Must View/Read for PGer’s or anyone thinking of going PG

[Ward Odenwald]

Found on the Oz Repot with select posts taken from youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvYORWG-SpU#

How many of us have unexpectedly been jammed/trashed/F***ed during our entry into an LZ on a good thermal day? Given the frequency that this happens, flying something that can quickly/unexpectantly become a “bag” after entering/exiting a thermal during an approach is not only stupid it compromises the sport of gliding when it happens! Rickmass7’s comment (below) is painfully accurate.

Rickmas7:
"Classic pilot error" my ass. They try so hard to deceive themselves, it's almost funny. It seems the only people who sop up this rationalizing crap are other PG pilots. It is blindingly obvious to most people what only a fool would put himself in such a situation.
The "classic pilot error" is choosing a paraglider over an airframe, as illustrated by all the hang gliders parked in a row. Smart vs. stupid.


soar8hours:
It would have been no problem in my Falcon, Sport 2 or Litespeed hang glider!
I PG'd for 20 years & after a close call like this, it found a new home in Montana!




thermalf:
It doesn't take much to deform a class C+ bag. Just hope it happens 500ft.+ altitude. A hang glider may fare better. A bit too low for a low save? I would pull-in for some +speed when I dropped out the backside.

‪

TheBurnoutsCarClub in reply to ‪cmbhappy: 



One second it's a airfoil, the next it's a bag of laundry. No pilot can make corrections fast enough or reliably enough to change that.

Ward

[mingram]

Shit that sucks. Thanks for sharing Ward. I'm interested to hear the discussion.

Matt

[Drew]

The more I hang out with the HG/PG world, the more I see a marked elitism by each group. In my opinion, it accomplishes very little. We're all gliders, and we all love what we do, so why try to point out the flaws with each other's systems? We've each made our decision as to which we prefer, and it is, for the most part, just a simple personal choice.

Obviously, I've chosen paragliders. The one choice that made me go in this direction was the ability to hike my glider just about anywhere. You'll be hard pressed to get an HG to many of the spots I've launched the PG. But that's just my choice. I like a long hike into a launch. Not everyone does. And I understand that most people regard PGs as more dangerous, but it hasn't changed my mind. Everyone got to enjoy the video of me crashing mine and getting seriously hurt, but it hasn't deterred me at all. Instead, it helped me learn more about my glider and my flying.

(For the record, I flew my PG last week off a tow, less than 3 months after I broke my back with it)

TL;DR Live and let live.

[markc]

For every flight risk of PG that the HG community can point to, the PG community can similarly point to a risk of HG flight.

Sure, by the nature of the wing, HG pilots don't have to worry about outright wing collapses near the ground. But on the other hand, by the nature of the wing, nearly *all* HG landing approaches occur at higher speeds than PG approaches, with a greater risk of damage when something goes wrong.

Until/unless someone can point to comprehensive data regarding HG vs PG landing incidents, it's futile to try to reach a conclusion about which one is "more dangerous" than the other. How many times do PG collapses like the one in the video occur? How many times do HG pilots plow into the ground? Out of how many flights and with how many hours of airtime? Without accurate data, how can the relative risk level possibly be assessed? It can't.

No-one should ever underestimate or downplay the risks of any type of flight. HG or PG. Foot-launch or tow. Calm and stable or thermally-squirrely. Things can happen, anywhere, anytime. If you are tempted to point to one of the two sports and say "Well at least I don't have to worry about *that* particular risk", that seems like a false-comfort to me.

MarkC

PS: Any discussions or debates about the relative risks of HG and PG that take place here had better be *way* more civil than what I see in those YouTube comments. We're here to learn and share experiences, in a courteous and constructive way.

