[Rick Masters]

December 9, 2012
A warning.
Probably my last posts on that forum. I got too angry and left them to swim in their own juice.
http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?p=302769#302769

Cometclones
He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls
drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will,
comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of the gods. -- Aeschylus
https://web.archive.org/web/20120422065158/http://www.cometclones.com/mythology2012.htm

Note: I took down Cometclones.com in May, 2012. At least 92 free-flying paraglider pilots died worldwide in 2012.
That's worse than hang gliding ever was. USHPA was too spineless to address the problem and say the truth: collapse.
This year, its at least 102 dead. I think the actuaries finally noticed.
Good goin', USHGA / USHPA - you took down hang gliding.
And we trusted you NOT to do that.

...you want how much money?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks for the link Rick (http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?p=302769#302769) ...

Rick lost someone dear to him in a PG collapse.

No. And I don't see why that should be necessary. I've never hung out with idiots who think they're immortal and that aerodynamics don't matter. Not my crowd.

Geoff Lyons was, however, a very good hang glider pilot and a very good friend of mine. I was saddened to learn of his death, which was clearly, as far as I understand, pilot error (in a sailplane), so it was part of the game - the game real pilots like Geoff and myself played for years.

Geoff was always a better pilot than me, which gave me all the more satisfaction when I flew over him at some ridiculously high AGL [10,000 feet?], gained by working a somewhat intimidating, tornadic dust devil north of the Candelaria Hills, as he stood cursing at the base of the Gabbs range east of Mina with a group of his fellow hot shots on one fine hot summer's day in the middle 1980s. The hot shots' trick was to fly fast and low, and while the best could frequently pull it off, that was often where the rest ended up. Me, I directed but never flew comps. I always tried to gain maximum altitude and float in the upper-level westerly winds that crossed the Sierra.

When my friends died fighting, it made me sad but it was something we all understood. We could accept it. It was the game we played.

But we could never accept what most of the so-called pilots of today seem to accept, a "glider" just folding up like a bedsheet and falling out of the sky, killing the foolish screaming person tied to it. That would have been unthinkable. Yes, it was before PG but we would certainly have thought that an idiot just got killed and deserved it for being so incredibly stupid as to attempt to fly something without an airframe in turbulence. You see, that fool deliberately threw away his last chance to fight for his life, to use all his skill and knowledge to extract himself from whatever predicament he had gotten himself in. He threw it away by flying garbage. He died falling out of the sky under flapping laundry. He deserved it.

But every time someone who just wanted to experience the majesty of flight dies on a PG because they didn't understand the truth - that an airframe is a vital part of any winged aircraft - that hurts me, because I die a little bit, too. I know what happened, to the tiniest detail. It cut short an entire life. It could have been me. But it wasn't, because I'm not so stupid. Some of you call that level of honesty harsh. But it is actually death that is harsh. It is being maimed and living life in a wheelchair that is harsh. My opinion is just an opinion - and a warning.

However, it is also an opinion backed by facts. Since 2008, Cometclones.com listed every fatality I could find, every name, every place, every witness description, every serious injury in detail. Almost a thousand PG deaths in 10 years and countless broken backs and ruined lives placed on the Web for all to see! (Except for the big mouth imbecile Spork, who didn't bother to look.)

PG kills at near a 10 to 1 ratio to HG. Today's hang gliding pilots should be railing against PG, insisting PG fliers get safer wings. They should fear for their sport. Instead, it's live and let live, to the joy of the PG indu$try. You HG pilots have given away the organization we early pilots fought so hard to build - and you gave it away to thoughtless wannabe-pilot parachutists, for God's sake!. Now you no longer have a real say in anything but you act like you do. When a PG gets killed, you nod your heads and say what a tragedy but secretly you think it's what you'd expect but you don't say anything because the PG pilots might get mad at you. They might s*** on you and they are oh-so-ready to do it. What a bunch of pathetic pantywastes and quiet, gutless, acquiescing pu**ies most of you have become. You are killing HG.

If you ever want to host those reports from CometClones somewhere here on the US Hawks, please let us know.

