The Cold Hard Truth
For my last blog I thought I’d talk about the ‘S’ word. That thing that paragliding competitors never really want to address. Safety.
As with most paragliding events there have been more than a fair share of reserve deployments, crashes, helicopter rescues, hospitalisations and, unfortunately, one fatality. Only yesterday my team-mate Kirsty had to land to tend to a badly smashed up pilot who’d crashed not whilst racing but when his glider collapsed and irrecoverably cravatted at low altitude whilst he was coming in to land. The sky was so full of rescue helicopters buzzing back and forth clearing up behind us that the task had to be cancelled. Let’s not forget that each reserve deployment is a potential major accident or fatality and that if the person lands safely they are ‘there but for the grace of God’. That, of course, is if the thing even deploys. Many don’t and end up wrapped up in the lines with the paraglider or just fail to fill with air. Great stories to tell in the bar till it all goes wrong.
I think this is appalling. Other sports, sponsors and the public at large must look at this sad wreckage of people and equipment dangling from trees and being hauled off the mountain each day and think ‘My God, don’t these people realise how they come across to the rest of the World. They are a joke’.
Sadly, I am forced in many ways to agree with them.
When I competed in both Motorsports and the Snowboarding World Championships you had to present yourself at scrutineering in the morning to have your kit and yourself checked for compliance with basic and common-sense safety requirements. Sure it was a pain but more broadly the sports flourished once they’d got over their worrying ability to kill or maim their most talented participants in the early days. With safety addressed it wasn’t long before mainstream recognition and money followed on.
In paragliding I’m not even required to use an approved crash helmet. Some of the things perched on top of the heads of competitors here looked like they wouldn’t be strong enough to house a pot plant. Similarly one of the only proven safety devices to work – airbag back protection – is not required to be a minimum thickness or density nor to conform to any sort of crash testing. The winner of the event, Andy Aebi, was using a harness that looked like a flying sun lounger and would have offered about as much protection to his spine as an egg box. Presumably he thinks he’ll never need it but, perhaps, he just puts it out of his head because doing without this essential piece of kit saves a significant amount of drag and, in the absence of rules to govern pilot behaviour, he has no choice but to ditch it if he wants the title at the end of the fortnight.
Then we come on to gliders. These things we fly in competitions are not easy or forgiving but they are manageable in 99.9% of conditions. However, increasing aspect ratios and the constant drive towards performance has constantly reduced the number and thickness of lines holding the whole structure together meaning cravats are becoming more and more common and harder and harder for all but the best pilots to deal with. For 90% of the field here a huge blowout or collapse followed by a cravat just means going for the reserve handle straight away as there’s almost no chance we have the skill to recover a glider from this configuration. Some pilots, like me, have to make constant compromises between how fast I want to fly and how much I don’t want to end up throwing my reserve. In essence my flying speed is purely limited by how much risk I want to take of getting into a situation for which I have neither the skill nor the inclination to recover from. In a very real way the fastest pilots here are those that accept the notion of ‘falling off’ once in a while. I.e. they consciously push hard through rough air knowing that they may use the reserve parachute. Far from being the ‘last chance’ that most of the flying community believe the reserve is for, it has become a crutch to allow faster and faster speeds and gliders with less and less passive safety to be flown.
So, what’s the answer? Glider regulation in the form of Serial Classes or basic and essentially non-intrusive minimum stability tests for gliders? Anti-cravat line layouts (possible and something I’ve discussed at length with designers)? Maximum aspect ratios or other technical restrictions? All have been discussed in the past but usually rejected because pilots and more importantly manufacturers dislike regulation, compliance and the restriction of what they consider to be part of the ‘freedom’ that flying brings to their lives.
I have to say one thing, though. I saw the fatal accident from 50 metres away and I can tell all of you that had Stefan been flying a certified wing or one with reasonable aspect ratio he would be here now. He could have steered away from the mountain from where he could have thrown a reserve or landed and that’s if the glider would even have got into this mess in the first place if it had been less pushed to the edge of the reasonable design envelope. I have it on good authority that a decent crash helmet would have had a major effect on the outcome as well.
