US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

October 9, 2015

Reach for the sky! Shropshire paraglider flying again a year after horror crash
A year ago this week Shropshire paraglider Mark Dann’s life hung in the balance – quite literally.

    And now Dan, whose Beyone Extreme paragliding school is based in Shropshire, is a member of the UK Paragliding team.
    He says his experience proves that, with hard work and determination, everyone can achieve their dreams.
    “I was airlifted from the cliff ledge and taken to hospital where I needed rods fitted in place and a metal cage.
    “But I was back walking within a week with a brace and determined to get back flying within six months. I achieved this and started back instructing and tandem flying.
    “A year on I am back as a member of the UK paragliding team and flying once again abroad.”
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/10/09/reach-for-the-sky-shropshire-paraglider-flying-again-a-year-after-horror-crash/

Somebody tell me that Mark Dann paid his hospital bill and rescue expenses, and didn't stick it to the good people of San Diego.

I thought it would be interesting to keep track of British paraglider operators making fools of themselves in the USA. This is a branch of the topic of how paragliders threaten the future of hang gliding now that your national organization has made the argument to the public and the government that all freeflight is essentially the same thing. (The public is not sophisticated enough to tell the difference between PG and PPG or even powered parachutes, which does not help.) If you don't think all freeflight is the same, join the US Hawks. The Hawks seem to be the only national group that doesn't think hang gliding should be associated with sports based on parachuting.

October 19, 2015 - Bobby Frankham

Powered paraglider crashed in Mount Shasta Sunday
"Wind conditions caused the power glider’s wing to collapse, and Frankham went into a downward spiral. He attempted to pump the wing back up by moving his arms, but by then was too close to the ground."
http://www.mtshastanews.com/article/20151019/NEWS/151019768

October 15, 2015 - Tobias Osborne

"Osborne told deputies and medics he was flying the paraglider from the Madras Airport to the Bend Airport when he tried to land in the field due to increased winds.
As Osborne began to land, he said, he realized his altitude was too low to clear the power lines. Eggert said the pilot tried to increase power to clear the lines, but the parachute got tangled in them."
http://www.ktvz.com/news/paraglider-hits-tumalo-power-lines-pilot-not-seriously-hurt/35871998

August 2012 - Guy Anderson

"It was during the final task of the 2012 USA Paragliding World Cup that Anderson's wing suddenly deflated, causing him to fall about 60 feet and crash into a mountain region inhabited by cougars, wolves and bears. The 49-year-old was flying across the mesmerising Sun Valley when he hit unmanageable turbulence* while gliding low in a windy valley. Unable to open his reserve parachute in time, he ploughed into the desert wilderness and went missing for two days and two nights."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/i-told-myself-youre-not-going-to-die-here-8451297.html

* If soaring parachutists could imagine turbulence, they'd fly hang gliders.

RickMasters wrote:If soaring parachutists could imagine turbulence, they'd fly hang gliders.

That's pretty much what Alan C. used to tell me. Alan was mostly my PG instructor, and he would say: "If you could see the air, you'd never fly in it."

Alan died in a powered hang gliding accident down in Mexico almost 10 years ago. That was just before my efforts to reform Torrey got underway. I believe Alan would have been a big help in in reforming Torrey if he hadn't died in that accident. Alan was also my site guide at Torrey for my first PG flight there (as a P3) before I got my H4 (required to fly Torrey in a hang glider).

before I got my H4 (required to fly Torrey in a hang glider).

Why? Do H3s fall asleep easier?

RickMasters wrote:Why? Do H3s fall asleep easier?

It's one of the many tactics being used to kill hang gliding and promote paragliding.

It takes a relatively dedicated hang gliding pilot years to get the H4 required to fly Torrey. But they allow paragliding pilots to make their first flights there (in just a matter of days).

They use class warfare tactics as well. On the day I met David Jebb he told me that all the "professional people" were into paragliding.

People just wanting to fly don't know the difference. They can get started flying PG the day they walk up to Torrey or they're told to go out to the mountains or the desert to learn hang gliding. If someone really wants to fly, which choice do you think they'll take?

USHPA backs Torrey because USHPA backs paragliding. They see paragliding as "the future" and hang gliding as "the past". That's what we've been buying with our membership money ... and it's disgusting when I think about it.

This whole thing about paragliding bringing hang gliding down just reinforces the feelings and ideas that I have regarding designing a new glider.

I haven't done very well at keeping up with the topic I started "A different way, designwise".

But this thread is preaching to the choir. Most of us here know damn well that a framed glider is better than a frameless glider.

But Human Nature is Human Nature. I've described on my topic my observations, so I need not reiterate that here. What matters is that a new glider design is a necessity if we want to "fix" this problem.

I know that we're not going to convince most of the PGer's to drop what they're doing and switch over to the HG as it is known today.

"As it is known today". Hang gliders are too heavy, take too much time to set up and break down, and are too difficult to land consistently.

The writing on the wall is very obvious to me. What is required is a glider that doesn't have the drawbacks of either the PG or the HG. We've got to meet in the middle somewhere.

Because there's no money in it, only a grass-roots effort by those of us who care about the long term future of foot launched flight can succeed in the endeavor to create a flight system that addresses the issues that both of our current flight systems have.

If a compromise system is not invented and promoted, we'll continue to have the situation as it now stands.

I've repeatedly said that I'm not an engineer. However, that doesn't prevent me from seeing the obvious, it only limits my ability to do anything about it.

In a nutshell, the Next Greatest Thing has to have the virtues of the PG without it's stark limitations, and it has to have the virtues of the Hg without it's stark limitations.

