[wingspan33]

Rick,

I find your comparative investigation into Hang gliding and paragliding fatality statistics to be very revealing. Some might accuse you of focusing on the negative. But all too often when someone dies in a hang glider or a paraglider those involved dismiss a thorough (or any) investigation in supposed "respect" for the deceased.

I see this behavior as absolutely counter to the interests of the living participants of sport aviation. Analyzing and publishing how one pilot falls from the sky makes it more likely some other pilot will not suffer the same fate. To neglect the analysis of an accident is very close to promoting (future) mass (effectively) murder. Ignorance being the killer and those not wanting to learn from accidents being those who choose to remain ignorant. Their inaction kills.

Back when I was a member of the "org" I was often one to immediately start asking hard questions about reported accidents, fatal or otherwise. I can't remember an instance when I was not criticized for doing so. Rick, I give you great respect for your efforts. I do so since I know your interest is not in degrading the "good name" of a fun sport (paragliding) but rather to save who knows how many lives. If every soaring parachute student was required to read your evaluation of inflatable canopies, then many, if not all (?) would walk away - or perhaps only fly at sites that involve moderate laminar winds. If the same potential pilots were required to read about the advantages of flying an aircraft with structure I would bet that many would never again look twice at the inflatable canopy flying wing.

This is why, in reading your analysis of the contrasts between gliding parachutes and other light aircraft - that include structural frames - it (pardon the pun) falls dead on the money.

Unfortunately, the love of money drives the paragliding machine. And ignorance and hype are used to aid its promotion.

(more to come)

[wingspan33]

(continued)

Unfortunately, the love of money drives the paragliding machine. Ignorance and hype are used to aid its promotion.

A very plausible example,

PG Salesman: "Everyone knows how dangerous hang gliders are, right? (waits for the raising of hands of his potential students) Well, paragliders have evoled from the basic parachute which we all know has been standard safety equipment used by pilots over the last 100 years to save their lives when their aircraft fail. Heck, even hang glider pilots use back-up parachutes with the idea their chute will save their lives when their hang glider breaks apart."

"Beyond these facts, hang gliders are much heavier than paragliders and need special car roof racks and much more room to be stored away. It's also much harder to learn to hang glide and when you're close to the ground, about to land, you are flying close to 25 miles an hour. No wonder hang glider pilots break their arms and necks! Paragliders, on the other hand, are lighter, can be stowed in your trunk, and close to the ground you can slow them down zero forward speed. Much easier touch downs! All this makes paragliders sooooo much safer and better than hang gliders that you will never think twice about what wing is best."

- - - - - -

Basic sport aviation, such as hang gliding and paragliding, often caters, not to individuals who are already somewhat knowledgable about aviation, but more often to the largely naive person who, once upon a time, had magical dreams of flying. The paragliding industry capitalizes on just such naivete. They also jump on the "dangerous history" of hang gliding that has become part of our culture.

Ignorance is what allows inflatable canopies to remain inflated! Ignorance is what keeps killing the mere passengers (not pilots) of deflated canopies.

We have all heard the phrase "Ignorance Is Bliss" and the paragliding industry (fed by greed) works very hard at keeping their customers blissfully unaware of the much safer ways to enjoy the sky.

So, Rick, I hope I've added positively to your efforts here. Still, it won't mean much if potential paragliding students don't find this information, read it, and appreciate it.

(next, . . .)

[wingspan33]

(continued)

. . . It won't mean much if potential paragliding students don't find this information, read it, and appreciate it.

I seriously doubt that things will change soon. Sport aviation will never be 100% safe. Humans in the air, . . . will fall from the air.

But, when a salesman sells you something that takes you into the sky, and then ends up wrapping around you like a shroud and dropping you to your death, you haven't been sold an aircraft. You've been sold a potential death shroud that is sustained in the air by your blissful ignorance. And it's been been sold to you by individuals who literally and knowingly feed off that same blissful ignorance.