So, to come back to the title of this blog I want to ask this;
The Cold, Hard Truth.
Are the arguments put forward against any form of regulation for our sport worth the life of the pleasant and affable young man from a sleepy town in Switzerland who came to Mexico full of the vitality and promise that youth bestows and who won’t be going home again?
For me, the answer has to be ‘No.’
Fly safe and if you want to stay safe don’t become a competition pilot till we have some more sensible rules and gliders in place.
Mark H
Related posts:
February 8th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Thanks for all the great blogging Mark.
Indeed, it’s true that in paragliding there’s a huge amount of resistance to enforcing safety. It’s not just at the manufacturer level but at the “grass-roots” level too. Numerous pilots do not do something as basic as wear any kind of helmet, or report incidents and accidents so we can actually learn and improve. Keep on pushing for improvement!
February 8th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Mark, some of the spanish speaking pilots commented too the topic during the worlds, both before the unfortunate incident and after. We all agreed this kind of events should be done only with certificated/homologated equipment in order to avid such tragedies, specially when the level is so high and everybody in competing so hard, aggressively and close to the edge! I’m of course not against protos and new technology develoment, but think that laboratory should be taken out of the competition in order to keep everything safe for everybody. Did you had a chance to take a close look to Urban’s harness? A real beauty, but I think if was even less forgiving than Estefan’s harness. Lets see now what happens in the future, but I second your proposal.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:24 am
From yet another new fan!
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But want to ask another question (or two or three):
Almost all these comp pilots started out as sane, safety conscious pilots. Many of them said in those beginning years “I won’t EVER fly one of those comp wings. They are too dangerous.”
What happened to those sentiments? Did they begin to get a too inflated sense of their abilities? Are they believing that they can deal with anything the glider (and manufacturer) can throw at them? Or are they just hoping that it will never happen to them?
Why is it that there is always another pilot to fill the hole of one who left the sport due to a sane decision or that was injured/died?
I am a great believer in risk management, but somewhere it seems either our sanity falls at the feet of the adrenaline rush that comes with flying a paraglider, or someone is able to talk all safety consciousness out of pilots growing in the sport.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I must be honest mark it’s made me think about comp flying on our gliders after reading about stefan,I’m thinking about going back to serial wings myself from now on,The risk is just to high to our safety.Your totally correct if stefan was on a serial wing i’m sure it would have been a different story.I’m thinking hard about this ready for this year’s brits.I will call you both soon about coming over with the girl’s.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
well said mark at last a comp pilot speaking some sense about safety lets hope it doesn’t fall on deaf ears. well done to you and the rest of the brit’s on coming in fourth.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Your position is eloquently stated, and passionately put. I totally agree with you.
You have explained perfectly why I fly a serial class wing, use a decently protected harness, and try very hard in comps not to put myself in positions I wouldn’t be comfortable with on a normal XC flight.
I hope the powers-that-be take on board your well-founded suggestion for a greater emphasis on safety in comps. I’m not hopeful it will happen any time soon though – I come from the hang gliding comp circuit, they’ve been doing it for at least 10 years more than the paragliders and they haven’t learnt all the lessons yet ….
Thanks for the thoughtful piece.
Andy
February 8th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Hi Mark,
My last blog entry isn’t up yet but it contains a somewhat different viewpoint. I for one don’t agree that Serial Class is any safer than what we fly now, and in my view it was even empirically proven back when it was tried in the World Cup.
I argue in my last entry that no matter the regulations, no matter the care, there remains a residual risk that can’t be removed, and that pilots who seek to ignore this are deceiving themselves.
Check it out, and thanks for a couple of good weeks,
Mads
February 8th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Hey Mads
This is good. Disagreeing is how people come to a consensus opinion.
I don’t really say that serial class might be better. I just said it should be discussed or other options thought about. Certainly using canoe helmets and other sub-standard head protection should have been a thing of past 10 years ago.
