[jjcote]

[mapjim]

[Avnav8r]

[psuguru]

[jjcote]

[flyinglawyer]

My interest in this thread is this: most HGs perceive HG to be safer than PG, while I, as an outsider, saw PG as safer.

The stats seem to show that the two are either equally dangerous (in terms of the chance of dying) or PG is safer. Yet, most pilots perceive the opposite.

Let me explain why I think PG would be safer:

1. In the US, fatalities for PG and HG are roughly the same, yet PGs way outnumber HGs at any flying site I've seen (POM, Terry, Kitty Hawk), fly more often, take more flights on each flying day, etc. It is not enough to just look at membership statistics -- you have to look at how much those members actually fly.

2. Don't know the stats in Europe, except that PGs seem to outnumber HGs by numbers close to infinite (10:1, 20:1, etc). This must be taken into account when comparing fatalities.

For the above 2 reasons, any argument about a large number of PG fatalities (or even injuries) is flawed b/c it does not take into account the low entry level into the sport, the number of self-taught pilots, easy travel and launch, the number of flights, etc.

People don' hike-and-fly with HGs, but they do with PGs. Because of convenience, etc., the average level of activity for PG pilots seems way higher than that for HGs. Many people at the Point fly PGs every flyable day, and for much longer times than their respective HG counterparts (who lose quite a bit of time just setting up).

3. Most other arguments in favor of HG are also flawed:
a. the "PG blown back but HG would have been fine" type argument is like faulting HG for not flying where Sesnas do -- you can't compare apples to oranges. If you take a PG in conditions outside its spectrum, you have to compare those to HGs likewise in conditions outside of the HG spectrum. When HGs fly close to or beyond their limit, they are just as dangerous, if not more.

b. The "rigid vs soft" airfoil is flawed as well because each type of foil has its own pros and cons. For instance, rigidity leads to higher speeds, more difficult landings, etc., which leads to fatalities by hitting the hill, flipping over while landing, etc.

Who is to say that PG's danger of landing in a thermal is not outweighed by HG's danger of incorrect pilot input on landing/hill-side flying of HG's flipping over in a stray wind gust?

Further, just because a collapse is not pilot-dependent and flying into the hill is, shouldn't lead to the conclusion that one is worse or better. HGs, unlike airplanes, are not flown by computers, so pilot error risk can be reduced only so far. Because of that, a certain level of pilot error risk will always be present, no matter how long you fly and how hard you train, so that this risk becomes objective rather than subjective. Thus, an advanced PG pilot and an advanced HG pilot may both make the same number of mistakes in a given year, yet the HG will be killed flying hill-side, while PG will not (as an example).

Of course, contrary examples are possible and have been given here. I am only presenting this side of the story b/c it has not been presented here, even by PG pilots, apparently.

The point is that general fatality stats would seem like a good indicator of the overall safety of each sport. Getting into distinctions such as whether it was pilot error or not is not useful b/c pilot error will always be present, no matter how much you train. The stats will give a good overall picture of the actual safety in real time and real conditions across a large number of individuals.

So, getting back to the stats, it seems that PG is statistically safer when the number of pilots, flights, airtime, and so forth, is taken into account. Given the current stats, if people were to recreationally travel the world with HGs in their backpacks, flying all kinds of sites they've never been to, and taking a large number of flights each flying day due to easy set up and launch from almost any area, I shudder to think what the fatalities statistics would be for HGs.

[Phoenix]

@flyinglawyer,

One can very well, compare apples to oranges, both fruits, grow on trees,
roundish, vitamin content, etc. The comparator must be aware of similarities
AND differences. You have done well to point out such visa via the HG and PG
stats.

As far as Mr. Masters, I have infinite respect for the pioneers of HG, but the
compiling of such stats seems to have no tangible effect on PG participation.
So belaboring the point seems more vindictive than educational.

The problem comes when HGers must absorb the cost of PGers in increased insurance costs by being called "hang gliders" by those who don't know the differences and similarities.

Regardless, Wyoming is now considering legislation to make backcountry adventurers of ALL types of sports liable for their own rescues.

[NMERider]

[GuessWho]

With only 4 more fatalities to go to match the global PG death total for 2011, I do not see any reason to think paragliding is getting safer. Nor do I think it is possible for reasons already discussed. On the other hand, I have encountered a surprising number of PG pilots from many countries who quit or took up hang gliding in response to viewing the website you mentioned. This would suggest that competent reporting of accidents can have a measurable effect on participation.

In the early years of HG, accident reports led to the evolution of robust gliders that were not divergent, the adoption of emergency reserve parachutes and an effective period of teaching, learning and sharing that substantially reduced pilot error. Today, almost all accidents in HG can be attributed to pilot error.

But today in the USPGA and US PG communities, comprehensive and independent accident reporting leads to fear and loathing, deliberate concealment and removal of data, denial, obfuscation, threats, lies and attacks. While a great deal of attention has been focused on pilot training, most deaths and permanent maiming injuries remain attributable, not to pilot error, but exclusively to the random nature of collapse -- for which there appears to be no cure. The failure of PG fatalities to decrease substantially over many years indicates that, while pilot error has been effectively reduced, the predisposition of the paraglider to kill its pilot at random is and has always been the predominate factor.

[Spark]

[GuessWho]

Yes, at random. Below a certain altitude, your emergency reserve will not have time to deploy. Experienced pilots die just as often as fresher pilots. It doesn't matter how good you are. Fatalities appear random.

[Spark]

[GuessWho]

Of course not. PGs become dangerous when they collapse in turbulence.

Delusional PG pilots are fond of saying that collapse is a non-event and they have plenty of altitude to recover. But roughly half the deaths that stem from collapse occur above emergency reserve deployment altitude. The paraglider collapses, falls, then snaps open with the pilot to one side. It then enters a spiral dive all the way into the ground.

The other half of fatalities occur low while taking off, ridge or cliff soaring, or on landing approach. There is not enough altitude to deploy the emergency reserve.

[flyinglawyer]

[NMERider]

[NMERider]

[flyinglawyer]

[Phoenix]

[davisstraub]

Why would you want to have more flights each day? One all day flight seems perfectly acceptable to me.

[Phoenix]

Practice for us lesser accomplished beings?