In giving all this consideration, I too favor acting to end the use of inflatable canopies. I feel that ignoring the negative consequences of the use of (aka) soaring parachutes encourages the blissful ignorance that continues to kill innocent people. Knowing that PGs very easily become non-aircraft in mild to moderate turbulence means I am conscious of a product that, by (intentional, poor) design, kills people. As a human being who wishes to not see people die, how can I not actively work to see such a product removed from the market?

To begin, I think that the cold hard facts about the aerodynamic defects inherent with paragliders should be mandatorily presented to every potential PG students. In fact, they should be tested on their understanding of the material before beginning any form of inflatable canopy training. Also, the benefits of instead proceeding with the wings known as hang gliders should be part of the informative process.

. . . Now, this has just struck me . . . Why can't a "paragliding" web site be created where this information is put in relatively plain view? It could even include a Q&A "forum" - (with close and proper moderation). Prospective soaring parachutists could be informed and thereby drawn out of their blissful ignorance. The PG "Blissfull
Ignorance Mongers" could not shut down such a site.

[Rick Masters]

...it's been been sold to you by individuals who literally and knowingly feed off that same blissful ignorance.

Well put. This is a definition of evil. Each of us should ask ourselves, "Am I part of it?" Open your wallet. Is there a U$HPA card in there? Burn it. Start over. It's the only way to wash away the blood.

And Bob. You don't get it yet. But I have hope - unless, of course, you are suddenly killed in a PG collapse at Torrey Pines like Pamela Hargett (5/12/12), Meni Raviv (9/15/98) and Bob England (6/1/96). Then we will have a serious problem interpreting the founder's message.

[Rick Masters]

Maybe a El Camino or a Toyota pickup.

Bill, this Fubar pickup launched off a paragliding ramp in Brazil. The reasons are not clear. The news story said the driver had been a councilman for the city. The truck reportedly fell 180 feet or more, ejecting the driver at impact. He was found dead. Does this happen on hang gliding ramps?

[Rick Masters]

The PG "Blissfull
Ignorance Mongers" could not shut down such a site.

You may not be aware that in 2012 the html code from "Mythology of the Airframe" was copied and placed on a GoDaddy website by members of ParaglidingForum.com to prevent people from finding the PG death list. All information on PG accidents was removed but all the key words were retained to falsify Google searches.

Also, Joe Faust and I tried to place the information on Wikipedia Paragliding but it was repeatedly removed by ParaglidingForum.com members posing as editors. Our actions were driven by the unacceptable death count - now at 1269. We were truly appalled and concerned but were blatantly prevented from telling the truth.

And don't forget the personal attacks by a U$HPA Director telling me to shut up - that I was damaging "the sport." In my opinion, these are all criminal actions crying out for investigation that contribute to the ongoing deaths of U$HPA members - yet hardly a peep is heard from any of the HG segment who allow themselves to be used by the U$HPA, year upon year, like drunken whores, to present PG as a true and equivalent form of aviation when it is actually a type of parachuting with a very poor safety record. There is genuine responsibility here. If you support the U$HPA, you are part of it. Looking the other way does not change anything.

[wingspan33]

Hi Rick,

Unfortunately I was not aware that "Mythology of the Airframe" was sabotaged (?) by members of the PG forum. While intelligent enough to understand such a process, I have not been educated in web site piracy, plagiarism, or similar and malicious internet based activities. If I am guessing right, by stealing your html code, these individuals violated your copyright to this material. (I just visited this web site for more background info - http://www.answers.com/Q/How_much_can_y ... violations ) I'm also wondering, do you suspect PG forum personnel of being responsible, or do you KNOW (by evidence) that they were responsible?

Now, one thing I have no idea about is how moving a copy of your web document/page(s) to GoDaddy could prevent people from finding your original web site? Do GoDaddy websites automatically rise to the top in a Google Search of the relevant key words being searched for?

As for the Wikipedia situation, I do know that "users" of Wikipedia can submit and edit content. But I would think that the (real) folks behind Wikipedia will take a complaint regarding the malicious falsification and/or acts by individuals to edit out important facts from an article.