The one thing I think should not happen is people shrugging their shoulders and just accepting that things will always be this way and that nothing can be done. If sports did that then we’d still be seeing drivers killed every year in F1. They found it hard and painful to change their regulations, as do most sports, but in the end they came up with a better alternative and less injuries.
I just can’t accept that 24 reserves, 3 hospitalizations and one fatality are in any way acceptable for what should be the premiere event on the Paragliding Calender.
If that is the case and there’s really no way to improve this then we deserve to be banned.
Cheers, Mark
February 8th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Hi Mads,
You said “no matter the regulations, no matter the care, there remains a residual risk that can’t be removed, and that pilots who seek to ignore this are deceiving themselves”
… which is completely true, and I can’t imagine that any pilot will disagree with this statement. However, I think what Mark is saying (and I am agreeing with) is that we SHOULD take a cold, hard and rigorous look at all those competition risks that CAN be mitigated, given the current poor safety record.
Of course, doing so won’t reduce the accident rate to zero; but I am left wondering after this Worlds, how many of the incidents could have been avoided, or injuries reduced, by relatively simple, easy-to-implement measures.
Andy
February 9th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Hi Mark
Firstly, thanks a million for some very entertaining coverage of the worlds.
To a small extent I agree with your sentiments regarding the safety aspects of flying uncertified gliders, but as an investigator for our local CAA I had to deal with 3 fatalities in the last year, which got to me and made me think a lot about what we do. The sad fact is that none of them involved comp gliders, all three had airbag harnesses or a harness certified by DHV and all 3 pilots wore full face helmets. The truth is that we are dealing with an invisible force of nature, and no matter what safety precautions we take, there will be incidents where we will be bitten.
Kind Regards
Charles Swart
February 9th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Mark,
You mirror my view, which is that comp gliders are NOT controllable in all situations – Stefan proved that, as have many other people. Serial wings are tested for flight recovery and have a much higher chance for maintaining control (although not 100% as Charles S notes).
The only person I know of that tried to address comp pilot safety was Robbie Whittal and no-one was interested.
Tom
February 9th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Well done Mark for speaking out on such a huge issue.
I’ve been in and out of the competition scene since 1994. 25% of the field either threw their reserves or were hospitalised in the course of the 1997 Worlds, a similar level of carnage to this year. I’ve been mostly out of comps since 1999. The final straw was seeing a pilot die in the 1999 World Championships.
When you step back and look at the sport with a longer view, very few pilots stick around competing for longer than 3 years. They leave either injured or not prepared to face the risks anymore. Paragliding competition is ‘deep play’, where the risks far outweigh the rewards, and except for the seriously obsessed, it doesn’t take too long for most pilots to decide it’s not just not worth it. As Dav Dagault says, a DHV 2-3 is much more enjoyable than a hospital bed. It’s a little like the cycle of a Napoleonic battle: the eager new troops come in marching over the bodies of their injured comrades. And this problem keeps coming around and around.
If we want competitors to stay competing longer, there should be some kind of minimum safely standards set – perhaps not the same as publicly-sold gliders, but certainly flight tested. I don’t know if there are any viable tests for incidence of cravatting, but if so, that’d obviously be useful.
I also think the FAI also needs to be mindful to keep the comps in safer places. Castejon and Valle de Bravo clearly see way higher injury levels than places like Manilla and GV.
Cheers
Hugh Miller
February 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I come from gliding — the big composite sailplanes — flying now some 35 years, one or more competitions every year.
There was once a statement about gliding, “the dangerous part is driving to the airfield”.
Bullshit — pardon my choice of words — but I lost 10% (that’s TEN PERCENT) of my gliding friends over the years because of fatalities — all in gliders, none in cars.
