| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
mlbco
3 thumbs up
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 517
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:17 pm Post subject: |
 #181 |
| davisstraub wrote: |
| ....Steven refers to a slightly different "this," the flying of gliders that aren't "fully" certified (although they were sort of certified as competition glider). |
Davis,
Just to be clear, the point I'm trying to make is that the minimum level of certification requirements for the comp PG's appears to be inadequate and needs to be revised. I compared this to the HG certification standards implemented after HG comp pilots experienced "tucks" and divergent dives in the 1970's. I don't have references in front of me, but I'd bet that in the 70's there were some pilots that felt you only needed to be careful or experienced to avoid a tuck. In reality, more stringent certification standards were needed because there was no such thing as a safe level of pilot skill for wings with this design flaw.
Steve |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:23 pm Post subject: |
#182 |
| Quote: |
| ... If you don't throw your reserve and come 3000 feet down in either a pg or hg, you will not live. |
Let's not forget Bo Hagewood. Doing aerobatics on an Aeros glider with very thin wires that he was specifically told not to do aerobatics on. Throwing his chute and watching it float off after he didn't hook it to his harness when he set it up. Landing in a puddle under the glider and after falling thousands of feet and after heart surgery to get a pig valve (needs to be replaced every ten years) living to fly again.
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:25 pm Post subject: |
#183 |
I'm in agreement with you Steve. I'm just focusing on what is happening now (and for the last thirty years) in hang gliding and how it compares with what is happening now in paragliding.
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
fly,surf,&ski
3 thumbs up
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1092
Location: Torrey Pines
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:45 pm Post subject: |
#184 |
| davisstraub wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ... If you don't throw your reserve and come 3000 feet down in either a pg or hg, you will not live. |
Let's not forget Bo Hagewood. Doing aerobatics on an Aeros glider with very thin wires that he was specifically told not to do aerobatics on. Throwing his chute and watching it float off after he didn't hook it to his harness when he set it up. Landing in a puddle under the glider and after falling thousands of feet and after heart surgery to get a pig valve (needs to be replaced every ten years) living to fly again. |
I know one guy personally that walked away from a tumble, then a subsequent parachute failure in the Owen's Valley. He told me that the glider was just in a flat spin the whole way down until he ended up in a tree. He even kept flying "big air" after that happened..... 
(I'm sure Airthug can verify the story as he works with the pilot @ Deer Valley Ski School)
_________________
Help preserve Hang Gliding at Torrey Pines
Join the Torrey Hawks (its free) |
|
|
|
AIRTHUG
3 thumbs up
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 6159
Location: Point of the Mountain, Draper, UT
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 6:34 pm Post subject: |
#185 |
| fly,surf,&ski wrote: |
(I'm sure Airthug can verify the story as he works with the pilot @ Deer Valley Ski School) |
That CAN'T be who I think it is... but I can't think of anyone else I work with at DV.... REALLY?!
_________________
Ryan Voight
BLOG: www.AIRTHUG.com
VIDEOS: http://vimeo.com/AIRTHUG |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: A man's got to know his limitations. |
#186 |
| ridgerunner wrote: |
I've personally flown in only one structured competition - the 1986 Region 4 regionals at Dinosaur. I discovered that for me, the desire to do well enticed me into taking risks beyond those I wouldn't normally take. For me, that was the end. |
I came to exactly the same conclusion - but without flying a comp.
| Quote: |
| they died doing what they loved - and there's got to be something positive about that. |
Personally I don't think that counts for anything. I think it's just something we tell ourselves. |
|
|
|
jjcote
3 thumbs up
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 3216
Location: Lunenburg, MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:39 pm Post subject: |
#187 |
For the record, just so there won't be any confusion or misunderstanding: I, for one, do not have a fat ass.