[mcgowantk]

Hey Drew

I am glad to hear that you are back flying. It is interesting that hang gliders and paragliders are more similar than different, but that the similarities help stimulate rivalries between the two groups. While I did watch your video, I didn't enjoy seeing you get hurt, just like it was hard seeing this pilot get hurt. I kinda wish he had edited that part out. However, I did learn something from both videos even though I don't fly paragliders. There has been a number of injuries from hang gliding recently, so I don't think hang glider pilots could say that their safety record is better than paragliders. I do hope that watching these videos and seeing injuries at least reminds everyone of the dangers we face and encourages them to continually evaluate their flying and learn from the mistakes of others.

There is a good line of stories in the OZ report on landing gliders, and I would recommend hang glider pilots read these stories. I feel that I am getting a lot out of them.

Drew, I also like to hike in my glider to different sites. The farthest hike for me is the Woodstock hike in when the road is closed - about 1 mile. It would be cool to be able to travel easily with my wing and hike it into a remote launch and fly there. I am very envious of paragliders in that respect.

Take care and hope to see you in the mountains soon.

Tom McGowan

[Ward Odenwald]

Drew, I’m happy you’re okay and that your spine is back in flying shape. My post was in no way a sign of “marked elitism” but of concern for what I saw in the videos, including yours. To restate the last comment in my post by TheBurnoutsCarClub: “One second it's a airfoil, the next it's a bag of laundry. No pilot can make corrections fast enough or reliably enough to change that.” makes perfect sense to me. Of course HG and PG flying come with clear/real dangers, however, during this most recent accident and perhaps yours, the “bag of laundry” result would not have been an issue if a HG was used. To state the obvious, takeoff is optional but landing is mandatory. As we all know (or should), a thermal is an unpredictable force and as mentioned above “No pilot can make corrections fast enough to reliably enough to change that.” Give this uncertainty, why expose yourself to this danger so close to the ground? No matter how much you or your fellow PGers rationalize what you and/or the most recent accident victim did or did not do to avoid crashing, there will always be that nagging question that you have to ask yourself during your “long hike into a launch” – do I feel lucky or am I going to be looking up at a bag of laundry?

Ward

[markc]

Are HG pilots feeling lucky when tbey accept the risk of landing in an lz with tall grass?

Or when they aerotow in strong thermal conditions that could lead to a lockout?

Or when they fly at a coastal site where the lz is a tiny strip of sand?

I completely understand why a low altitude wing collapse can seem. particularly troubling.... But in the absence of actual data I have a hard time convincing myself that PG is *inherently* riskier than HG.

[eggzkitz]

I'm at a loss as where to start with this one...

On the positive side, it is good to point us to videos that can help us all be better and safer pilots. So thanks for that. That's where the positives end.

First of all, this posting is a good example of why some PG pilots might see this forum as not fairly representing their community or interests. The post essentially deems -- and writes off -- all PG pilots as "stupid" for flying an an aircraft that can quickly become a "bag." That kind of disparaging language for fellow soaring pilots, who are ostensibly in the same sport, seems to me to be non-collegial and unnecessarily provocative. We PG pilots know well that you don't use "bag" or "bag of laundry" affectionately. It reveals bare the elitism of those who look down their nose while deeming fellow foot-launched pilots as "stupid." If we're in the same sport, it sometimes sounds like we're on different sides. Having never flown one, I've only ever marveled at HGs, appreciative and respectful of the skill and knowledge that it takes to fly one. Even recognizing some of the disadvantages of the HG, I would never call the pilot of one "stupid."

Second, it is subjective. There are objective advantages to the paraglider. They are different aircraft, to be sure. But to dismiss one as "stupid" and the other as superior seems to make an unfair, sweeping generalization. Looking at the actual comments on youtube, the selective cutting and pasting of the one-sided anti-PG comments is evident.

Third, any airframe, even an HG, is prone to turbulence and conditions that make the aircraft more sensitive to pilot error. Even "rigid" airframes can inadvertently be stalled on landing, if the pilot gets too slow, over-controls, etc. The stakes are particularly high in a paraglider, where it can spin and take considerable altitude to recover. Nobody can claim to know the single cause of such a mishap. In this particular case, I think the commentary that attributes some pilot error is accurate. In my view, the pilot failed to ease off the brakes when the glider surged up and back. Worse, and this is clearly visible in the slow-mo, he dropped his right arm fairly deeply as the glider went back instead of letting the glider fly, which appears to have led to a stall of the right wing tip, and the ensuing spin to the ground.