So, trying to continue flying but stay alive under such appalling statistics, I venture to offer to your community the following thoughts — and please remember, “you never learn much from somebody you are in agreement with”:
1. at least in gliding, we actually already know almost everything needed to fly without risks — accidents happen in violation or ignorance of this available knowledge;
2. Mark H above says “manageable in 99.9% of cases”: NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Please understand: we fly, say, 50 hours per year, and there is one such “case”, say very optimistically, every 10 hours: that means that every 10.000 hours there is one unmanageable case. If we fly 20 years, we have a 10% chance of hitting “the unmanageable”, but worse, among ten of us, together we fly 10.000 hours… who will be the unlucky tenth friend… you get the picture? — which leads me to the next vital point:
3. if one of us has an accident, we are ALL collectively guilty — against all individualism — because we do not know who is going to be hit, but we all witness, and so often look the other way, when somebody is violating common flying sense: WE MUST START TO STOP HIM, in the hope that somebody else will stop us some day when we will forget about safe flying — eventually we all do, and even forget about it.
Because of the statistics above, call it, if you wish, Alvaro’s rule about flying safety: “an accident is a collective shame on the whole flying community”, and one fast way to reduce fatalities is for us all to accept that flying safely is everybody’s business, and if I see you flying dangerously, I will do all I can to stop you, right now.
In a competition, that might mean vigorous denounciation of somebody flying in dangerous conditions, or the comp director analyzing the logger data and referring the guy to the relevant judging body (you don’t have one? — get it right now…).
THERE IS NO NEED TO RISK KILLING YOURSELF TO WIN, if we all follow the same safety standards.
You may disagree with this principle of “peer safety enforcement”, but then, please try to imagine yourself as the tenth guy, cold insde that casket, weeping people around you, and come up with a better proposal to avoid it.
Happy safe flying,
Alvaro de Orleans-Borbon
February 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Mark,
I appreciate your effort to open the debate rather than just accepting the situation.
Risks at high speed is not the only factor, another element is mid-air colisions. Does anyone has an idea of the total number of mid-airs and how many resulted in reserve deplyment for at least one of the pilots?
Thanks.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
When safety issues are addressed in an activity, whether it’s driving, auto racing, boating, equestrian jumping, or whatever, two types of arguments (among many others) are inevitably put forth with various conclusions drawn. 1. The intrinsic danger argument: “Xing is dangerous. No matter what you prescribe or proscribe, some people will be injured and some will die.” Then, of course, “Therefore, doing anything is futile.” 2. Arguments based upon anecdotal evidence: “My uncle was wearing a seat-belt and he died anyway.” Or, “Good thing my friend wasn’t wearing a seat-belt; he was thrown clear and everybody else died.” What is obviously ignored in the first is the idea of reasonable risk and that much can be done to reduce the number and severity of “accidents” short of wrapping the participants in bubble-wrap or restricting the activity to computer simulations. The conclusions drawn from the evidence in the second case are belied by statistics: exceptions will occur, but e.g. auto insurance is going to pay out more, not less, money if seat-belt laws are repealed.
Mark is surely right in stating that very little attention is being paid to the issue and that much, much more can be done about this without sacrificing what is good and great about comps.
Jeez, fewer people are injured and killed in whole seasons of nascar racing than in a fortnight of the Worlds!
February 10th, 2009 at 2:46 am
Mark,
You make some valid points. I, too, regret the tragic loss of Stefan. However, I do see one side of this that is not receiving the attention that it deserves. I have six trips to Valle as a recreational pilot. I spent anywhere from two weeks to a month there, flying everyday. On the very first trip, during the first site intro, the locals said, emphatically, do not fly behind El Penon- don’t cut the gap. There have been numerous reserve tosses and a lest one death that Iknow of, prior to Stefan, from pilots that disregarded that advice. I read all the blogs relating to the incident. It was a case of lemmings following lemmings. Some of the pilots knew that there were doing something unwise. It is remarkably similar to the Australian comp in which Ewa got sucked up into the CumNib. I forget who published the dramatic photo of that cloud. If I remember correctly, there were something like 13+ gliders underneath the thing. If we are going to address this safety thing, then we also have to come to grips with the fact that Stefan shouldn’t have been in that spot in the first place. Harsh? Uncaring? No! The other pilot that died in that area a number of years ago was on a serial wing. I suggest that we were lucky that more didn’t find themselves out of luck behind El Pinon, in the No Fly Zone.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you on your secondary points: there is no downside that I can imagine for implementing strict rules on safety gear: helmets, harnesses, reserves.
