Home
From Mike Meier:
Dear USHPA Director,
As you prepare for your semi - annual meeting, there are a couple of issues that I would like to ask that you consider.
As you may be aware, the USHPA now has in place a process for the sanctioning of hang gliding aerobatic competitions, and a rule book for conducting such competitions. The justification for incorporating aerobatic competition into the USHPA competition program was stated in the following announcement on the http://USHPA.aero web site:
Aerobatic competitions have been held in Europe for some time now. These are exciting for both participants and spectators. There are many talented, world class actually, aerobatic pilots here in the USA. Unfortunately, there are few opportunities for these elite athletes to compete in their own country. This is also a missed opportunity to promote our sport before larger groups of spectators. The recommendations from the Symposium will include an organizational structure for aerobatic competitions, including ideas for scoring, suggestions for training scorekeepers, resources and incentives for event organizers, criteria for fairly selecting our World Team, and a move forward plan.
Given that I have spent a substantial part of my career in hang gliding involved in issues that relate to pilot safety, I feel compelled to offer some comment on the USHPA's decision to promote aerobatic competition in hang gliders. I have expressed these concerns previously to the USHPA president, to my regional director, and to the chairmen of the safety and training committee, and would like to address these concerns to the entire board at this time.
No hang glider has been designed, tested, or certified for aerobatic flight. This is true in spite of the fact that The HGMA Airworthiness Standards (the oldest airworthiness standards in the hang gliding industry) have contained, from the beginning, a specific, and fairly straight forward provision for certifying gliders for aerobatics. (HGMA standards available at www.hgma.net). In the 32 year history of the HGMA, 345 different hang glider models have been certified by 37 different member manufacturers. Not a single glider has ever been certified for a single aerobatic maneuver.
A fundamental design aspect of the vast majority of hang gliders - the fact that the pilot hangs suspended beneath the wing from a flexible tether, and depends for his ability to control the wing on that tether being positively loaded - makes hang gliders inherently unsuitable for aerobatic flight. Airplanes which are used for aerobatic flight are designed to be able to be flown inverted and under negative load, with the pilot retaining reliable control of the aircraft. Hang gliders cannot be reliably controlled while unloaded or loaded negatively. Hang gliders also have unreliable structural margins under negative loads, and are not designed or tested to be structurally reliable even under positive loads during maneuvering flight at speeds in excess of approximately 50 mph, while the most common aerobatic maneuvers routinely involve maneuvering at speeds in excess of 65 mph. Aerobatic flight in hang gliders is a purely experimental form of flight, which takes place far outside the flight envelope for which the aircraft was designed and tested. Numerous incidents involving structural failure have occurred in hang gliders in aerobatic flight, and numerous incidents of dangerous loss of control by the pilot have occurred as well, and these incidents have involved some of the world's best and most experienced aerobatic pilots. It is one thing for pilots as individuals to choose to pursue extreme forms of hang gliding outside of the limits within which it can reasonably be expected that such flight can be conducted with reasonable safety. I have no objection to pilots who choose to make that choice, (providing that it is an informed choice - based on numerous discussions I have had with such pilots, it is my firm belief that most times it is not an adequately informed choice).
When it comes to the national association promoting this type of flying, (and by extension fostering the idea that this type of flying can be considered essentially safe, normal and acceptable as opposed to inherently unsafe, extreme, and completely experimental), I have a decidedly different opinion. I think it is inconsistent with the most basic concepts of safety, and therefore irresponsible in the extreme for the USHPA to promote aerobatic flight or aerobatic competition in hang gliders.
For a more detailed explanation of the design limitations of hang gliders and how those limitations relate to aerobatic flight, and why aerobatic flight is fundamentally different from other forms of flight in hang gliders, I invite you to read the following technical article on the subject:
http://www.willswing.com/Articles/Artic ... aerobatics
The above article, while fairly detailed in scope and content, is also written to be as accessible as possible, and it dispels a number of inaccurate ideas that I have repeatedly heard expressed regarding the technical aspects of hang glider airworthiness and aerobatics. I also invite any of you who have questions on the technical aspects of this issue to contact me at any time, by email or by phone.
I understand that those pilots in the United States who wish to compete internationally in aerobatic competition may need to have a process by which a team can be validated by the USHPA in its capacity as the representative to the CIVL for those pilots. However, I think that there must be ways in which that can be done without the USHPA being directly involved in the promotion and sanction of aerobatic competitions. My recommendation would be something along the lines of the aerobatic pilots forming an organization of their own, administering their own competition rules and pilot ranking system, and having the USHPA simply agree to recognize that ranking for the purpose of team selection to CIVL events. Again, my concern is not with the existence of aerobatic flight or aerobatic competition, but with its promotion by the USHPA, and with the inevitable result from such promotion that the message is being conveyed by the national association that this is an appropriate and accepted form of flight in hang gliders.
The second, and related issue that I would like the board to consider has to do with technical matters in general, and how those might inform actions that the board or its representatives may decide to take. The USHPA Mission Statement says that the USHPA will (among other things):
Maintain a working relationship with manufacturers and the manufacturers’ associations that will serve to promote the sport. And Represent the membership at the national and international level through the NAA, CIVL and FAI
In the course of representing the USHPA, and US pilots and their interests to the CIVL, it will often be necessary for the USHPA representative to bring to bear on that process a significant understanding of technical matters. The most reliable source for such technical understanding would be the manufacturers and the manufacturers' associations - i.e. the HGMA. However there has been very little outreach from the USHPA to the HGMA or the manufacturers for technical support, and I have observed that a number of CIVL actions, which have been supported to varying degrees by the USHPA CIVL representative, have been inconsistent with a proper technical understanding of the issues involved, and have as a result been counterproductive to the desired ends, and to the interests of the pilots. I would suggest that this process could be improved by a closer cooperation between the USHPA and the technical community of the sport of hang gliding, and I would urge the USHPA to be more proactive in availing itself of the technical knowledge and experience that exists in that community.
I thank you for your consideration, and I wish you a productive and successful meeting.
Sincerely,
Mike Meier
Wills Wing, Inc.
500 West Blueridge Ave
Orange, CA 92865
USA Phone 714 998 6359
FAX 714 998 0647
email: <mike>
www.willswing.com
I agree with him. 
, but no help for SW Texas.