And as far as attacks by USHPA Directors, . . . I can believe that without hesitation. I have separate recorded conversations with USHPA's President and Executive Director in which they state that someone coming into conflict with a local USHPA Chapter may end up with his tires slashed. This is supposed to have actually happened, not to long ago, and tells me that the USHPA is so dysfunctional that it can't, won't, or doesn't want to penalize a chapter who's member(s) commit misdemeanor crimes against non-USHPA members. I took it as a veiled threat, regarding my conflict with the two local USHPA chapters.

As far as supporting the USHPA, I allowed my membership to lapse in March of 2013 due to the above mentioned conflicts. I am contemplating suing the USHPA as well as two local chapters. The charges include acts falling within NYS Felony Hate Crimes as well as Fraud (taking my money but failing to enforce Corporate Bylaws).

Finally - As far as shutting down an informative web site goes, a site like this hasn't been stolen or hidden. It still shows up prominently in a Google search. So why couldn't an (critically) informative PG web site be created? I don't know enough to know why it can not.

S C

The PG "Blissfull
Ignorance Mongers" could not shut down such a site.

You may not be aware that in 2012 the html code from "Mythology of the Airframe" was copied and placed on a GoDaddy website by members of ParaglidingForum.com to prevent people from finding the PG death list. All information on PG accidents was removed but all the key words were retained to falsify Google searches.

Also, Joe Faust and I tried to place the information on Wikipedia Paragliding but it was repeatedly removed by ParaglidingForum.com members posing as editors. Our actions were driven by the unacceptable death count - now at 1269. We were truly appalled and concerned but were blatantly prevented from telling the truth.

And don't forget the personal attacks by a U$HPA Director telling me to shut up - that I was damaging "the sport." In my opinion, these are all criminal actions crying out for investigation that contribute to the ongoing deaths of U$HPA members - yet hardly a peep is heard from any of the HG segment who allow themselves to be used by the U$HPA, year upon year, like drunken whores, to present PG as a true and equivalent form of aviation when it is actually a type of parachuting with a very poor safety record. There is genuine responsibility here. If you support the U$HPA, you are part of it. Looking the other way does not change anything.

[Rick Masters]

The only explanation I can offer is that soaring parachutists are by-and-large mental cripples. If people within my sport denied me my RIGHT TO KNOW the truth, I would be outraged. But I've heard little complaint from the PG community in the two years following the closure of "Mythology of the Airframe." They seem, in fact, relieved that the information is no longer available. Why? Probably because they were afraid their girlfriends, parents, wives, children, friends, employers or customers (PG newbies or tandem hires) would see it.

"Mythology of the Airframe" wasn't "sabotaged." I was doing investigative journalism and felt a responsibility to share my research with the paragliding community in the naive hope that I could save some lives. They all saw it and after several years I grew tired of the character assassinations and I deliberately retired it. It was never my intention to engage in endless battle with 3,4-dihydroxyphenethylamine-crazed adolescents posing as adults. No wonder it's so easy to sell them death shrouds...

See https://web.archive.org/web/20120202235 ... rones.com/

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: Call a clone a crone!
FreeFlyingDuck
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 2830
Post karma: +1912 / -236
Location: Madrid, Spain
Well, Tony had the idea, I implemented it and together we put some content up. (although I did most of it, you lazy scrote Wink ) As some people have already found it and linked to it, it's about time it was tossed out into the www,.. Whenever you see a comment about PG safety that includes a link to Rick's cometclones hate site and the PDMC bulls***, just add something like this: In the interests of a balanced viewpoint also read: http://www.cometcrones.com Casual readers might then get a less biased take on it.
(the other) Rod B
Post karma: +11 / -0

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:12 pm Post subject: RE: Rick Masters on flight safety
philmoz
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 77
Post karma: +45 / -7
Location: S33 2 19 E137 30 41
Rod, http://www.cometcrones.com/archives/the ... ia-warning
Quote: To put this in context, this is referring to the 2011 hiatus regarding competition paragliders being re-classified by the FIA
Suggest an edit - FAI
http://www.cometcrones.com/archives/ric ... e-cover-up
Quote: Paraglider pilots know the sport is not safe.
This paragraph needs to be revamped.
Paragliding, like all forms of aviation, is inherently risky. To say it is unsafe or dangerous as a generalisation is a misrepresentation. It is only unsafe or dangerous when the pilot in charge makes incorrect decisions resulting in an undesired event. (Even the decision to fly on a particular day may increase the risk of an undesired event). PGF is one means to increase awareness of incorrect decision making by individuals, and the possible consequences of those decisions.

