[sweetie13]

Hello everyone. I was curious why most people say that hang gliding is safer than paragliding(assuming pilots in both sports are VERY careful) because it has a frame, when in paragliding, you don't? I mean, can't you just let loose ofthe brakes if the wing does start to deflate? Moreover, even if it does begin to deflate, can't it automatically reinflate because you only need 1/3 of th wing to fly? How does this go?

[AIRTHUG]

because you're asking on a hang gliding forum

you'd get the opposite answer on a paragliding forum

They're both as safe or as dangerous as the pilot flying them....

[IrishGuy]

[hifly69]

Pilot error including choice of flying conditions is a major contributing factor in most flying accidents. All things being equal, when things do go wrong with a PG it can happen VERY VERY quickly and precise or no inputs are required. Moreover the spine is very vulnerable to damage in the supine position and even low speed impacts can cause major injuries. The very fact that a hang glider has a solid frame normally reduces the speed of any descent as there is usually something remaining of the wreckage to act as a drogue.

I fly both a HG and PG and try to remain equally conscious of my limitations and of the aircraft that I fly...

[sweetie13]

So if the hang glider does collapse, as opposred to when the paraglider collapses, will the descend be slower, since it has a rigind frame?

And, What can you do if you're only 100ft high and your paraglider deflates and does NOT reinflate? Your reserve parachute cannot open at such a small altitude, so what can you do?

[remmoore]

[AllenJ]

In the most basic sense, Hang Gliders are not likely to "collapse" unless of course you over stress it doing aerobatics. We have pilots flying some really old-tired equipment at my local site, and the only structural failure during flight I have even heard about is a sidewire breaking due to being very old and corroded. Had that pilot done anything even remotely resembling periodic maintenance this would not have occurred.

Which is safer? That is a question with potential for a great deal of bias. In general:

HG - Beginning gliders fly at roughly the same speed as most paragliders. As you progress however you have the potential of flying something that is significantly faster than any paraglider. This means faster landing speeds, need for larger LZ's, less time to react, etc.

PG - Can land in very very small LZ, subject to canopy failure, diminished glide ratio compared to HG.

Overall, the injury/fatality rates are similar when you consider # of participants and average skill level.

Do whatever sport floats your boat. It is the development of mechanical skills and pilot judgment that keeps you safe. The physical skills come relatively quickly. The judgment takes time and experience.

[AIRTHUG]

I've seen a reserve parachute upon from BELOW 100 ft. Don't rule it out, but don't count on it, either...

Hang gliders don't collapse... unless A) it was assembled incorrectly, or B) the pilot did something to break it (read: did something dumb).

Aerobatics comes to mind as the best way to break a hang glider in-flight... specifically, poorly performed aerobatics.

A mid-air collision, although rare, is another way that a hang glider can fail mid-flight....

in normal operating conditions, it just doesn't happen...

Living here at POM, paragliding mecca, I can attest that spinal injuries are much more common in paragliding. But I wouldn't select what I fly based on what injuries are most common... I would set out to learn from the mistakes those pilots made, and to fly safely, avoiding injury. Then it doesn't matter what the common injurie(s) are...

[mapjim]

[AIRTHUG]

PG reserves have a shorter bridle than HG reserves, which could result in slightly faster opening.

The sub-100 ft deployment I saw was a real world deployment, a pilot that was accidently in a negative spin, and he threw the chute at about telephone-pole height... it opened and swung him onto the grass for a sliding butt landing.

it was pretty spectacular...

[jjcote]

The video that showed up recently showing a reserve deploying accidentally on tow gives an idea of how much altitude is needed. If he had been just a little higher, it might have helped break his fall.

[hifly69]

PG's by the very nature collapse from time to time depending on the degree of turbulence-this does not happen with a HG as it is a rigid aerofoil.

It is possible to fly a PG with less than 1/2 an inflated wing but the stall speed (on the flying wing side) increases and drag increases on the deflated wing. This can lead to potentially dangerous spirals (esp if this happens close to the ground). PG's (esp the safer versions) will normally sort themselves out with sufficient height given the correct pilot

In my view, PGs are inherently less safe than HG because of their wing collapse susceptability and subsequent crevat and if/when things do go wrong then it is usually involves higher velocities. If these collapses happen close to the ground then it can be the luck of the draw...

[FormerFF]

Ten year ago, the answer was clear: PGs were by far more dangerous. There were a couple of years where the PG fatality rate was greater than 1 per 1000 participants per year. Over the last five years, the fatality rates have been similar for the two sports. I suspect part of this is that paragliders have been made more predictable, but I suspect most of the improvemement is in figuring out an appropriate flight envelope for them.

Some of this is situational. Are you planning to fly in smooth coastal conditions, but have a smallish LZ? By all means take the PG. Going into turbulence, especially close to the ground? HG all the way.

If you look at the fatalities over the last five years, in the HG side of things, you see a few bad launches, a surprising number of probable medical incapacitations, and maybe one dumb idea. The majority ( and we're still only talking about a few, there are maybe 3 or 4 fatalities for each sport per year) occur when the pilot strikes an object on final approach. On the PG side of things, there are almost always the dreaded low collapse.

I believe that you have more control over your safety in an HG. I recall reading an accident report in the USHPA magazine where a very experienced pilot had a collapse on approach and was badly injured. The interviewer asked him if there was anything he could have done to avoid the crash. He said, no, that once his glider's canopy accelerated forward because of the air he was in, there was nothing he could have done, other than not be there. I personally don't want to ever be in that situation.

When you are a beginner in both sports, you only fly in calm air. Once you are past that phase, you want to find some lift. In most of the world, lift is accompanied by at least some turbulence. When you fly an HG in turbulence, you compensate for it with your normal weight shift movements. If you're flying a PG, you basically have to fly formation with your glider, because of the long shroud lines connecting you to the canopy, and the tendency to pendulum that the turbulence will induce. (Google the term "active flying paraglider" for a better explanation.) If you don't do a good job of this, your canopy will collapse. This is more pronounced in higher performance gliders, beginner gliders are less likely to collapse.

If you haven't done so, please read the Wiki on this.: http://www.hanggliding.org/wiki/A_Comparison_of_Hang_Gliding_to_Paragliding#Rob_MacKenzie Rob teaches both sports and I think he gives a very fair minded description of each.

[hifly69]

I don't think that fatality rates are the only metric here. It would be interesting to compare statistics on serious and less serious injuries for both sports-normalised... I suspect that the real risk of injury is weighed heavily against PG. Empirically I have witnessed more PG accidents than ever has been the case HG (I have been flying for 15 years +).

[jjcote]

I'm going to speculate that the frequency of launching unhooked is substantially lower with PGs. In other words, if the fatality rate is similar for the two, some (significant?) fraction of the HG fatalities are due to something that is amazingly stupid and completely preventable.

[hifly69]

not sure this is so-there are plenty of documented cases along with videos of pilots forgetting to clip in PG harness. The pre flights are just as important but obviously there is no hang check. I have also seen pilots take of fwith line twists and tucks.

[jjcote]

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I think it's less common, and when it does happen, I think the PG pilot is less likely to wind up leaving the hill. Your point about twists is a good one, though.

[Spark]

[sg]

According to a ushpa PG accident summary report:

[sg]