| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
OpenSoars
3 thumbs up
Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 85
Location: Orlando, FL
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Here we go. |
 #141 |
| spork wrote: |
| OpenSoars wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Like the trend of serious back injuries for PG pilots, versus more limb injuries (I assume) for HG pilots? |
I'd be very interested to see such stats. I don't know that to be true. Flying head first has it's own risks. |
|
It's not a comforting statistic, but why do PG pilots commonly wear that giant padded back cushion thing? I believe it has something to do with the high risk of back injury in PG accidents. Since you're in a seated position, the first thing that generally impacts the ground would be your back. I'd think that alone would contribute to a higher incidence of back-related injuries. Take a serious blow to the head, you're gonna have a head injury, take a serious blow to the back, you're going to have a back injury.
Last edited by OpenSoars on Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: |
#142 |
| OpenSoars wrote: |
| Going down a flight of stairs by itself isn't that dangerous; trying to walk down a flight of stairs on your hands is. Pretty easy to avoid that danger. |
Yes, but the question seems to be less about what dangers CAN be avoided rather than which ones ARE avoided. We can only look at the stats (for H4's, P4's, only children, or whatever you like) to make that determination.
It doesn't matter that HG deaths are pilot error (i.e. can be avoided) if people aren't avoiding them. The same can be said for PG. |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: Here we go. |
#143 |
| OpenSoars wrote: |
| why do PG pilots commonly wear that giant padded back cushion thing? |
Two reasons:
- To avoid back injury
- Because they can.
There are lots of things I'd like to protect when flying HG. Most are simply not practical. When sitting in an easy chair, it's relatively easy to surround yourself with padding.
But I don't know the stats on various serious injuries between HG and PG. I wish I did.
| Quote: |
| Take a serious blow to the head, you're gonna have a head injury... |
Or neck injury.
| Quote: |
| ...take a serious blow to the back, you're going to have a back injury. |
Yup. But it would be too gruesome to start comparing death, paraplegia and quadriplegia. |
|
|
|
OpenSoars
3 thumbs up
Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 85
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject: |
#144 |
| spork wrote: |
| Yes, but the question seems to be less about what dangers CAN be avoided rather than which ones ARE avoided. |
I'm looking at it more from a personal perspective. I guess I take comfort in having more control over a situation, especially when my health is at risk. So, for me, I'm more concerned about what CAN be avoided. Stats just for stats sake isn't really what I'm personally interested in. I guess I'm more interested in specific dangers of PG and HG in relation to one another. |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:01 pm Post subject: |
#145 |
| OpenSoars wrote: |
I'm looking at it more from a personal perspective. I guess I take comfort in having more control over a situation, especially when my health is at risk. |
I'm sorry to say this, but I think you're kidding yourself. Unless you can identify a reason that you will avoid accidents that others don't, it's just wishful thinking.
For example, you might notice that lots of accidents result from towing or flying XC. You can decide you won't do those things. That would presumably put you in a safer class.
| Quote: |
| Stats just for stats sake isn't really what I'm personally interested in. |
No one is talking about stats for stats sake. We're talking about stats for understanding risk.
| Quote: |
| I guess I'm more interested in specific dangers of PG and HG in relation to one another. |
Without stats it's purely anecdotal. |
|
|
|
OpenSoars
3 thumbs up
Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 85
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:17 pm Post subject: |
#146 |
I'm under the impression that there aren't any truly accurate statistics about either sport. The margin of error would be too great to give any significant value to statistics about either HG or PG. That's why I'm more concerned with inherent limitations, dangers, etc., in both forms of flight.
We could create a poll here on this site asking the question "Which sport is safer: HG or PG?". That would give us a "statistic" on HG vs PG safety, but what value would there be in that statistic? It certainly isn't telling the whole story, or anywhere near it. There are currently only "best case" statistics for HG and PG deaths, injuries, etc., no? I'm thinking they don't hold too much weight. |
|
|
|
OpenSoars
3 thumbs up
Joined: 08 Feb 2012
Posts: 85
Location: Orlando, FL
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:25 pm Post subject: |
#147 |
| spork wrote: |
| OpenSoars wrote: |
I'm looking at it more from a personal perspective. I guess I take comfort in having more control over a situation, especially when my health is at risk. |
I'm sorry to say this, but I think you're kidding yourself. Unless you can identify a reason that you will avoid accidents that others don't, it's just wishful thinking.