_________________
H4 + various skills (only foot-launch so far)
WW UltraSport 147, WW Falcon2 170, PacAir Vision Mark IV 17
My HG wiki profile and my flying blog |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:45 pm Post subject: |
#188 |
| jjcote wrote: |
| For the record, just so there won't be any confusion or misunderstanding: I, for one, do not have a fat ass. |
You know the policy - pictures or we can't accept it. |
|
|
|
Paul H
2 thumbs up
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 2182
Location: Reno, NV
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:47 pm Post subject: |
#189 |
"Albeit, they died doing what they loved - and there's got to be something positive about that."
I've always wondered why people think that's a good thing. What you're saying is that their last moments participating in something they loved was spent in terror. Nothing positive about that.
_________________
Paul H
U2 160 USHPA # 51178 KE7VOG
H4, FL, AT, PL, FSL, RLF, TUR, X-C, CL, AWCL, 360, HA,
USN ret. A & P mechanic |
|
|
|
jjcote
3 thumbs up
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 3216
Location: Lunenburg, MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:53 pm Post subject: |
#190 |
| spork wrote: |
| jjcote wrote: |
| For the record, just so there won't be any confusion or misunderstanding: I, for one, do not have a fat ass. |
You know the policy - pictures or we can't accept it. |
Be careful what you ask for -- you might get it.
_________________
H4 + various skills (only foot-launch so far)
WW UltraSport 147, WW Falcon2 170, PacAir Vision Mark IV 17
My HG wiki profile and my flying blog |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:15 pm Post subject: |
#191 |
Steve Morris has brought up (more than once) the point that paraglider pilots at the Worlds were flying "uncertified" gliders. By this he means:
| Quote: |
| Do people on this list realize that the gliders in question are not certified to the same level as sport paragliders? |
Now CIVL actually refers to them as certified competition gliders. See here: http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/node/2126
The gliders registered at CIVL as certified competition gliders are found here: http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/compclassgliders
The requirements for competition glass paragliders are found in Section 7B, which you can find here: http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/documents
Competition class paragliders do not pass EN926 certification. Here is what section 7B 12.1.1.3 states:
| Quote: |
A) A test certificate (see 12.1.7.4) from a CIVL-recognised test organisation showing the glider has passed the structural strength requirements specified in 12.1.7, plus a complete line scheme with line sample sheets, signed by the test house, must be lodged with CIVL.
B) A written report/manual specifying how and why the glider would not pass EN926-2 flight tests, must be lodged with CIVL. |
I suggest that section 7B 12.1.1 in its entirety makes for very interesting reading especially in contrast to the requirements in Section 7A for hang glider pilots.
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
#192 |
Steve Morris writes:
| Quote: |
That's why I'm surprised to find out that a sanctioned competition allows the minimum safety requirements for "comp" paragliders to be so low. |
Of course, it is not the competition that allows this, it is CIVL, or it was CIVL and now they have changed their minds. But then previously non certified and prototype paragliders were the norm in FAI Category 1 competitions, and these were a much different animal than what were often very mistakenly classified as prototypes in hang gliding competitions (you can find a number of stories about this in the Oz Report over the years).
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject: |
#193 |
But let's get to the main point.
Steve has pointed out that paraglider pilots are flying gliders in category 1 competitions that have not certifiable in the strictest sense. That the hang gliding community when it saw that certification for safety was necessary to reduce the carnage came up with standards and that those standards have served the sport and the "industry" well for the last thirty years in spite of minor disagreements.
Now the paragliding community has been struck by accidents that might not have occurred were the pilots flying EN926 (or some similar standard) certified gliders. At least CIVL believes that their non certified certification should be suspended as it is not living up to the safety record that they would like to see.
You can find the EN926 specification here: http://www.paragliding.org/book/en/En926-2summary.pdf
EN D:
| Quote: |
Paragliders with demanding flying characteristics and potentially violent reactions to turbulence and pilot errors. Recovery to normal flight requires precise pilot input.
Designed for pilots well practised in recovery techniques, who fly very actively, have significant experience of flying in turbulent conditions, and who accept the implications of flying such a wing |
.
So you've got to wonder if even the certified paragliders would meet the criteria that Steve would envision for a certified glider.