Bottom line, I don't think this pilot was purely the victim of being "stupid" enough to fly a "bag," and it is wrong to claim that no reaction would have saved him from his tragic accident. In fact, I think he might have avoided the spin and crash had he reacted differently. That's not apportioning blame. We're all human and sometimes make mistakes. It is to defend the PG as something other than an inherently "stupid" airframe, one that can be sometimes very unforgiving of narrow risk margins, dynamic conditions, and pilot error.

BTW -- I had a very, very similar encounter with hitting strong turbulent lift on final last weekend in Fort Valley, and it was a bit unnerving, but it ended fine. While I'm not proud to have been caught in that situation, if there are fellow PG pilots who can learn from it, and in the spirit of training and learning, here is the video link: https://vimeo.com/43846943

[Ward Odenwald]

"It is to defend the PG as something other than an inherently "stupid" airframe, one that can be sometimes very unforgiving of narrow risk margins, dynamic conditions, and pilot error."

That's the essence of the argument Jeff.

As for markc's questions, with all due respect, we are not comparing apples and oranges here. It's all about low altitude wing collapses (with the emphasis on the plural). After viewing the videos, experimental data is not necessary. Thermal induced turbulence close to the ground is unforgiving particularly when your wing transforms into a "laundry bag".

Ward
USHGA 22070

[Drew]

Ward,
To be sure, I wasn't implying that you were being, in any way, elitist, and I apologize if that's how it came across. Overall, I was just commenting on an attitude that I had noticed in our community (not this forum, but the sport) that seemed to pit HGs vs. PGs. The comments on that video seem to highlight it.

In the end, I think we all understand that each side of the sport has unique, inherent risks. We accept these risks and mitigate them to the best of our abilities, but risk remains. None of us will (hopefully) wake up tomorrow and think "Wait. This is dangerous. I quit," because it's something we love.

As far as crash videos are concerned.. While they may skyline the negative aspects of the sport, they allow thousands of pilots the opportunity to learn from them, and be more mindful of the common errors. If we can have a constructive critique of each such video by those more experienced pilots, the P2s and H2s of the world can be that much better off.

(And sorry for not editing the "getting hurt" portion of my video out.. It was a quick edit meant for my instructor to critique, and wasn't intended to get as much coverage as it did.)

[jyoder111]

This winter was pretty calm on these forums. Now we finally got a little heat going.

Seriously though, the local PG/HG community segregation is bad enough already, be careful.

Jesse

[mingram]

I agree with Jeff and with Jim Rooney's analysis on the OzReport that this looks like pilot error. The pilot slowed down the wing at exactly the wrong time which contributed to the collapse and spin.

Both HGs and PGs need speed to fly. PGs may not fully appreciate this since there's a "parachute" overhead and since they're easier to land because they're flying slower. I heard this exact sentiment from a prospective pilot at Blue Sky on Sunday and he was an aeronautical engineer. I've stalled a PG and know that it doesn't work that well as a parachute. PGs are taught speed to fly, but it doesn't really become important until conditions are thermic which comes later after you're already a P2. A SIV course will teach you how to recover from a collapse, but you're being taught high above the ground and you aren't really thinking about could happen when landing.

HGs have to learn immediately about speed to fly to successfully take off and land. It's drilled into your head, but still requires lots of repetition throughout your career to ensure the feeling remains second nature. With a PG in stable or ridge lift conditions you can easily get away with not learning speed to fly at all. PG instruction should include videos like these and really emphasize the concept.

Both HG and PG pilots need to make quick and minute corrections to ensure the wing retains speed and energy to keep flying all the way to the ground. PG's probably more so in thermic conditions due to the possibility of a collapse. This is a good discussion and a great reminder to be extra vigilant in thermic conditions. As an Observer for P2 pilots it's going to be the first thought in my mind.

