There is currently a lot of confusion over the CEN-Norm testing standard for paragliders. The facts about the tests, and the arguments for- and against it are summarised here for a better understanding of the problems associated with it.

The legal situation in Europe
Hang- and paragliders are classified as exceptions under general European Airworthiness Laws, and therefore are not required to be tested at this level. This means that National Airworthiness Laws are still relevant for the testing of hang- and paragliding equipment, and these National Laws differ widely in their requirements. In Germany and Austria, National Airworthiness Laws are very exacting and must be complied with. The CEN Norm for paraglider testing is not legally accepted in these countries. In some other countries such as France, there may be no legal requirements for paraglider testing at all.

Under what legal jurisdiction do DIN- or CEN-Norms fall?
If it is a countries legal requirement that DIN- or CEN-Norms are adhered to, then these Norms are legally binding, as they represent the regulatory statutes of the law. Such instances are independently controlled and referred to as regulated Norms.
Norms which are not legally required are referred to as unregulated Norms. The paraglider CEN-Norm is classified as an unregulated Norm. For unregulated Norms, compliance is voluntary and not compulsory – no one is forced to observe it.  A voluntary Norm may however help a manufacturer, should liability or damage claims be made against him, in countries where no minimum product standards exist.

Who decides upon the contents of a Norm?
Norm contents are decided upon by the members of working groups formed from manufacturers and these are sometimes supplemented by members of associated federations. They work either under the national Norm Institution (for Germany DIN) or under the European Norm Institution (European Committee for Standardisation CEN).
The paragliding CEN-Norm has been compiled by a working group consisting of some manufacturers and members of National Flying Associations. The DHV was a member and contributed to the Norm content, but was not able to find majority support for certain important aspects: e.g. that the Norm should be classified as a regulated Norm.

The CEN-Norm for paragliders is not legally binding
Generally, either National or European legislation ensures the appropriate regulation of safety related issues within a country. Either the authorities themselves issue the requirements, or the compliance to a particular Norm is made compulsory. For example, CEN-Norm regulations exist for toys, machines and personal safety equipment. Such products may only be sold, when the manufacturer has fulfilled the legal conformity requirements and marked the product with a CE label. A CE label is compulsory, and this is randomly controlled by the commercial inspectorate authorities. For example, helmets used for flying are classified under the European regulations for personal safety equipment (PSA), and may only be sold providing they have a CE label attached to them. The CE label may only be issued by a legally recognised testing centre, which has successfully tested an example helmet according to the PSA CEN-Norm. The same procedures are valid for mountaineering equipment.
There is currently no European legislation regarding paragliders. Testing to a particular Norm is performed on a voluntary basis, and who is able to verify that a particular paraglider conforms to a Norm is not regulated or controlled. The French association is of the opinion that a self-certification of paragliders by their manufacturers – as is generally the case with unregulated Norms - cannot be prohibited. A “certified test centre” is not legally required, and no registered certification label exists: use of the CE label is not permitted. There is no controlling body to verify that products conform to the Norm as may often be suggested in advertising slogans.
It is amusing to note that in the European “Norm hierarchy”, flying helmets are rated higher than paragliders!

The legal situation in Germany
The CEN-Norm for paragliders has no legal recognition by the Civil Aviation Authorities in Germany. German Aviation Laws require that paragliders are tested by a testing centre recognised by the Civil Aviation Authorities and that paragliders must be tested according to the current Civil Aviation Authorities airworthiness requirements. The DHV is recognised by the Civil Aviation Authorities as a testing centre, and is subject to control from these Authorities.
DHV product certification may only be attained, when a manufacturer is able to fulfil the German legal airworthiness requirements and in addition, extra safety requirements from the DHV. Here included are production quality control requirements.  The DHV also performs re-testing of production paragliders to ensure conformity with the example paragliders archived after initial certification.
The German Laws do not put foreign pilots at a disadvantage. Whilst flying in Germany, all guest pilots are permitted to use the equipment with which they are allowed to fly with at home.