I also see little downside (only logistical headaches) in requiring inspections of that gear.
And I’d add one more item: pre-launch safety checks. Some meets I attend have launch personnel who check leg-straps of each pilot before launch. 99.9999% of the time pilots handle these checks themselves, but what is the downside in a 2nd party check? (and I write this as someone who launched Mt 7 in a meet without my straps…)
That said, I don’t see how to realistically regulate the stability of gliders, and I have a concern that mixing free-flight certifications and comp ones could be detrimental to the integrity of things the DHV and CEN ratings.
With the flexibility (subjectivity even) of some of the ratings, requiring comps to be flown on serial gliders, could well have the effect of polluting the ratings–with serial gliders eventually becoming as unstable as the wings that were flown in Valle last week.
Additionally, I think we all understand accidents to be a result of a combination of factors–with probabilities increasing as we pile on risk. Maybe a more stable glider would have saved Stefan. Not flying behind the Peñon would likely have saved him as well. Perhaps a better helmet, or a tighter helmet strap. Maybe a a few minutes different in time, where controlling his glider as long as he did would have cleared the bad air and dangerous terrain.
I don’t know. But I do know that pretty much all the pilots who flew the Worlds understand risk factors and made explicit decisions to pile them on. And many made decisions to reduce them (fly a more reasonable glider, like my relatively stable and slow Boom5, or take a longer route around places like the saddle of the Peñon).
But changing the glider won’t change that psychology. My _guess_ is that slower more stable gliders would lead people to pile on other risks to find their advantage (flying rougher air, chancing more dangerous lines etc…)
So whole hearted agreement on safety equipment and some skepticism that glider changes would make a difference…
February 10th, 2009 at 7:36 am
I find it amazing and inexcusable that accidents are happening at elite level competitions.
I would suggest that any accident or reserve deployment should result in instant disqualification from the competition. I would also say that having two such incidents in a twelve month period should result in the pilot’s rating being lowered back to beginner or novice where it belongs.
This would put the responsibility back onto the pilots to fly safely in competitions. The emphasis should be on airman-ship rather than just fastest to a goal.
I still can’t believe that pilots who fly into cloud are not grounded for an extended period rather than treated like some sort of hero.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I’m Just back from Mexico and, of course, I have about as much chance at sleeping as I do of magically ever having a full head of hair again.
So I’m sitting here at 2am local time but 7pm Mexico time reading the reactions to what I jotted down when I was feeling a bit low at the end of the World Champs.
I think this is what I was trying to say. (and I’m not so sure as I’m a bit of a clutz sometimes and am often prone to typing a little faster than I think)
1/ Flying is dangerous and so are comps but it is important to show the rest of the world that you are doing all you reasonably can to do better. Decent head protection, passive safety and common-sense independant safety testing and assesment of your racing machine has been embraced by the entire World including previously ‘nutter’ sports like F1 etc. We should be no exception.
2/ Trying to do better may make no difference but indifferent shoulder shrugging and denying things can ever be any better shouldn’t get in the way of at least trying.
3/ The World Champs should be a beacon to new and ambitious pilots who wish to progress. Frankly if I were the parent of a young pilot looking at the safety records of the World’s I would lock their wing away and buy them a motorbike as it looks safer. Surely we can do better?
4/ I’m neutral on wings. Serial wings ARE easier to fly but you can take more liberties with them. However the harsh truth remains that 80%+ of the field in Mexico would have no idea of how to deal with a large aggressive cravat on a high aspect comp wing. Most of us were, to put it frankly, ‘living in hope’ that it wouldn’t happen.