Matt

[XCanytime]

I admire anyone whose feet leave the ground. But here's the scenario that I think Ward is trying to point out. If shit hits the fan at very low altitude, would you rather have a jellyfish above your head or a flexible wing with bones that won't collapse? Bacil

[Matthew]

Two things--

First-- I know of a lot of HG pilots who have whacked in hard, pancaked their controls frames and have been hurt when hitting turbulence close to the ground. A rigid aluminum frame doesn't always help you and can hurt you if you swing into it the wrong way. So this jellyfish vs. plumbing argument is pointless.

Second-- I was taught to use brakes for turbulence when coming into an active field to keep the PG wing inflated-- keep a little brake on to keep the wing inflated. If you have no brakes then the wing can surge and you get into trouble. Is brakes for turbulence a forgotten skill?

Matthew

[Matthew]

Third thing--

Pilot error. I am so sick and tired of everything always being blamed on pilot error. This goes for HGs and PGs. Sometimes things happen so fast, or in a succcession, that the pilot just cannot react quickly enough. So don't always be so quick to use hindsight and call something pilot error.

Matthew

[Roger]

I will learn to PG. That said, I believe one's first wing type will be percieved as the safest.
Much like a pilot's first airplane (ie Cessna vs Piper) will usually be his/her favorite, .... even though they can't explain why, ...

[pink_albatross]

If you are looking for a safe activity, there's always the couch.

[Roger]

Do you mean this Pinky?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujeCWfQ0UPs

[dbodner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujeCWfQ0UPs

You'd need REALLY big wheels at the Pulpit. It might work better at Bill's.

[Ward Odenwald]

Wow! After viewing couch downhill, I’m definitely in favor of Roger taking up PG. Heck - given the choice of between the couch and PG, I’d learn how to avoid parachutal.

We’ve got a fairly decent cold front coming through tomorrow.

Fly safe everyone!

Ward

[pvanoevelen]

Thanks for the video, they are always useful and instructional to make us better aware.

1) I love to see hg's fly, and actually I like them flying better than paragliders
2) that said I do not fly them, maybe one day: I love flying paragliders
2) Sometimes it scares the shit out of me though
3) So done a bunch of SIV's to be better aware of what I am doing

So one thing that is true for all flying vehicles: airspeed is your friend, it is what keeps you flying.
So yes, unfortunately a lot of incidents are pilot error, often because we end flying in conditions we are not capable of handling (without the intent or the awareness upfront). Despite that it is pilot error, it could be avoided if the pilot was aware, and able to handle the situation. We all know that we sometimes end up in situations where we know it is beyond our experience and capabilities (valid for any type of aviator!). Fortunately often it ends well, sometimes it does not.

Lately we had a couple of incidents where pg's on approach had an incident often collapse too close to the ground from which they could not recover. Most ended up in a spin. So active piloting is a must at all times! However, most of us have not experienced enough stalls, collapses to know what to do and what not to do!! My advice do a couple of SIV's and it will help you, nonetheless there is always the grey zone where you have to make the decision of stalling your wing so you drop from too high but still manageable or try to keep the wing flying. My first unintentional spin took me completely by surprise, fortunately it was high up and I had enough time to recover.

I hope that this so called rivalry between hg and pg's becomes a thing of the past. We need each other to keep our sport alive, to keep our launch and landing zones open etc. As I said before I admire the pilots flying hang gliders, I truly enjoy see them cruise the skies... and yes I cursed a few times when one zoomed by me unexpectedly while I was in the air. That said I only had true near collisions with unaware pg's, so now I have a thing against Norwegian paragliding pilots flying in Valle de Bravo on NOVAs ;o) (please do not take that seriously).