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:58 am Post subject: RE: Rick Masters on flight safety
FreeFlyingDuck
philmoz wrote: "Suggest an edit - FAI"
Done. Got to laugh! I've always referred to the FAI as FIA, CIVL as SIVL, BHPA as BHAP in Pie Wink
philmoz wrote:
"This paragraph needs to be revamped."
Done.
Thanks Phil.
There will be plenty of mistakes, typos, general cock-ups, etc, so feel free to make contact. If anyone here wishes to make suggestions, offer corrections or advice, please just email the website, it'll go straight to my Inbox. The email is on http://www.cometcrones.com/about Quite frankly, I'd rather receive an email than keep this RM bulls*** thread at the top of the forum Wink It might be nice to play him at his own game for a change, wherever he pokes his head up and screams "danger", it gets a link to a more sane POV.
(the other) Rod B

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:35 am Post subject: RE: Rick Masters on flight safety
FreeFlyingDuck
Rick seems to have pulled the info from his cometclones website. Yipppeeee !!! At the bottom he quotes:
[Image: Sorry, only registered users can view inline images. Click here to register, or login.]
Never saw this one coming Smile Smile
(the other) Rod B

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:20 am Post subject: RE: Rick Masters on flight safety
FreeFlyingDuck
Ikarus [moderator] wrote: "http://cometcrones.com brought up a video of Lick Ashtray! Just put it up.
Rickrolling is so 2008 Wink
Ikarus [moderator] wrote: "The deadshit curve is still available on http://cometclones.com/
Shame, but the rest of the site and all his culled media links seem to have gone for the time being. Maybe they'll be back in a couple of days, or maybe he's moving them to a new location Rolling Eyes Meaningless shite that it is! Ho-hum...
(the other) Rod B

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:40 am Post subject: RE: Rick Masters on flight safety
FreeFlyingDuck
It's been throwing 403's for over 2 weeks now... long may it last! Well done Tony, without a spark there is no light!
(the other)
Rod B

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:46 am Post subject: RE: Rick Masters on flight safety
Tony
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 2176
Post karma: +1590 / -200
Location: Santiago - Chile
Man, I just came back to this thread after all this time! I am glad to have sparked such a cascade of events, but it's you who has the merit of shoving him off the stage singlehandedly Smile So, what do we do now? Take on FAI?
Tony Clapping

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:02 am Post subject: not gone - he teamed up with Joe
red frogs
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 677
Post karma: +388 / -55
Location: Australia
to produce a bogus 'infomercial' type website with all the hallmarks of crackpottery.
http://energykitesystems.net/WPGA/index.html
http://www.energykitesystems.net/WPGA/PDMC/index.html
PLus a deep seach will discover the truly sad and depressing alternative USHPA site
http://ushawks.org/forum/

[wingspan33]

Rick,

It seems clear to me that inflatable canopy occupants are quite a bit like religious zealots. Heck they don't even need to be zealots, just "believers". I have met so many people who believe simply on faith, not because there is any empirical way to actually back up their belief. And someone who comes along and threatens their "belief system" becomes a target in their holy war.

One thing that gets me in all this is how these people deny the obvious about inflatable/deflatable canopies. If someone asked me to tell them all the negative things about hang gliding I could run down quite a long list. I could also explain how it is possible to mitigate and/or avoid many of them. And one thing I will never do is claim that "Pilot Error" is to blame for most (or all?) hang gliding accidents.