5/ The new wings cravat a lot. No matter how smart the arguments are the basic fact on the new generation of wings (Boom 6, Icepeak 3 etc.) is that flying with loose, very lightly loaded tips gives a big boost to glide performance and a big tendency to cravat when hitting any thermal bigger than a Marmot Fart. I have trimmed my R09 slower at the tips and added more arc to make it more sensible but I loose a lot of performance. It’s a shame to have to make this decision. Should I have performance? Or my arse heading earthwards locked out in a death-spiral? Now let me see….
6/ In my humble opinion I think Stefan would have easily dealt with the situation he was in on a serial wing or a less pushed design. Of course this doesn’t change the fact that he could have had another accident on one and I’m not in any way arguing that they are safer overall. I’m just stating that, in my opinion, this very talented pilot almost recovered his 8+ aspect glider with an agressive and grabby profile and that he would have easily contained the same situation on a 6.5 aspect glider with a softer profile and line tab positioning. In short, he’d still be here, very likely unhurt. You are free to draw your own conclusions as to whether this does, or doesn’t make one type of glider safer than the other in different circumstances.
7/ Collisions, tree landings, downwind splats and other mishaps are part of comp flying and the wing will make no difference. Violent cravats which most very good pilots have no chance of recovering, especially at low altitude, are NOT part of comp flying, they are a symtom of the type of wing being flown in the comp. If serial wings were no better than comp wings re cravat and recovery then there really wouldn’t be much point certifying them, would there?
8/ I’ve never, in 3000 hours, lost control of any glider, be it a comp wing or otherwise so I’m not writing this from a bleeding heart perspective. BUT, I’m a pussy about pushing speed in rough air and I don’t fly near hard things like cliffs if I can avoid it. This means I don’t win very much becuase I don’t consider the reserve to be an option. I feel, more and more, that my comp pilot friends, especially the quick ones, tend to think of it as somthing they’ll use quite happily to fly faster or fly a glider that’s more on the edge. I feel, somehow, that this is a dangerous and intrinsically wrong mode of thought contrary to all experience gathered in a century of aviation good practice. Reliance on what is really your ‘last chance’ (and an unreliable one at that) just seems flawed.
Finally imagine this headline. ‘A six year old girl died today in a road accident after there was no Air Rescue Service available. Police said a all available medical helicopters were rescuing pilots from trees at the Paragliding World Championships. Commander X was highly critical of the organisers and pilots when he discovered basic mandatory safety checks were not part of the rules of entry and is now asking the President to consider an outright ban of any future flying in the area…’ Etc. etc. etc.
Showing the outside world you mean business is important. Very important.
Anyway I’m going to have to try to sleep if only so I don’t have to listen to both Kat and the dog snoring in tandem next to me.
Cheers, Mark H
February 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Mark good to know that Kat and dog get there dad back,interestested to read what u said and in a way saddened that it stopped somewhere short of a resignation letter.as myself and others would like u around and there is a real risk that it wont be the other guy at some point.
I think u know as a serial competitor(in the same way Blackmoore is a serial instructer) that whatever happens reward doesnt matter say u injure yourself and can no longer compete do u give up competeing or swap sports? I was never going to be good enough to compete but never felt i wanted 2 role the dice it is a circus what goes on at the top of our sport and for what,increase profile,not realy,generate income?no,move development foreward….no(it would happen anyway)Glory..no,,to feed the beast?to fill the void…..non of the above? Its a great sport but its not worth getting injured or killed for ask yourself this is it worth the life of a vauxhall cavalier killing essex boy with shagged knees and a brain dead dog and Kat (who isnt brain dead)answer no!Ive heard great things about Badminton…see u march 26 did i mention its my birhday
February 10th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The problem with what Graeme Henderson above suggests is that if you penalise pilots for throwing reserves then they won’t throw them. It’s often not a ‘black and white’ decision and it’s often best to throw it and regret it than to wait and see if you can recover only to discover you are too late. If you penalise pilots then I can almost promise that we’ll see an increase of people piling in and many more ‘why didn’t he throw his reserve?’ questions being asked at inquests.