Fly safe!
Cheers Peter

[mcelrah]

Well, I'm coming late to this. As someone who bears scars, and an enduring spinal cord injury from paragliding (got hang-gliding, trike, and motorcycle scars, too!), I am the first to admit that these sports are DANGEROUS! Only a FOOL would do such a thing as go up in the air with nothing but tubing and/or fabric wings and have their feet and legs be part or all of the landing gear. (This is what my sailplane buddies say - and they kill more pilots per year than we do!) So, yes, if safety is paramount, you should stay on the couch, in the living room. Also, no riding bikes on roadways - make that no riding bikes at all - and no horse back riding either. Just sit there and hope for no meteor strikes. But now I can hear your arteries clogging!

I will stipulate that, IN THE AIR, HG has it all over PG. That's why my HG student has made her choice to pioneer the resurrection of HG here in the Philippines in the face of PG dominance and the greater physical difficulty for a small woman to learn foot-launch/landing. (No, I am not a USHPA certified instructor, but I'm all she's got - I do not accept payment and will not issue an USHPA rating.)

But the convenience of being able to transport your aircraft all over the world as hand luggage is hard to beat. Oh and the zero set-up time.
BUT...here's my experience from yesterday:

For what it's worth, I had an "interesting" flight here at San Mateo yesterday. My flying partner Uwe and I arrived around 9 AM to find "perfect" conditions: 10 mph straight in. Overcast sky. Uwe launched first and immediately got up, topped out at 600 meters/1000 feet above launch. Obviously the clouds were working. It took me awhile to get my wing up because of sticks in lines, line overs etc. by which time, the prevailing SW cross had set in, which generally means you have to advance down the spine through sink and lift (rotor surfing) to the hill above the LZ. This time I was picked up vertically off the launch and hung there for a bit, going slowly backwards and sideways. Only gradually was I able to penetrate upwind, where I found the sink/lift rotor to be more pronounced. As I reached the hill above launch, I took 50% left and right asymmetrical collapses, which manifested as uncommanded wingovers. Throughout the flight I felt more like a passenger than a pilot. I had my foot on the speedbar, but was afraid to engage it while the wing was being so active. I was fairly close to the tops of the hills, but had the mixed blessing of a deep quarry to dive into for ground clearance if need be. Both of us needed to take care with the landing approach as we encountered patches of lift over the LZ, strongish SW wind requiring a crabbing approach - wind declined quickly to zero as we got below the treeline, making for a dramatic acceleration in groundspeed.

When we went back up, the wind was only a bit stronger - perhaps 12 mph, still straight in, but given my experience we decided to wait till after the predicted noon peak of wind. We parawaited until 4 but it never declined. I was kicking myself for being lazy and not bringing my (low performance) hang-glider. I think I would have soared comfortably for a couple of hours. The HG is not immune to the sink/lift rotor surfing problem, but it doesn't collapse and it penetrates better. I was suckered by the prediction of 13 kph max wind...

In a week, Sallie and I are going to Bali where she can resume her PG training in famously laminar coastal breeze on a many-kilometer long ridge with continuous beach landings below.

Today I am running around with Uga (short for something unpronounceable with too many consonants), the visiting Serbian FAI official who will certify one or more sites for the Paragliding Accuracy World Cup session next year. East European and Southeast Asian countries have embraced accuracy competition as easier to organize and excel at than XC (although I will stipulate that the hovering edge-of-stall technique that many competitors use requires consummate skill) - and they are more spectator-friendly. PG accuracy events are included in the World Games and SE Asian Olympics (not sure if this is IOC sponsored or not). The Asian Beach games in 2014 will include an aerotow HG accuracy competition and I am trying to train up a couple local pilots to be ready by then. The Asian middle class has arrived; future sales growth for hang-gliders (not to mention PG, which is leading) will likely be centered here, so we should foster this development if only to keep Wills Wing in business to supply us...

When I was at the PGAWC in Malaysia 3 months ago, I was introducing myself to David, a Spanish PG and paramotor instructor based in Thailand. He couldn't pronounce my name, so I offered that it is "Ugo" in Spanish. The Serb pilots present went nuts, saying "you look just like our Uga!" Yup, same guy - but he looks OLDER!!