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:55 pm Post subject: |
#194 |
Let me quote from Steve Morris above:
| Quote: |
| Just to be clear, the point I'm trying to make is that the minimum level of certification requirements for the comp PG's appears to be inadequate and needs to be revised. |
As I said above, we are in agreement. But I would suggest that others here are not. I would also wonder if EN D is adequate.It certainly doesn't measure up to the standards found in hang gliding certification.
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
mlbco
3 thumbs up
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 517
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject: |
#195 |
| davisstraub wrote: |
Let me quote from Steve Morris above:
| Quote: |
| Just to be clear, the point I'm trying to make is that the minimum level of certification requirements for the comp PG's appears to be inadequate and needs to be revised. |
As I said above, we are in agreement. But I would suggest that others here are not. I would also wonder if EN D is adequate.It certainly doesn't measure up to the standards found in hang gliding certification. |
I agree with what you are saying Davis. I have no substantive suggestions on what requirements represent a minimum safe "floor" for PG certification because I don't fly them. In the days of HG divergence problems, the manufacturers banded together and worked out standards that benefited the industry (i.e. don't sell designs that are highly likely to kill or injure your customers if you want to stay in business.) They all agreed to follow these standards and that leveled the playing field in competitions. These safety requirements are measurable from truck and flight test data and are largely deterministic, not subjective. I don't think the competitors should decide what constitutes a safe enough wing, they have competition pressures that encourage risk taking to obtain performance and they often lack the engineering expertise to know when this risk is too great.
The CIVL safety requirements for a competition class paraglider appear to be subjective, not conservative, and fail to clearly define the minimum level of safety needed in a competition glider. I think this is where the weakness in the current rules lie.
Steve |
|
|
|
Davedebogusone
1 thumbs up
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 1476
Location: Beauklahoma ,peoples republic of Kalifornia
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:32 pm Post subject: |
#196 |
| Quote: |
| "Albeit, they died doing what they loved - and there's got to be something positive about that." |
Sure at 80yrs ,locked into boomer, then lights out from a aneurysm ,scratch for a another hour for more terror on the poor bastard I land on.
How would you get therapy for that. 
Spatting is not on any list of doing what they loved  |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:53 am Post subject: |
#197 |
Hi Steve,
Do the certification tests for competition glider certification contain subjective criteria?
Do the certification tests for EN D 926-2 certification contain subjective criteria?
(See links above)
The EN 926-2 certification tests for the EN D specification require a test of glider and pilot together. They are for the most part not equivalent to the truck tests that you refer to for hang gliders.
Hang glider certification also requires a test flight, but the focus of the paragliding certification is much more on what happens during specific maneuvers and the accompanying required pilot inputs during actual flight than what you'll find with hang gliding test flight certification.
What makes the paraglider testing procedures subjective?
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
old newbie
3 thumbs up
Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 811
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:09 am Post subject: |
#198 |
Interesting how the paragliding topics are so popular here. Don't know why it always ends up being a hangs are safer discussion, they are apples and oranges. Both are dangerous and it is up to the pilot to make it safely back to earth. I totalling understand most here think the danger is too great with paragliding in thermal conditions(some thiink any conditions) fine. Others also think there is to little disclosure of the danger to new pilots. Many feel that paragliding is one reason that hang gliding is not experiencing much growth(I don't agree).
This energy is wasted time as far as I can see as discussing this among ourselfs changes nothing. Putting the energy towards more and better instruction would be way more usefull to hang glididng then all this white noise.
Steve Forslund |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:16 am Post subject: |
#199 |
| Quote: |
| Don't know why it always ends up being a hangs are safer discussion, they are apples and oranges. |
Since this discussion has not gone that way I wonder why you try to force it in that direction.
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:22 am Post subject: |
#200 |
| davisstraub wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Don't know why it always ends up being a hangs are safer discussion, they are apples and oranges. |
Since this discussion has not gone that way I wonder why you try to force it in that direction. |
There are plenty of posts in this thread that say exactly that. |
|
|
|
|
Unanswered
Highest rated...
Topics
