tip
closures, despite flying on a lot of speedbar. But when collapse-resistant wings finally
collapse, the recovery can be more violent than softer wings that ball up and recover
from a semi-stalled state. Because I'm confident with my SIV skills and fly very actively,
I am prepared to introduce wildness in some extreme situations for a wing that reduces
the number of blowouts. Your mileage may vary. Again, it's so important to match the wing
with the pilot. Bringing the discussion back to the XC class,
the most common situation you'll face is the asymmetric collapse when scratching on a ridge
(at trim speed). Sod's Law dictates that it will happen on the mountain side while going
downwind. The wing you don't want is the one which turns fast and dives during its recovery.
This is probably the most useful feature of the EN tests: the more extreme this reaction,
the higher the rating. However, most modern wings score an A on the 50% asymmetric-from-trim-speed
test. Yes, even my Icepeak 6. So it's hard to make a decision based on the EN tests,
because they focus on recovery not on collapse tendency.
It's better to look at the underlying cause of the asymmetric: pitch behaviour, the way
a wing 'jumps forward' when the brakes are released, or when nearing a thermal. This
is useful for experienced pilots, giving you a real feeling of approaching lift, and energy
to crank a tight turn. The downside is that if you don't have developed active piloting
skills and fast responses, the wing will collapse, over and over, even in 'easy' conditions.
Safer wings are trimmed 'nose up', with a deeper camber: they just bumble along and
don't need intervention. This is why we classify wings according to
pilot groups and not EN letters. For example, the Gin Carrera is too hot to be compared
with other XC Class wings like the Nova Mentor 4 and Advance Iota despite the fact that they
all share an EN B rating. The Carrera has a higher aspect ratio and reacts like other
Performance Class wings (Niviuk Artik 4). Have a look at how we group wings on our online
shop. If you fly one class of wing below what you
think you're capable of handling, you have room for error. Apart from flying conditions
deteriorating, the wing condition changes. Over time the fabric stretches and the line
trim goes out. This affects its tendency to collapse and recovery characteristics.
Safety comes from being prepared, so base your decisions on reliable information. What
really counts is the knowledge of the wing built up over time by experienced pilots watching
the wings in real conditions, not the wing that floats best on 'forum froth'.
At Flybubble, we have built our reputation on sharing good advice. Come on over to our
website and see what we have to offer.