For example, you might notice that lots of accidents result from towing or flying XC. You can decide you won't do those things. That would presumably put you in a safer class.
|
Are you implying those pilots that have been flying for 20+ years, and still regularly do so, are only injury free because of luck? You don't think it has anything to do with their choices and judgement? Consider the amount of thought I'm putting into the dangers and safety of both sports and I haven't even so much as seen a HG or PG in person yet. I'd like to think that my level of concern is going to benefit me to a measurable degree. Would I be foolish to think this concern will eliminate all the dangers of HG or PG? Of course. I just want to be properly educated on the realistic dangers of both sports, and I don't believe hazy statistics are the best thing to look to for this information. |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: |
#148 |
| OpenSoars wrote: |
| I'm under the impression that there aren't any truly accurate statistics about either sport. |
I suspect that's true.
| Quote: |
| We could create a poll here on this site asking the question "Which sport is safer: HG or PG?". That would give us a "statistic" on HG vs PG safety |
No - that would give us a statistic on people's opinions about HG and PG safety - or maybe about their opinions on HG and PG value.
| Quote: |
| Are you implying those pilots that have been flying for 20+ years, and still regularly do so, are only injury free because of luck? |
Nope. Not even sure how you would get that.
| Quote: |
| You don't think it has anything to do with their choices and judgement? |
I suspect it has a lot to do with that. I think I've said as much.
| Quote: |
| Consider the amount of thought I'm putting into the dangers and safety of both sports and I haven't even so much as seen a HG or PG in person yet. I'd like to think that my level of concern is going to benefit me to a measurable degree. |
I think that if you maintain that level of alertness and let it guide your decisions on when, how, and where to fly, you're FAR more likely to avoid injury or death.
| Quote: |
| I just want to be properly educated on the realistic dangers of both sports |
I think that's wise. To the best of my knowledge the only information we have so far is that they're quite similar in that respect.
| Quote: |
| and I don't believe hazy statistics are the best thing to look to for this information. |
So it would seem your claim is that you should ignore the statistics that are available since they haven't been broken down to the detail you'd like. That's fair enough. |
|
|
|
Cal Glider
3 thumbs up
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 259
Location: Blythe CA. USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: And then there is the weather channel. |
#149 |
Was watching a program on The Weather Channel and they were showing a PG that had crashed at Torrey. They correctly identified it as a Paraglider. A short time later it was a hangglider…did I miss something, were there two crashes? I don’t think so. 
_________________
Bamboo Bomber –Freeflight 17 ft STD – Cal Gliders Moth 18 ft STD - Cal Gliders 19X16 Short Keel - UP Dragonfly – Cal Gliders WindGypsy Mk 4 – Quicksilver M -Twenty years later… Wills Wing Falcon- Altair Saturn 167, Predator142. I'm getting old(er) Attack Falcon 170... |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: And then there is the weather channel. |
#150 |
| Cal Glider wrote: |
| A short time later it was a hangglider… |
When such a story pops up on local media the "International PG Safety and PR" team springs into action. A situation like this is relatively simple. We (I mean they) simply call the local station to correct them about the type of craft it was.
If someone manages to cross the Atlantic on a hang glider, the IPGS&PR team will certainly call to claim credit for that event. If the hang gliding community could organize their resources this well, the great PG conspiracy would never have secured the foot-hold it has.
