[mlbco]

[spork]

[pmurdoch]

Now we are getting somewhere. Jason, kudos for the most accurate post.

As Mavi points out, the data is useless. We would need airtime hours, total hours, launches and landings, training level, etc to even begin to make sense of this.

I think Spork is referring to US fatality stats. The US has roughly equal numbers of PG and HG pilots. In that sample size, since January of 2007, 13 HG pilots have died and 12 PG pilots.

But so what? No one can objectively say that HGs are therefore more dangerous. And how does one even begin to make the case that PGs are therefore more hazardous? We don't know any relevant data beyond those ugly numbers.

Many here take the Fox News approach; don't let objectivity get in the way of a belief system. People will ultimately believe what they want.

Back to Mavi, the data is so incomplete that it is useless. Yet many still try to call one better or worse. Good luck.

[Roadrunner]

Hi Guys and Gals, Big Guy here. I see this animosity between Paraglider pilots, and Hang Glider Pilots. I for one think that a lot of it is not rooted in solid ground. Hell, Paragliders want to fly just like us. It is true that Paraglider pilots have huge balls, bigger than I will have. And after all they _ALLOW_ us to be part of THEIR club.

[spork]

[spork]

[gluesniffer]

Paragliders are a bunch of limp dik instant gratification puss wads

[jjcote]

The thing that pisses me off is that this organization was founded by Standard pilots, people who flew Rogallo wings. Then these people showed up who fly these damn contraptions with battens and double-surface sails, prone harnesses instead of swing seats, and all manner of that-all. We let them into our organization, they took over, and the next thing you know, the Standard pilots are gone! Completely! We let in these people flying Comets and whatever, and the original hang gliders that started the whole movement have been pushed out completely. When's the last time you saw any Standard coverage in the mag, other than maybe a faded old picture with a caption like, "Remember this? Isn't it quaint?"?

(Oh, wait, I haven't been around long enough to remember any of this... never mind...)

[spork]

[spork]

[pmurdoch]

Here are the stats I find useful.

In a closed sample of roughly the same number of hg and pg pilots, there are roughly equal number of fatalities over five years. For those keeping score, Hgs are up by one.

And yet,

On the oz report and hg forum, there are countless rant threads about pg safety. On the pg forum, there are no threads about hg safety. None. Zero. But there are plenty about improving pg safety.

So who is in denial?

[spork]

[OpenSoars]

[Paul H]

It might seem so, but a lot of HG deaths and serious injuries have involved experienced, H4 pilots.

[OpenSoars]

I would love to get into PG: the ginormous convenience of the entire rig fitting into a big backpack, the comparatively (to HG) easier landings, and an easier time staying in thermals being among the things that interest me. Like I mentioned before in this thread, the one issue I cannot get past is how unpredictable wing collapse can be. There's something unsettling about an activity that has a somewhat common (unsure of how common), unpredictable/unavoidable component to it, which can kill you, or maim you, if you draw the short straw when it happens.

I just don't see how such a thing can be so easily dismissed. Perhaps it just doesn't happen as often as I think it does. The fact that it does happen seems inevitable, and it's a roll of the dice whether or not it happens at a bad elevation or not.

[OpenSoars]

[Paul H]

Probably overconfidence and complacency in most cases. Dead is still dead, it doesn't matter if it's caused by flying way over your head or making piss poor decisions or flying a wing that is unsuited for the conditions. Most of those bad outcomes could have been easily avoided with some better judgement. That's true of most things

[spork]

[OpenSoars]

[spork]