This may sound stupid but the very highly motivated people who fly comps have a level of self-belief that things will work out OK so you must NEVER penalise them for taking a safety decision.
In practice we already do that by offering a range of gliders on which to fly and then making it almost impossible to be competitive on the safest ones.
Mark H
February 10th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Hi,
for me, an ‘ordinary’, no comp pilot, this hole discussion is more then overdue (hope this is the right word?).
I agree with Mark H.’s statements, especially that basic safty regulations and clever wing limitations should be implemented. Already enough bad accidents happend showing us that it is necessary.
I hope that you all keep the risk in mind. I try too, more then before after I almost lost 2 very close friends
when they had an accident (collision).
February 10th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Hey if i may say something , i think we can push perforance all we want , and even more, just two things to develop:
deflation-proof gliders and efficient emergency airbags , switch controlled or automatic.
anti-deflation systems: reducing lines and improving performance with high pressure tubes will also result in an increase in performance.
Airbag: the car industry has a proven system which can be put tu use for us in a simple manner, just cutting different shapes for protection of the whole body. Imagine them similar to the Mars landing systems
Iwish a think tank could be put together to make these innovations available free to all manufacturers , The resaearch would be funded by the Fai or national federations .
Maybe i m dreaming ?
February 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I started flying GA in 1968, hang gliding in 1976, and did a pg course in the early 90’s.
After flying a level 2 paraglider a couple of times I gave up paragliding as too dangerous, especially compared to other forms. I don’t like the idea of an aircraft that can fold itself up in mid-air.
I swore of all competitions after 1984, because I could see myself pushing into danger to be competitive.
To my mind the whole competition scenario of pushing faster and further to goal is not what flying is about. Is it really fun?
I have tossed alternative ideas around, but no-one is interested.
Time to goal prediction with penalty points for early or late arrival…
No vario competition, no gps, or gps logger in your harness and unavailable during flight….
Crossing goal line at a set altitude then landing on the target spot for points….
Land at turnpoint, get ticket stamped, take off and fly back to finish….
Every form of flying I’ve seen eventually hits its limits. Paragliding especially needs to realise that with no real speed control speed competitions are futile.
Hang gliders too, are pushing well past posted VNE to get that edge in comps.
Not a good idea.
Maybe I am chicken?
February 10th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
oops i meant increase in safety instead of performance increase
February 10th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
A few of ideas people have sent recently:
1. Class comps with highly specified safety equipment and sameness of wing lets pilot skill stand out.
2. Leave gear tweakings to private and commercial testing. No tweaks of equipment in pilot-skill sport competitions.
3. Let reaching VNE unconditionally disqualify one from the competition.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Philippe: Anti-deflation tubes may, as you wrote earlier, improve performance. But safety? I’m not so sure: With our (not really rigid) lines, I’d suspect many morr pilots to fall into their canopies – the energy has to go…
Any glider designers out there to comment?
February 14th, 2009 at 3:17 am
All the competition pilots I have met are aware that this is a very risky sport and are wiling to take the risks. They like the adrenaline, the fear, and eventually the glory. They like to fly hot high-performance wings. And I know that manufacturers are very concerned with safety, the last thing they want is their brand associated with bad unsafe design. But they also are trying to improve performance, and I think they are generally doing a great job keeping performance and safety in balance.
Why everything always has to come to regulations, rules and restraints? If somebody wears a very beautiful good-for-nothing helmet, well, he has the right. What about individual responsibility? Is too much to pretend people take responsibility for their own safety? Will paragliders be required to have a big warning text printed in all caps: WARNING, POTENTIAL ENERGY CAN GET TO LIFE THREATENING LEVELS?
February 16th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
In the past year, I personally know three people who have been seriously injured or killed in non-flying accidents, including car accidents, and one person injured while flying. Safety in HG/PG is managed risk, and a conscientious pilot can do a lot to manage it. We tend to hop into a car with no pre-flight, with lots of distractions, often in a rush and we don’t pay much attention to what’s going on around us. And we drive amongst a lot of poorly trained drivers.