Are there differences between the CEN-Norm for paragliders and the German Legal Airworthiness requirements?
German Legal Airworthiness requirements are more demanding in some categories, than the CEN-Norm for paragliders. This has resulted in minimal international acceptance of the CEN-Norm, even though the CEN-Norm has been in existence for some years. Most manufacturers have continued to test their products according to the German Legal Airworthiness requirements.
For example, the CEN shock test is performed on a glider layed out horizontally on the ground at a speed of 60 km/h. The DHV shock test is performed on a glider held vertically exposing its entire surface area, at a speed of 100 km/h. This configuration is significantly more demanding to fulfil.
Differences are also present in the requirements for reserve parachute testing. The DHV requires the reserve parachute to withhold three separate load tests. CEN-Norm (CEN 12491) testing requires a single load test on two separate identical examples. While the DHV insists on a high speed free-fall opening, the CEN-Norm test ignores this, and merely requires an opening at a speed of 28,8 km/h.
The DHV harness test program sets load ratings higher than the CEN-Norm requirements in all categories. Contrary to the CEN-Norm (CEN 1651) the DHV harness to reserve parachute connection load tests are also performed for inverted openings. (Sadly, the Swedish pilot who successfully deployed his reserve while inverted, was not using a DHV-tested harness and fell to his death after the harness failed.)
Harness-protector tests have been in force for the past seven years in the DHV harness test program. The CEN-Norm has no test norm for protectors.
To help prevent accidents resulting from carabiner fatigue-failings, after extensive investigation and testing, the DHV has implemented a norm for carabiners. The CEN-Norm has no test norm for carabiners.
Only the newest CEN-Norm (CEN 926-2) corresponds in its main classification areas, to the German Legal airworthiness requirements which have been valid for the past three years.

How quickly can certification norms be adapted to keep pace with technical developments?
The construction and development of the CEN-Norm has been extremely drawn-out and long-winded. The bureaucracy associated with the necessary majority votes from all “interested parties”, causes additional problems.
The German Civil Aviation Authorities has, in the past, readily adapted the German Airworthiness requirements, on suggestions from the DHV, to reflect technical advances and developments. Catastrophic line breaks were countered with the introduction of line testing. Spinal injuries to pilots have become significantly reduced, since the introduction of harness-protector testing. The CEN-Norm and its predecessor AFNOR still have, to date, no harness-protector testing program. Increasing safety requirements for the paraglider certification classes 1 and 1-2 were accepted very positively. In the future it will always be necessary to speedily review and modify airworthiness requirements to reflect technical advances and developments.
 
Why is the neutrality  of test pilots so important?
Test pilots can influence results by their reactions, to such a degree that they may not be visibly recognisable on video documentation of a standardised test program. The test pilots of the DHV are legally entitled to test for a particular weakness in a paraglider design, should they feel there are valid grounds to do so.
Quote from the German Airworthiness Laws: “3.3.7 After every form of paraglider collapse, it must be expected that
a) from the collapse, an irreversible flying state does not occur,
b) when collapsed, the paraglider may be flown straight ahead by using the brake lines,
c) with either no pilot input, or via pilot input on the brake lines, a recovery from the collapse may be performed.”
In spite of lengthy development programs performed by paraglider designers, in 2005 roughly 10% of all tested equipment did not fulfil the DHV requirements.

Is there a danger  that testing standards will suffer, should differing test centres compete with each other for business?
DHV Gütesiegel certification is conducted through one central test centre – here there is no other competing test centre. Two test pilots are always required for the testing program – should their results differ from each other, a third pilot must then re-test the canopy. In borderline cases, the worst test result is always used to classify a paraglider.
In unregulated CEN-Norm testing, neither test centres nor self-certification from manufacturers is externally controlled or verified. The BHPA suggestion to act as a central quality assurance instance for CEN-Norm testing did not receive a majority vote from EHPU members.
Even in regulated CEN-Norm testing Consistence and verification is not guaranteed. Significant differences in test quality under the various National Standardisation testing centres are often the subject of test engineer reports.

Parallel examples
The majority of computer displays in Europe are tested today according to the TCO test program. Even though the CE-label is a legal requirement for the sale of such products, it effectively makes no difference, as it offers too little consumer protection. The TCO-label is issued by a Norwegian Association, its testing program is stringent, and rapidly adapted to new technical developments. TCO testing is much better for consumer health, the Norwegian Association has received international acceptance and credibility through its demanding control program. On the other hand, independent tests performed by a Computer Magazine indicated that some CE certified displays did not even fulfil the minimum legal requirements for these products.
Another example may be found in the testing of mountaineering equipment. Here, the testing and certification program of the UIAA Association plays the decisive role when compared with CE certification. UIAA certification is internationally accepted, even though it is not a legal requirement. Volker Kron, engineer and mountaineering test specialist for the TÜV test centre reports: “Today the UIAA is the major control instance for mountaineering equipment testing, and leads the way in modifying test programs to new technical developments, as it can react and adapt much faster than the CEN.”

The future of the DHV Gütesiegel certificate
The DHV Technical department will continue with its Gütesiegel testing and certification program.

CEN-Norm testing is not an equal option for the DHV – clarity must exist for accurate and correct information regarding the safety of flying equipment. With a CEN-Norm tested paraglider, it is up to the pilot to find out if the certificate was issued by the manufacturer, or from a testing centre, and then whether the test centre really worked neutrally, and was sufficiently qualified to do the job. Competing test centres will receive their own quality reputations with time – for better or worse – and this will create great confusion about the validity of actual test results, as no central controlling instance exists for quality assurance. In the end, the pilot has no real guarantee that a CEN-labelled paraglider really conforms to the CEN-Norm testing program.