Lighter than the current HG's, and for sure landing qualities that will compete with those of a PG.

And of course a set up and breakdown time to compete with that of the PG.

The design must be simply something that remains airworthy in turbulent air, and must have a stall speed no more than a PG has.

The design does not have to be competitive with today's top of the line hang gliders, in terms of high speed glide angle. It does need to be easily landed in turbulent air, on a consistent basis.

I think that many here have trouble relating to the folks choosing PG over HG. Hg focused too much on performance and not enough on over-all user friendliness.

At what point do we finally get it through our thick skulls that it wasn't just the invention of the para glider, but also the mis-invention of the modern hang glider that has brought us to this problem.

Even if we could educate the public that the PG or PPG is insufficient in it's current form, we'd still be hard pressed to convince them that HG in it's current form is the answer to their flying dreams.

I'm remaining optimistic. I have to if I want to remain somewhat sane.

...we'd still be hard pressed to convince them that HG in it's current form is the answer to their flying dreams.

    My impression is that people are pretty happy with their paragliders until the day the helicopter comes for them - and often even after that. A hang glider's like whiskey to people who've never had anything but lemonade. They don't know what they're missing and they never will. But why should we care?
    Making hang gliders more like paragliders isn't the answer.
    A paraglider is, like, halfway between a balloon and a hang glider. Why would you want to make a hang glider more like a balloon?\
    They have paragliders for that.
    There are people who think being blown into trees is normal. They fly them.
    These were never the kind of people who make hang glider pilots.
    The real problem is that hang gliding has handed over its image and future to parachuting. That doesn't work. Fewer people get into hang gliding because of that.
    

"Making hang gliders more like paragliders isn't the answer.
A paraglider is, like, halfway between a balloon and a hang glider. Why would you want to make a hang glider more like a balloon?\
They have paragliders for that.
There are people who think being blown into trees is normal. They fly them.
These were never the kind of people who make hang glider pilots.
The real problem is that hang gliding has handed over its image and future to parachuting. That doesn't work. Fewer people get into hang gliding because of that."

It's tough for a shy person to disagree with someone who is plainly better educated than I am.

But I think Rick is being pessimistic at a time when only positive thinking can save the day.

We know what is required for safe and convenient personal flight. We know what the minimum performance should be to prevent being blown into trees. We know what is required to ensure that the glider does not become distorted and un-airworthy in turbulence.
We know that the secret to consistent safe and enjoyable landings is good positive control in turbulent air, and as low of a stall speed as we can get.

For some reason, which we can discuss later, the hang gliding industry made a decision that the Rogallo based design was the way to go. Nothing wrong with that, but also a decision was made that every Rogallo based HG design had to be controlled using weight shift alone. This idea is based on the fact that the competition authorities required this to be so. While the huge majority of HG pilots will never fly in a contest where this requirement is enforced, they are stuck with HG designs that are only marginally controllable at low speed in turbulent air, which just so happens to be the conditions existing at the launch site and the LZ.

Am I the only one who is disgusted when I see experienced and highly skilled pilots breaking glider parts and sometimes body parts while launching or landing? And seeing this on the same day as one PG after another comes in for an easy landing? And to add insult to injury, I watch the PG's using their AERODYNAMIC CONTROL SURFACES to get into the thermal while I un-cleat my sailboat main sheet system in an effort to turn my glider, which even when un-cleated is still a bear to handle?

Yeah, let's just keep our heads buried in the sand. We'll just keep on trying to invent the foot-launched sailplane, and because we all like a sick joke we'll stipulate that you can't use aerodynamic controls on it.

This is insanity.

If you don't believe me, just make the effort to hang out at any popular launch and landing site, such as Andy Jackson's on a busy day, like when we have a "fly-in" party.

And just for fun, pretend that you're a wanna-be, there to check out the whole flying thing. Pretend you know little or nothing about any of it, and you're there just to watch. And while you're at it, see if you can pick out the real wanna-be's in the crowd, and listen to the questions they ask, and pay attention to the answers they get.

Now after the party on your way home, keep trying to ignore the idea that the foot-launched flying apparatus desperately needs some PROGRESSIVE re-examination.

It's 2015 and in three and a half decades we've made little progress in the area of reducing stall speed and improving low speed control. We're still using weight-shift control, while the other guys have aerodynamic roll control and BRAKES.

What the hell is wrong with this picture? Or am a lunatic?

I just can't take much more of this insanity. You guys can flame me all you want, I'm not gonna shut up.

Believe it or not, I am Your Friend in Flight, Steve Corbin.

Hi Steve,

I don't think there's any dispute between you and Rick. I suspect he would agree that having real aerodynamic controls (including flaps) would help a great deal. So I doubt there will be any flaming (at least I hope not!!).

But coming up with an aerodynamic control system for a hang glider isn't easy, and that's a big part of the problem.

Having said that, I know that Joe Faust and several of the Friends of Dockweiler club (including myself) would like to experiment with new ideas. That's a perfect site to do so, and it would be fun to put together a "working group" to find better solutions. I'm all for that!!!

Your Friend in Flight as well, Bob Kuczewski

bobk wrote:But coming up with an aerodynamic control system for a hang glider isn't easy, and that's a big part of the problem.

I think I found a viable solution how to do efficient effortless wing warping with a straight wing. It involves a mechanic remotely similar to ulna and radius of our forearms. The system is actuated by pivoting the legs relative to the torso. This will feel like moving the hip sideways. Will post more when I get some sketches done.

---<)kaimartin(>---