[JoeF]

Respecting and honoring the works of Rick Masters, the World ParaGlding Association has just redirected its front page lead link to this topic thread. May the fullness of his research become well known in the world:

http://www.worldparaglidingassociation.org/

[wingspan33]

Amazing Joe! Information is the best way for possible new comers to the sport of PGing to judge that it is, or is not, (currently) a safe activity.

BTW - Information on the worldparaglidingassociation.org site talks about inflatable canopies that can be made to not deflate in the air. I was amazed at how simple such a change would be while observing Kite Boarding activities on one of the local Finger Lakes.

EVERY one of their "Kites" had LE pockets that were permanently inflated (while in use). This obviously allows the kite to stay afloat, which then also allows a water re-start/relaunch of the kite by the participant. Such a feature on PGs would, at the very least, reduce canopy collapses, possible line twist ups, inversions, etc. In asking a highly skilled local PG pilot about why this isn't done on soaring canopies, . . . He replied simply - "It wouldn't work."

Frankly, I didn't believe his response. I consider him to be a friend and he knew I didn't intend anything negative by asking my question. And as an inventor (and non-degree holding [amateur?] mechanical engineer) I can not believe that such an idea just "wouldn't work". I repeatedly get this feeling that people who attach themselves to deflatable canopies have a substantial (but apparently subconscious) suicide/death wish.

(Sometime In The (near?) Future)

First day at USHPA Certified Paragliding School -

Mandatory Lesson #1) If you can crumple it up and put it in your trunk, it can crumple up in the air and drop you to the ground.
Upon impact you will probably be able to be crumpled up nearly as easily as your soaring parachute. Whether your companions then put you in the
trunk will be up to them.

.

.

[Rick Masters]

In asking a highly skilled local PG pilot about why this isn't done on soaring canopies, . . . He replied simply - "It wouldn't work."

I agree. If you are stupid enough choose to fly a paraglider in rough air, you will be a pendulum far below your wing (like a grandfather clock) and you will be unable to maintain sail shape or control in negative g. Although you are essentially the center of mass, you will become disassociated with the contraption should you encounter negative g. At this juncture, the fabric then will have no ability to maintain its aerodynamic shape and will begin to collapse. You will be falling, and then as you build up speed, your kinetic energy will draw the lines tight, suddenly loading up the sail in a sudden "shock opening." As the silly thing re-inflates, it it can "surge" forward and can even go underneath you. You can fall into it. And die.

But if you make the sail non-collapsible, the surge will be even more pronounced. This is a factor of increased mass (from heavier modified pockets) and increased aerodynamic cleanliness. The "shock opening" takes up a lot of energy that would otherwise go into the surge. A more aggressive surge leads to the increased potential for a nose-down, locked-in spiral dive - a loss-of-control mode that shares with collapse and twist incidents, the majority of paragliding deaths.

To regain control, you have to be able to "kill" the airfoil somewhat. A cleaner, more efficient, non-collapsible airfoil is a death warrant to a soaring parachutist. In my opinion, you cannot improve paragliders. It would have been done by now. It only took hang gliding 6 or 7 years but its been 28 years and counting since the first death for paragliding. The global fatality rates have hovered around 100 for ten years. There has been no improvement, just a retrenchment after the Piedrahita debacle in 2011 when two of the best South American soaring parachutists died within minutes of each other in collapses of the latest and fastest paragliderss at the World Cup.

The only improvement to be made is to institute a rigid frame and move the pilot way up so that the aircraft has a permanent cg point that does not change or go away but remains constant throughout all flying modes. This is a requirement for real aircraft. But if you did this, you wouldn't call them paragliders anymore.

You'd call them... uh... uh... I'll think of it in a minute...

[JoeF]

AirframedPGneeded.JPG (111.08 KiB) Viewed 6328 times

http://www.worldparaglidingassociation.org/

For the record, a dated Dec. 16, 2014, 1:20 PM PST snip: http://www.worldparaglidingassociation.org/

World ParaGliding Association
invites newcomers and users of soaring parachutes to study very carefully the linked topic thread. http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1582
Until positive inflation with pressure-keeping valves maintains a firm positively inflated wing that will not collapse in turbulence, all members are urged to avoid the current soaring open parachutes for human use.
Pressure-release valves and positive-pressure-keeping mechanisms are possible; getting rid of the long lines may be needed; installing an airframe may be a solution space; keeping the pilot's center of gravity firmly coupled with the new coming wings may be needed.
a change in control will be needed to execute the potential new wings.

WPGA is discouraging the use of open soaring parachutes by humans.
The near 1,300 deaths with its dominant cause continues to have us lose fellow humans; their families and friends are devastated.
The promotion of current paragliding soaring parachutes rises to the level
of some kind of crime against innocents
who just want to fly.

[Rick Masters]

The promotion of current paragliding soaring parachutes rises to the level
of some kind of crime against innocents who just want to fly.