Just consider how astonishingly efficient and effective the IPGS&PR team must be to have made such a successful business out of selling people disposable "wings" made out of ladies undergarments, that are designed to drop you from the sky at any time. |
|
|
|
jjcote
3 thumbs up
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 3217
Location: Lunenburg, MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:54 am Post subject: |
#151 |
It takes an incredibly nuanced view of acceptable risk to come to the conclusion that hang gliding is reasonably safe, but paragliding is foolhardy. The fact that paragliding has one particular (infrequent) scenario that would carry a high risk is an odd way to differentiate between the two. In most people's estimation, flying looks cool, but anybody who would participate in either activity is clearly completely batshit crazy.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
GuessWho
1 thumbs up
Joined: 17 Dec 2011
Posts: 32
Location: Earth
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:47 am Post subject: |
#152 |
| I think you have to separate risk between HG and PG into areas of similar flight conditions to get a real insight. I learned to fly HG on coastal sand dunes and when I crashed I got a mouthful of sand. No big deal. The air was smooth and ridge soaring was so easy that I could fly for miles just a few feet off the ground. PGs are similar. On the coasts (where most people learn btw) the risk is small. If you look at the fatality list for PG, most deaths happen inland and witnesses describe sail collapse at low altitudes in turbulence. So an honest safety discussion would discount the numbers of coastal flyers, both HG and PG, and build statistics based on inland flyers only. I mean, if 80 percent of the PG pilots fly the coast and only 20 percent fly inland, you can't take the coastal pilots and add them to the inland PG pilots, and then say that only one out of a thousand has a fatality. It could actually be one out of 200 for inland PG in some areas. |
|
|
|
old newbie
3 thumbs up
Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 812
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:52 am Post subject: |
#153 |
blah blah blah blah blah
I taking my hang and paraglider and going flying.
You could also deduct all the number of internet hang pilots (I swear some fly 5 times a year) and that would change the results.
Steve Forslund |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:08 am Post subject: |
#154 |
| GuessWho wrote: |
| So an honest safety discussion would discount the numbers of coastal flyers, both HG and PG, and build statistics based on inland flyers only. |
Only if you're specifically interested in the inland statistics. |
|
|
|
Jason
3 thumbs up
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 7533
Location: Stapleton, Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:23 am Post subject: Good god. Enoch already |
#155 |
Good god enough already. Bury bury bury
_________________
TSA, DHS, NDAA and SOPA Seig Heil! |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Good god. Enoch already |
#156 |
| Jason wrote: |
| Good god enough already. Bury bury bury |
Are you familiar with the UI element that allows you to not read threads you're not interested in? You simply don't click on them. |
|
|
|
Spark
3 thumbs up
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1881
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:00 am Post subject: |
#157 |
- remarks removed -
Last edited by Spark on Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Spitfire
3 thumbs up
Joined: 11 Oct 2010
Posts: 251
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:35 am Post subject: |
#158 |
| OpenSoars wrote: |
| I just want to be properly educated on the realistic dangers of both sports, and I don't believe hazy statistics are the best thing to look to for this information. |
HG has been around long enough and the knowledge and technology is there that most risk factors can be mitigated through the use of sound judgement.
At the end of the day, you'll never be able to quantify all the risks. It didn't stop you learning to drive did it? |
|
|
|
spork
1 thumbs up
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 2242
Location: S.F. Bay Area
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:32 pm Post subject: |
#159 |
| Spitfire wrote: |
| It didn't stop you learning to drive did it? |
Which has approximately the same likelihood of killing you that HG or PG does. Unless you're a male between 18 and 25 - in which case driving is approximately twice as bad.
From:
Hang Gliding Risk Comparison
Accident Statistics
by Doug Hildreth USHGA Accident Review Chairman
1993 (I believe) |
|
|
|
sg
3 thumbs up
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 11030
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:26 pm Post subject: |
#160 |
I have no idea where people get this idea that collaspes are infrequent in PG's, while supplying NO data to support their assertion.
They must have some really funny definition of infrequent.
From a ushpa multi-year analysis of PG accidents:
| Jim Little (via the USHPA 2001-2005 PG summary) wrote: |
The most commonly occurring accident scenario is an asymmetric collapse leading to a spiral while flying close to the ground during takeoff, landing, or ridge soaring.
|
_________________
H4, AT, FL, TFL, AWCL, CL, FSL, RLF, TUR, X-C
Aeros Stealth III 142
| Thomas Jefferson wrote: |
| All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. |
|
|
|
|
|
Unanswered
Highest rated...
Topics
