[JoeF]

Scene: HG-PG org
What is wrong with that picture?

Under the guise of "serve" and "educate" and "align" and "train", etc. a HG-PG org may be killing itself by some deep rooted contradictions.

Loose rocks? Should a HG ever fly at any distance below a PG, as such PG may get by natural turbulence into gift-wrapped falling-rock mode. Raining rocks made of a collapsed canopy and a would-be pilot who is not piloting the falling system.

Look at the new persons approaching a HG-PG school. What chance does that new person have to be adequately aware of the PDMC when the joyride giver does not present the PDMC, does not present the joy rider with the analyses of 1,307 PG fatalities and many more PG injuries? '

A HG-PG org that is selling itself its koolaid to make happy all things HG-and-PG has some deep contradictions to face. PG is not and cannot solve its PDMC challenge without stark avoiding the launching and landing methods being used. HG-PG orgs are not facing up to the irresponsible push that is occurring.

Some first blush notes:

,
Some text from some HG-PG org officer:

"While the flight characteristics of each wing is different, we feel that the choice of what aircraft to fly is best left to the individual. We are dedicated to providing training and support to both kinds of craft and feel that their mutual needs are aligned. They fly many of the same sites, fly within the same parameters as ultralights and have virtually identical administrative needs.

I believe both craft have unique traits that must be learned and addressed in training in order to fly safely. Education must provide the pilot with the tools to make an informed decision. It is our objective that no matter what craft is selected, that pilots have the knowledge and training to understand their decisions and how that effects their flying and safety.
" (sic, affects)

The author is not being named for now. It was private email, so I will not forward the author.

The org involved in the quote seems to miss some basics. My thoughts in first blush draft notes:

1. When someone is professionally actively selling high aspect ratio soaring parachutes and is very weak in presenting the PDMC, then the excited newB individual is left without adequate information.

2. If an org is "dedicated to providing training and support" then that org would strive, I hold, to present the causes for each and every fatality and injury that has occurred in the PG space.

3. An org has a freedom to make a decision to "train or support" any particular craft. It could be that no self-respecting org would give any training or support to PG until such craft realm learns to takeoff and terminate flight fully above the PDMC (blimp to high sky net or cutaway to rescue chute, e.g.). Especially an org that is supporting hang gliders, as those PGs can collapse and fall as rocks atop below-flying hang gliders!

4. The org HG-PG marriage is ignoring the mutual need to stay alive and uninjured. Such org is seemingly unable to really support either craft. To support HG would be to refrain from supporting anything for PG. To support PG would be to put on the table all fatalities and studies of such; and to put up on the table the neg-g matters very robustly. HG-PG marriage in one org is oxymoronic. The org is showing that it does not really appreciate HG; proof is the support of PG that fly in the airspace in common with other aircraft including hang gliders.

5. "unique traits" ? Yes. "addressed" is a calling that is not being met. To address PG is to face the reality of the PDMC and not have people fly PGs. The org is rationalizing to the nth degree while missing the elephant in the room: PDMC
relative to soil or other aircraft in the air. The PDMC is not just about soil or water, but in relation to other aircraft in the airspace below a PG; I do not want to be ANYWHERE beneath a PG, even if I am in a hang glider.

6. The temporary membership at a PG joyride place does not responsibly allow people to have enough "education" to avoid the PG. Once the instructor or joy-ride seller gets a hold of the enthusiasm of a rider, then we are not finding that PIC deeply informing the rider of the risks that will unfold in the launching and landing efforts of the joy ride.

7. "Traits"? How to fall as a rock 101; how to hit the ground or other aircraft when falling like a rock. Step 1: Try to move one's body so that the body hits with as much area of the body as possible at once in order to spread the energy to all organs at once??? Step 2: Try to stop the internal bleeding.

8. HG-PG org, consider cessation of support for PG.

[Rick Masters]

PG people are completely brainwashed about their sport and intolerant of the obvious. There is no way to change their views. If you do not accept that PG accidents are caused by "pilot error," you are branded a "hater." Separation of the sports is the only workable path. Leaving the two sports joined will reduce the superior one to the same level as the inferior. It will also drive away any rational thought or differing views, reducing the guidance of those who drive the sport and instilling a here-to-for unseen level of mediocrity, incompetence, increased liability and lawyers' playground.

[JoeF]

Rick,
May the following minor edit be extended to others?

PG people are completely brainwashed about their sport and intolerant of the obvious. There is no way to change their views. If one does not accept that PG accidents are caused by "pilot error," one is branded a "hater." Separation of the sports of HG and PG is the only workable path. Leaving the two sports joined will reduce the superior HG to the same level as the inferior PG. Staying joined will also drive away any rational thought or differing views, reducing the guidance of those who drive the sport and instilling a heretofore unseen level of mediocrity, incompetence, increased liability, and lawyers' playground.
~~ Rick Masters

[JoeF]

Well, there is no "H" in USPA
Consider directing all PG users to USPA
http://www.uspa.org/

United States Parachute Association
I am wondering just how well USPA realizes why they may not want high-aspect ratio parachutes around.

==================
Will the echo in history one day hear u$hPa declaring that PG may not launch until they are off the ground and above the PDMC by 500 ft? And must deploy a rescue chute at least 400 ft above the PDMC? Here is a USPA article: https://skydiveuspa.wordpress.com/2013/ ... -altitude/ to warm on up on this paragraph's question. Note that the article is not deploying a high-aspect ratio canopy soaring parachute, but a high-wing-loaded parachute of low-aspect ratio.

====
Maybe USPA will open a division for blimp launchers of PGs and sky-net landers: PGs ... to keep the PGs from entering the PDMC.

  Real paragliderists deploy rescue chutes far above PDMC.  
But then what to do with the cutaway stringed canopy that could cause huge amounts of damage in the air and on the ground as a runaway kite???

=============
Teasing photo:

In Kite Energy Systems, we are considering having very large patches of land holding a net above the soil at various heights, say from 3 m to 30 m and more sometimes, depending on the ground-use activity. The nets would be wide mesh and used to keep tethers and wings and turbines from costing the land at full value. Maybe PGs could aim to land on the nets; if they fall from collapses, then the net could likely save lives.

Dear USPA,
It is a growing action to stop having high-aspect ratio soaring parachutes and airframed hang gliders in the same association nationally in the USA. Will you adopt the high-aspect ratio soaring parachutes (paragliders) into your USPA? We are considering directing all such PG interest to your org USPA. Have you considered such matters? Are there online references telling of such consideration.
Thank you,

Best of airs to you and yours,

Joe Faust

[Rick Masters]

The failure of the United States Parachuting Association to take paragliding (and BASE-jumping) under their wing is similar to the Sailplane Society of America failing to do the same with hang gliding. Both new sports were forced into lower-quality organizations with much less-experienced members "making it up as they went along" rather than being coached by those with decades of soaring and/or safety experience - but who found it easier to to ignore their founding principles and not be bothered by the troublesome evolution of their sports. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that, had things turned out differently, hundreds of young men who have been lost, primarily to lack of education and guidance, would still be around today leading productive lives.