Exactly. So I would ask, "Where are the negative g requirements for U$hPA aircraft? Were the deaths of our early hang gliding friends all for nothing? Were they simply ignored so parachute merchants could make a killing?"

[Rick Masters]

The truth about paragliding and hang gliding accidents in Austria can be found here.
http://www.flash-news.at

This venerable newsletter, Flash-News, has been published by the esteemed and indefatigable pilot Bruno Gristmair for many, many years and remains the hallmark example of independent and truthful reporting in the sports. Flashy copy like Cross Country Magazine does not approach Gristmair's brutal honesty. I cannot give him high enough praise for his tireless work.

Each issue of Flash-News has a section named "UNFÄLLE UND STÖRUNGEN" (ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS). Deaths are marked with crosses; injuries without. If you go back ten years and compare to today, you will see that nothing at all has changed.

To read selections in English, copy from the PDF file with ctrl/c and past into Google Translate with ctrl/v
https://translate.google.com

[wingspan33]

Rick,

Now I understand. I'm not sure if even my expert PG flying friend knows as much about the dynamics as you. But I can see how the defective nature of the design is at the heart of the issue. And it makes perfect sense when I give it some thought. The loose suspension lines can always go slack under negative Gs. The result being that the occupant may float or fall into the canopy.

As to what you were thinking of at the end of your post, . . . would it consist of two words, one beginning with an H and the other beginning with a G?

In asking a highly skilled local PG pilot about why this isn't done on soaring canopies, . . . He replied simply - "It wouldn't work."

I agree. If you are stupid enough choose to fly a paraglider in rough air, you will be a pendulum far below your wing (like a grandfather clock) and you will be unable to maintain sail shape or control in negative g. Although you are essentially the center of mass, you will become disassociated with the contraption should you encounter negative g. At this juncture, the fabric then will have no ability to maintain its aerodynamic shape and will begin to collapse. You will be falling, and then as you build up speed, your kinetic energy will draw the lines tight, suddenly loading up the sail in a sudden "shock opening." As the silly thing re-inflates, it it can "surge" forward and can even go underneath you. You can fall into it. And die.

But if you make the sail non-collapsible, the surge will be even more pronounced. This is a factor of increased mass (from heavier modified pockets) and increased aerodynamic cleanliness. The "shock opening" takes up a lot of energy that would otherwise go into the surge. A more aggressive surge leads to the increased potential for a nose-down, locked-in spiral dive - a loss-of-control mode that shares with collapse and twist incidents, the majority of paragliding deaths.

To regain control, you have to be able to "kill" the airfoil somewhat. A cleaner, more efficient, non-collapsible airfoil is a death warrant to a soaring parachutist. In my opinion, you cannot improve paragliders. It would have been done by now. It only took hang gliding 6 or 7 years but its been 28 years and counting since the first death for paragliding. The global fatality rates have hovered around 100 for ten years. There has been no improvement, just a retrenchment after the Piedrahita debacle in 2011 when two of the best South American soaring parachutists died within minutes of each other in collapses of the latest and fastest paragliderss at the World Cup.

The only improvement to be made is to institute a rigid frame and move the pilot way up so that the aircraft has a permanent cg point that does not change or go away but remains constant throughout all flying modes. This is a requirement for real aircraft. But if you did this, you wouldn't call them paragliders anymore.

You'd call them... uh... uh... I'll think of it in a minute...

[Rick Masters]

http://www.izlesene.com/video/norvecli- ... ni/7064562

[wingspan33]

As a human being I cringe every time I see someone falling from a collapsed (un)inflated canopy. I imagine knowing that person and being their good (or best!) friend and worrying about their family and other friends. I worry about how badly they may be hurt - or if they are in the final throws before death.

I think, . . . hang gliders can kill people - but not in those unnecessary ways. Replace those inflated canopy collapses with air framed hang gliders and you've got a living pilot who only says "Oops, that was a bit of rough air" finishes his flight, and goes home to the wife and kids. The PG pilot dies. His/her wife or husband and kids never see him/her alive again.

It's not the people who fly inflatable canopies with which some of us have a problem. Instead, it's the defective "wing", and the profiteers who market them, that some of us see as dangerous to fellow human life.

The death count continues to climb.

[Rick Masters]

The problem is that soaring parachutists continue to accept the possibility of death or injury by sudden collapse. This is beyond my comprehension. If they should ever realize they have been sold a bill of goods, it would be up to the ranks of hang glider pilots to haul out the old gliders and teach them how to fly. Of course, this couldn't happen under the U$hPA - the U$hPA is the problem. The U$hPA exists to produce more paragliding customers. Look at the promotion of paragliding in U$hPA-certified $chools and the termination of the Special Observer who was authorized to train hang glider pilots outside of them. The present situation is nothing but an example of the amoral corporate model for maximizing profits for stakeholders. Change can only come through a new organization dedicated to hang gliding. One that recognizes the fatal flaw in paragliding and refers parachutists to parachuting organizations.