However, one of the things I find a bit dismaying about our sport in recent years is the tendency towards stunts and “daredevil” behavior. I wrote a small piece for the HPAC magazine on this. It’s the You Tube phenomenon..the “look at me and see what crazy things I can do” phenomenon. I think this is leading to more incidents, especially in the PG world although HG has the problem too. PG’s and HG are not aerobatic machines, that was never their intent. There are a few pilots who can “handle” aerobatics but many who are way beyond their limits, and even the experts frequently meet their demise doing a “stunt”. The machines themselves, as well as the pilots, are being pushed way beyond reasonable limits. Flying at the edge of the envelope just asks for trouble, and now that flying on the edge is becoming much more commonplace, especially at competitions, so are the incidents. In my mind, having to throw a chute indicates a serious error in judgment somewhere along the line. It is an emergency device that is there to save you if you have made too many errors and have left yourself no other option. It is not something you throw when you try a stunt, push the weather, push the machine or push yourself and it doesn’t quite work out as planned.
Christopher
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Hi Mark
being completely out of paragliding now other than an occasional and hugely enjoyable flight here and there on my DHV 1-2 I have to laugh when a friend sent me the link to your excellent blog.
Do people forget Granada World Champs? same story … 20+ hospitalizations, broken backs, one death and a JOKE of a sporting event like you say. For sure after competing on British Team for only 2 seasons I became bored & saddened with the death and destruction that is always going to be “competition Paragliding”
flip the coin…..load the gun……
because chances are you will die, the odds are not on your side
Enjoy
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Miami Wings – Miami’s Finest Wings!…
Interesting post on the subject matter! Thanks for sharing this information….
May 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I formed the Cross Country Pilots Association in California’s Owens Valley in the middle ’80s. In 1985, I was the meet director for the summer’s hang gliding competitions. I have always regarded competitions as the ultimate testing ground for aviation equipment and a vital part of design advancement. There is no substitute.
Safety was an issue in the respect that pilots would be expected to fly with helmets, a parachute, and their equipment needed to appear serviceable (no frayed wires, torn sails, etc.). However, we didn’t kid ourselves about what we were doing. I was sending eager and willing competitors on long XC tasks laced with violent thermals and afternoon thunderstorms. We were exploring the edges of the envelope. That’s how you find out what man and machine can do. What the pilots flew and how they modified equipment was entirely up to them. Peer pressure in competition has little impact.
Safety with recreational equipment is different. This type of equipment should be tested and certified. Rigorous training programs and levels of qualification inevitably become standard. Peer pressure plays an important role.
To me, paragliding is much like bull riding. I am amazed at the skill and determination these guys demonstrate and I love to watch the competitions. And despite my opinion that this is one of the stupidest things any human being could ever do, I would never try to talk a bull rider out of riding a bull. It’s his wish, his desire and passion. I respect that.
Bull riders are presently struggling with the issue of helmets. Helmets are not mandatory. Many prefer cowboy hats to helmets, fearing the weight of the helmet might throw off their balance. The PCRA regards helmets as an option. I understand that.
But importantly, the design advancement argument cannot be drawn between bull riding and automobile racing because there is no aftermarket. NASCAR has made tremendous strides in competition safety. These advancements are trickling down into consumer automotive design. However, it is doubtful that much of anything will trickle down into consumer safety from bull riding. Anything that could be developed was utilized in motorcycling long ago.
Likewise with paragliding. The ultimate safety developments in paragliding point to a non-collapsable wing and more rigid attachment of the pilot to the wing. This has already been done. As a retrograde sport which seeks greater thrill value from a lack of control, paragliding competition has nowhere to go but beyond the edges of the envelope. Therefore, I expect a third reserve parachute will be the next development in competition safety with a continuation of the present survival trends.
February 18th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
[...] of safety in paragliding comps. Just over a year ago there was a heated discussion (Read, The Cold Hard Truth, by Mark Hayman, which articulated what many felt at the time) involving CIVL about the safety of paragliding [...]