[Rick Masters]

This January 1 report comes from Australia but it illustrates how crazy it is for hang gliding to take on the additional liability of paragliding. At best, your insurance rates would go up. At worst, hang gliding gets banned from the area along with the parachutists. Exactly what is the benefit hang glider pilots receive by combining their sport with parachuting? I guess I just don't get it.
------------------


WITNESSES have described seeing a paraglider pilot plummet 30 metres and crash land into a skate park after getting into trouble over Newcastle beach.
The 47-year-old pilot was recovering in John Hunter Hospital in a stable condition on Friday night after crashing into a wall in the Newcastle skate park about 5pm.
But Louisa Foster and Mark Hutchinson say the man is lucky to be alive after they watched him struggling in the air before “accelerating” towards the ground.
Ironically, the pair say they were just discussing how dangerous it looked when they watched the drama unfold.
“The guy that ended up crashing, he was sort of zigzagging a bit,” Ms Foster said.
“Then there was almost like a current or a strong wind that sort of pushed him and it folded one of the ends of his sail in.
“It made him swing up to one side then that brought the sail together and then he was sort of heading towards the skate park over there and he just came down from probably about 30 metres to the ground.”
Mr Hutchinson said he was watching another paraglider pilot, who he thought was going to crash, when he saw the 47-year-old man get into trouble.
“There was one guy hovering above the bush,” Mr Hutchinson said.
“I was watching him and it looked as if he was going to land in the tree and then all of a sudden the other guy just got in all sorts of trouble.
“One of his parachute sides collapsed in.
“It seemed like he had two or three seconds of stability and then he just accelerated, it was really quick.”
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3635245/paraglider-pilot-crash-lands-in-newcastle-skate-park/

[Bob Kuczewski]

It's fortunate he didn't hit anyone in the skate park.

“It made him swing up to one side then that brought the sail together and then he was sort of heading towards the skate park over there and he just came down from probably about 30 metres to the ground.”

That's roughly 100 feet - well inside the PDM...something..or..other.

[JoeF]

PDMC
forms part of the suicide of the u$hPa process.

Poor parachuting in high-aspect-ratio paragliders results in PG being VERY distinct from framed-wing hang gliding. HG staying married to PG is a suicidal process for HG; this is something that may be avoided by putting all coin into focused-HG orgs. HG being in bed with PG won't serve HG.

[Rick Masters]

I posted this message on Paragliding Forum in the summer of 2009:
http://www.paraglidingforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26621
(The appallingly immature responses go a long way in explaining the mechanism of denial, political correctness and obfuscation that seems to have played a dominant role in USHPA's failure to even comment on the Paragliding Dead Man's Curve, much less act.)
-----------------
The risk inherent in paragliding is often referred to by paraglider pilots as a "risk vs. reward" judgement.
That is, they will risk their lives, their future and the future of those who may depend upon them by choosing a deficient wing that can suddenly fail in turbulence - if the pleasure they receive leading up to that event is prejudged as substantial.
Incredibly, this choice is made over robust footlaunch wings with airframes that exist, used, within the same price range as new paragliders.
The excuse given in accepting this additional risk is that hang gliders "are noit as convenient."
Hang glider pilots also share a risk vs. reward judgement but their wings do not fail in the type of turbulence that fails paragliders.

The risk that hang glider pilots face, flying in the same air and at approximately the same speeds as paraglider pilots, is almost inconsequential.
This is never acknowledged by paraglider pilots.
In their risk comparisons with hang gliders, paraglider pilots without exception will state that, because hang gliders can also fail in turbulence, it follows that the two types of aircraft are equivalent in risk.
This is not true.
It is, in fact, a lie.
Paragliding itself possesses, by far, the greatest inherent risk in popular aviation sports.
This is due to the Paragliding Dead Man's Curve - the PDMC - that illustrates why a paraglider must travel through a zone of no-recourse twice on every flight.
Unlike the helicopter, which has a genuine option to always avoid its own Dead Man's Curve, the paraglider is completely unable to avoid the PDMC.
It must fly through the PDMC at least twice - on takeoff and landing - and the paraglider often spends a great deal of time within the PDMC while ridge soaring or seeking lift.
If the airfoil fails within the the PDMC - that is, if a collapse cannot be recovered - the pilot will be killed or severley injured because within the PDMC the deployment of the reserve parachute is not an option.

The majority of PDMC-related injuries, which is inarguable, are spine and leg injuries which can doom survivors to parapeligic futures.
These types of injuries are not common in hang gliding accidents where the tensioned sail and airframe often absorb much of the impact energy.
Paraglider accidents are, in fact, a massive step up in severity.
This brings us to the fundamental difference between paragliders and all other types of aircraft - including helicopters.
Paragliders present an added layer of risk to the pilot.
This risk is directly related to the PDMC.
It is the added risk accumulated from flying within the PDMC.
This risk is additional to the risk inherent in all other types of sport aviation.
It is also additional to to the risk inherent in flying paragliders above 366 feet - which represents the lower practical limit (4 seconds) of a successful reserve deployment.
Therefore flying paragliders involves two layers of risk - the inherent risk of sport aviation plus the added risk from flying within the PDMC - compared to all other types of aviation, which involve only one.