Bottom line: I really should give up paragliding - but I love the international fellowship of pilots and the chance to see the world (not just the U.S.) from a few hundred feet up. My retirement plan from foot-launched flight (hope to eke out a few more years with an intact body and to bag some bucket-list items like flying HG off Yosemite and flying PG in the Alps/Dolomites/Nepal/South America) - is sailplanes, home of sane responsible pilots (5-9 fatalities per year in the U.S.) into their 80s. Oh and become a tow pilot for HG and sailplanes - that's a nice safe alternative, right? Right?

- Hugh

[mcelrah]

One more thing: have you looked at the new ratings page in the USHPA mag? 3 to 1 PG. Objecting to paragliding as unsafe is like the war on drugs - $50 billion a year in enforcement and the street price is as cheap as ever. The youngsters have moved on to the speedwings - a boon to the orthopedic speciality - and USHPA has had to follow with special skills and instructor ratings. When they splatter themselves, we'll get blamed, so we have to include them and provide some guidance. USHPA is now majority paragliding. Will the last (old fart) hang-glider pilot in America please turn out the lights? - Hugh (62 in December)

[XCanytime]

I know of a lot of HG pilots who have whacked in hard, pancaked their controls frames and have been hurt when hitting turbulence close to the ground. A rigid aluminum frame doesn't always help you and can hurt you if you swing into it the wrong way. So this jellyfish vs. plumbing argument is pointless.

Matthew

And I saw for my very own eyes a PG pilot launch from the Pulpit pad around Nov. 2008, suffer a left tip collapse while hovering around 20' above the pad, and ended up bouncing off of the rocks next to the old ramp, injuring the pilot's back. Had the pilot been flying a HG they probably would have just flown away from launch without incident. So don't think for one minute that the comparison is pointless.

Bacil

[markc]

When the sh*t hits the fan during an approach, PG pilots have to deal with the risk of a wing collapse, and possible injury caused by ground impact.

When the sh*t hits the fan during an approach, HG pilots have to deal with the risk of higher ground speeds, and the resulting increased forces of collision with the ground and/or airframe if they lose control.

Do I feel comfortable with the idea of a wing collapse close to the ground? No, of course not! (And I'll freely admit I'm relieved that such a risk isn't of concern for me, flying HG).

But it is also possible to become too focused on *one* particular risk factor, and then reach an overly-broad conclusion. Can anyone refer me to statistics, local or national, which demonstrate that the overall rate of landing accidents/injuries is higher for PG than for HG?

Anyone????

I was injured on landing during an XC flight in 1998, due to a rookie mistake (I seemed to be pulling off a low save and was excited; climbed out of my original LZ; but I hadn't adequately surveyed my second choice; and my alternate LZ turned out to be a very *bad* choice indeed).

So I was forced to backtrack and land downwind/uphill in a third LZ, where I collided with a berm next to a driveway. I was going so fast that I didn't have time to get one hand off the downtube. I broke my radius and ulna upon impact, and was probably knocked out for at least a few seconds (helmet vs. keel).

If I had been landing a PG that day? I'm damn near certain I would have literally walked away without a scratch. The field was completely adequate for a routine PG landing.

The point I'm trying to make is that risk calculation is always based on a multitude of factors. You simply can't consider one factor (PG wing-collapse near the ground) in complete isolation from all others.

So... Show me the data! Until someone can, the only thing I'm getting out of this topic is that there are scary PG crashes on YouTube, just as there are scary HG crashes on YouTube. They may happen for different reasons, and the specific nature of the risks might differ for each wing, but I certainly can't say that one is "more dangerous" than the other. Maybe that will change with time; then again, maybe it won't.

And let me point out that this thread could just as easily have started out from the completely opposite viewpoint : "If anyone is thinking of learning to fly HG, then beware! Injuries due to high-speed landing accidents happen all the time, and the HG community is ignoring the danger!".

Think about it.

MarkC