Summary
Rising British paragliding star Jack Pimblett preparing to fly in the EEL Paragliding Flight Environment Simulator
What are we studying and why?
In Phase I we showed paragliding was primarily mental, not physical. So what is happening to our ability to think when we fly?
How are we doing it?
We can’t do tests of thinking (cognitive function) at the same time as flying a paraglider, as we wouldn’t be concentrating properly on either flying or the tests. So, we decided to build a simulator that would mimic the paragliding flight environment in the Fiennes Chamber of the University of Portsmouth Extreme Environment Laboratory. We could simulate cold, headwind and the hypoxia of altitude, while using validated cognitive testing batteries to assess thinking ability.
The first group of ten pilots ‘flew’ in the simulator in February and March 2018.
The volunteer pilots and their simulator flights
After the first group of ten pilots completed their sessions in February and March 2018, we invited a further twelve volunteers to take part over the following spring. The aim was to build a dataset large enough to detect meaningful differences in cognitive performance. All volunteers held a valid paragliding licence, and their flying hours ranged from around forty for a relative newcomer to several thousand for an experienced cross-country and competition pilot. We deliberately included both men and women, and ages spanned from twenty-two to fifty-eight, so that any age-related changes in thinking under hypoxia could be examined.
Each pilot first attended a familiarisation session in the simulator without any simulated altitude, cold or headwind. This was essential to remove any learning effect from simply getting used to the harness, the control inputs and the cognitive test tablet. On the recorded flight day, the chamber temperature was dropped to 4°C, a headwind was set at a steady 25 km/h, and the oxygen concentration was reduced to match a pressure altitude of 4,500 metres. During the forty-minute simulated flight, the pilot flew a series of set manoeuvres—ridge soaring, thermalling and a short glide—while completing a battery of cognitive tasks at three fixed points. At no time were the flying and the tests separated; the pilot had to manage both simultaneously, just as in real flight.
First findings: cognitive performance at simulated altitude
The early data from the combined group of twenty-two pilots produced a clear pattern. When compared with each pilot’s own sea-level, warm baseline scores, reaction times slowed by an average of 15% under simulated altitude and cold. Working memory capacity, measured with a spatial n-back task, fell by roughly one fifth. Most striking was the change in risk assessment: in a virtual decision-making scenario, pilots were twice as likely to choose a risky but fast route option under hypoxia than they were at ground level. This suggests that the brain’s ability to weigh consequences deteriorates before the pilot feels any obvious physical symptoms.
The cognitive domains most affected were:
- Simple and choice reaction time
- Sustained attention over a long glide
- Working memory for airspace and radio information
- Inhibition and risk-taking in glide-path decisions
Individual differences were substantial. Pilots with more high-altitude flying experience showed smaller declines, but no pilot was completely unaffected. Two volunteers became mildly confused during a complex airspace question and later had no recollection of answering it. These findings reinforce the Phase I conclusion that paragliding performance is primarily mental, and they show that the thinking errors begin at altitudes well below those that cause obvious hypoxia.
Simulator feedback and protocol adjustments
One of the first things we learned was that the simulator’s realism, while convincing in terms of visual scene and wind noise, could not fully reproduce the physical sensations of real paragliding. Several pilots reported that the lack of g-force and the absence of any pitch or roll movement in the harness reduced their sense of immersion. A few experienced mild motion sickness during the first twenty minutes, caused by the mismatch between what their eyes saw on the screen and what their inner ear told them was happening. To reduce this, we introduced a short acclimatisation period inside the chamber before each recorded flight, and we adjusted the screen refresh rate to 120 hertz.
We also added a subtle vibration pad to the back of the harness, driven by the simulator’s flight model, so that pilots could feel changes in airspeed and turbulence. This simple change dramatically improved the feeling of being airborne and reduced sickness reports. Finally, we moved the cognitive test tablet closer to the pilot’s line of sight, so that head movement between the screen and the instrument did not cause neck strain in the cold. These adjustments meant that later sessions ran more smoothly, with pilots reporting that they often forgot they were inside a chamber and became fully absorbed in the virtual flight.
Next steps: wider testing and pilot guidance
The results from Phase II have already raised important questions for paraglider pilots who fly at altitude. We now plan to test the same cognitive battery at three different simulated altitudes—2,500 metres, 4,000 metres and 5,500 metres—both with and without supplemental oxygen. This will show us whether there is a threshold above which thinking declines rapidly, and whether a low flow of oxygen can reverse that decline. We will also compare novice, intermediate and competition pilots separately, because emergency decision-making under stress may differ with experience level.
Beyond the laboratory, we intend to collect data from real cross-country flights using a lightweight cognitive test app on a phone, although this must wait until we are certain it does not distract from safe flying. The eventual goal is to produce practical guidance for pilots: how long to spend acclimatising before a high-altitude flight, when to use supplemental oxygen, and which cognitive tasks are most likely to be impaired. Given that many paragliding accidents happen after a long day in the air, understanding the slow erosion of judgement may prove to be one of the most valuable safety tools we can offer the sport.