How large is this risk?
Clearly flight within the PDMC, even for a short period, is much more dangerous than flight above it.
Therefore it is at least twice as dangerous and could easily be assumed to be 100 times or even 1000 times more dangerous.
What is the actual significance of such risk when paragliders are commonly seen to experience safe flights?
The answer is qualifiable - which adds an element of confusion to the issue.
Paraglider pilots will point out that the vast majority of paraglider flights are done safely.
They use these statistics to demonstrate that paragliding is a relatively safe sport.
They will claim that only one accident occurs for every 1000 hours of flying.
This is true.
But what does this really mean?
Paraglider pilots, almost without exception, learn to fly in smooth, laminar, turbulence-free air.
This type of air is commonly found coming in from the ocean or lakes or smooth terrain, often in the morning or later in the evening.
The numbers used to represent paragliding as a relatively safe sport are taken from these areas - where the majority of paragliding occurs.
But the PDMC deals only with an instance of 4 seconds following collapse: the remaining 4 seconds of rapid descent (instigated by turbulence) where a reserve parachute deployment is not possible.
These 4 seconds do not compare well to the three million, six hundred thousand incident-free seconds that make up the claimed 1000 hours in laminar air.
These 4 seconds are significantly weighted in any discussion of paraglider safety.
In fact, the 4 seconds are so significant and the 3,600,000 seconds are so insignificant that the 1000 hour claim is meaningless.
Why?
Because the pilot's life can be lost or forever changed in those 4 seconds.
Those 4 seconds carry real weight.
They mean something.
You cannot compare 4 seconds spent floating peacefully around in the sky with the 4 second emergency that can end or forever change a pilot's life.
Therefore the comparison is invalid.

Risk involves the factor of accumulative time.
Risk assessment assumes that over a period of time and under unchanging conditions, a singularity will occur between Point A and Point B.
This type of analysis - static analysis - is accepted in general aviation, rail and ship travel, and automotive accidents.
Actuary tables are built on static analysis.
But in paragliding, static analysis is meaningless because the novice pilot will frequently progress in skill, experience, equipment choice and site choice to arrive at the new risk realm of inland thermal sites and their dramatically increased risk.
The paraglider pilot will now begin to launch from inland mountains and fly in turbulent conditions.
Sooner or later, turbulence will induce a partial or full collapse of the wing at altitude.
Usually the pilot will recover from the collapse and throughout the remainder of his or her flying career will attribute his recovery to skill and training.
Luck will not be a factor in the explanation.
(This is denial.)
But then, sooner or later, turbulence will induce a partial or full collapse near the PDMC.
This will frighten the pilot, but again, the pilot will recover from the collapse and throughout the remainder of his flying career will attribute his recovery to skill and training.
Here, luck may be acknowledged as a minor factor.

The pilot's odds of encountering turbulence at takeoff, while ridge soaring within the PDMC or descending toward landing increase with the pilot's airtime.
Paraglider pilots encountering a collapse during takeoff, low soaring or landing within the PDMC will not have time to deploy a reserve parachute and therefore must attempt to recover from the collapse before impact.
This often fails, resulting in serious injury or death.
This is often observed and can be studied on YouTube.
To compound this problem, paraglider pilots frequently do not know how close they are to the PDMC because the specifics of the PDMC are often ridiculed by their peers, so they will continue to attempt to recover from a collapse or nose-diown spiral dive until they enter the PDMC, eliminating the option of a reserve deployment that may have saved them.

To bluntly recap in an unavoidable way that paraglider pilots in severe denial appear to find offensive, I will state that

1) Paragliders are not true aircraft because they can lose thier ability to fly during flight in conditions that all other forms of aircraft can tolerate. They are therefore stunt parachutes and should be acknowledged as such - particularly to avoid liability issues.

2) Paragliders are not equivalent to any other aircraft, including parachutes, hang gliders or helicopters.

3) Paragliders are the most dangerous of all aircraft when flown in turbulence.

4) Paraglider pilots accumulate risk at a rate of 2 to 1000 times more quickly than pilots of other aircraft flying at approximately the same speeds in the same conditions. This accumulative risk is qualitative and is a function of the average level of turbulent air the paraglider pilot has flown in.
--------------------------


During the ensuing six and a half years - with over 600 more paragliding fatalities and THOUSANDS of broken backs worldwide, the USHPA did not address the issue of the PDMC, despite its huge impact on the organization. Despite the clever rationalizations you hear, I contend paragliding safety in turbulence is the primary underlying cause of the insurance debacle - with the loss of focus on hang gliding safety and FAR scofflaws a distant second. Imagine if the USHGA's first Accident Chairman had refused to address the issue of divergence in hang gliders other than to say pilots had to be more "active" in their responses. That's where today's US hang glider pilots find themselves in their ensnarement with and domination by the aerodynamically unsound and inherently irresponsible sport of paragliding.



Why hang glider pilots willingly accept this danger to their sport and throw money at paragliding instead of forming a real hang gliding association is a matter beyond belief.

-- Form a national hang gliding organization. --