The air is invisible, we fly in it. It is a more or less turbulent 3 dimensional place. We can not sense 1,000 feet beyond us in every direction and know to turn and avoid dangerous air. Our knowledge of the air on a particular day is (hopefully) a well educated guess. There is ALWAYS a chance that nature will reach out and bite us. Or, to put it in another more scientific way, . . . flying at the speeds we fly (in hang gliders) it's very reasonable to understand and accept that the air may move faster in some direction at some time(s) which ends up being counter to our wing's normally stable, dynamic aerodynamic capabilities. It's not "Pilot Error" if a hang glider pilot encounters such a situation and has a mishap - or is even killed. What this is, is a risk that every person who enters the sky should understand and appreciate. It's human nature to explore. And in the process of exploration people sometimes die. We don't call that "Explorer Error" now do we?

Just so someone can't say that I've never flown an inflatable canopy, . . . I was being trained in the early 90's to fly PGs so that I myself could train people on how to do it. At the time, I would have qualified for a first of only two PG ratings at the time, a P1. What my boss/instructor (primarily a hang gliding shop owner) told me was that PGs should only be flown in calm, stable, non thermic conditions. This was because it was utterly obvious to us that the inflatable canopy could also deflate.

As a hang glider pilot of ~15 years at that time, I knew how potent atmospheric turbulence could be. It was undeniable that such turbulence could twist an inflatable canopy into a wad of non-aerodynamic fabric - and drops its occupant to the ground far below. If I remember right, my instructor said, "The answer is to never fly further than you want to fall.". I took him very seriously. I don't believe I ever flew a PG higher than 10 or 15 feet AGL.

Now, when PG pilots claim that canopy deflations rarely happen and when they do, are 90+ % recoverable, . . . they may be speaking about "mythological air" that always abides by a pilot's wishes. But they are not talking about "real air", the type of air that has never actually been domesticated (for PG use).

The air that can deflate and possibly kill an inflatable canopy occupant, is 99% of the time only a "WOW BOY!" boomer UP thermal or a "DANG!" Over The FALLs thermal exit. I've flown through many hundreds of such eye popping examples of unexpected turbulence. And there are versions of turbulence that can tumble a hang glider. A PG encountering the same turbulence is also very likely to wrap up, stop flying, and start dropping. The same turbulence could also bring down a powered ultralight or small plane under a worst case scenario. So, for a PG pilot to say hang gliders can tumble out of the sky too is, . . . hmmmmm, . . . ignoring the critical question. The critical question is how much easier is it for the sky to chew up an inflatable/deflatable canopy and then spit it out?

Aircraft with bones and are much much harder to crunch.

[Rick Masters]

In the face of so many collapse deaths, the rationalizations of soaring parachutists are incredible. I expect this guy to make the list one of these days:

Re: Bones Or Baggers?
Postby Sean Buckner » Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:08 pm

Bob,
I totally understand why HG piltos thing PG is unsafe because of the rigidity of the craft they fly. It just does not make sense to most Hg pilots why pg wings collapse. Just think if our wing was solid, and we can make them solid if they wanted to... Kite boarding wings actually pump up theleading edge with air and maintain a certain amount of air pressure to keep them ridgid.. But I beleive PG is a safer aircraft with the ability to collpase...Again it all boils down to pilots judgements and thier ability to remain calm in certain situations. Also... When a PG wing collapses,, it will reopen at some point. Usually very quick and before the pilot knows it happened... In more turbulent conditions that may give a 50% collapse, with the right training, you can manage directional control somewhat and will be able to get the wing back flying. To me that is safe... The ability to reinflate the wing. Now... What happens when you break a side wire on HG... I think if you have an issue with the mechanics of a HG,, your pretty much screwed. With PG, I have known pilots to break many lines to the glider and still fly it, and not just the flight they broke on, but have launched with up to 7 lines broken... Infact, I have seen a PG cut in half from leading edge to trailing edge an still fly with out issue. The pilot hit a kite sting right in the middle of the wing didnt even know the glider was damaged , landed perfect with no issues.

I invite all the HG pilots out to the SIV clinic this weekend and see for yourself what is involved with a collapse of a paraglider... I think youd have a change in veiws about the topic.

I will also, if any HG pilot in the club wants to take a tandem ride with me and we willl collpase the wing and you can see for yourself that its really not that big of a deal.
http://www.azhpa.org/azhpa_forum/viewto ... 0&start=10