.

.

Post your videos as file attachments here. One video per topic please!

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#274393
spork wrote:But in the end the fatality rate is roughly equal as far as I can tell, so everything else is just arguing about how we get there.
Lacking objective data, the assessment smacks of position advocacy; it might be politically convenient to say such things, but has no useful bearing on the calculus for choosing a vehicle.
spork wrote:Besides, I have a VERY hard time believing that the big reason for the hatred of paraglider pilots is because hang glider pilots think they're flying more dangerous craft.
Ain't that the truth! For most, the perennial debate seems to have very little to do with determining relative safety... and far more tribal stupidity.
User avatar
By spork
#274408
Mavi Gogun wrote: Lacking objective data, the assessment smacks of position advocacy; it might be politically convenient to say such things, but has no useful bearing on the calculus for choosing a vehicle.
The best data we have suggests that we have something on the order of 1 fatality per 1000 participants per year in each. And I certainly don't mean to suggest this is to be used to "choose a vehicle". I'm simply calling bullshit on the bullshit I see posted here all too often.
User avatar
By rubixi
#274416
You guys need to listen to Rick. It's a global conspiracy. The worlds wealthy elite rely solely on the sales of paragliders and their overpriced accessories. They are censoring the real data. A constant flow of new paragliders means an endless checking account for bill gates and warren buffet. Wake up.
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#274421
spork wrote:The best data we have suggests that we have something on the order of 1 fatality per 1000 participants per year in each. And I certainly don't mean to suggest this is to be used to "choose a vehicle". I'm simply calling bullshit on the bullshit I see posted here all too often.
Fair enough. Could you provide a link to that data?
User avatar
By spork
#274425
Mavi Gogun wrote:
spork wrote:The best data we have suggests that we have something on the order of 1 fatality per 1000 participants per year in each. And I certainly don't mean to suggest this is to be used to "choose a vehicle". I'm simply calling bullshit on the bullshit I see posted here all too often.
Fair enough. Could you provide a link to that data?
I believe these were the numbers when USHPA last published such data. And no - I doubt there are any links to it now that USHPA feels that accident statistics should be kept secret.
User avatar
By spork
#274452
rubixi wrote:However this data says rock climbing is safer than table tennis....??
Yes, but look at the source. During the period from about 1995 through about 2005 the Germans engaged in some of the most brutal full-contact downhill table tennis. Not until far too many tragic fatalities did they amend their rules and catch up with the rest of the civilized word in this regard.

Don't even get me started on German shuffleboard fatalities in the late 50's!
User avatar
By Erik Boehm
#274464
spork wrote:
Erik Boehm wrote:Well, the ludicrously low wing loading argument wouldn't be a good one to make, because it goes doubly for PGs. Also being tail-less doesn't make something pitch unstable, it also goes doubly for PGs, and some HGs do have small tails.

but your basic point is still valid
The point is that it seems awfully silly to us "real" pilots to hear hang glider pilots bagging on paraglider pilots when both aren't much more than a leaf blowing in the wind. And I bet it seems awfully silly to a commercial transport pilot to hear me calling myself a "real" pilot.

Incidentally, PG's are very pitch stable because they are basically pendular. Hang gliders are basically pitch unstable because your hang point is extremely close to your center of pressure.
First, don't take my arguing with you as support for the "PGs are death traps" argument, sometimes I just like to argue (I just want to make sure my position is understood)

My initial point was that is wasn't a very good argument to point out an area where HGs may be deficient, if PGs are more so in that area (ie wing loading), then its simply a matter of arguing what the threshold is.

Also, I'd argue that PGs aren't aerodynamically pitch stable. Their pitch stability does not come from the wing, but rather from hanging a mass far below the wing, which doesn't really help much for small changes (and could also be done for any shape wing - indeed most aircraft have their mass relatively closer to the wing than hang gliders do, but that doesn't mean they aren't pitch stable) - indeed I see beginner PGs "porpoise" more so than HGs (before they've learned to control/prevent that with proper application of the brakes)

But in the end the fatality rate is roughly equal as far as I can tell, so everything else is just arguing about how we get there.
I can't tell that they are roughly equal, I can't tell that they aren't equal. In the absence of convincing evidence that they are unequal, I don't conclude equality, I simply make no conclusion.
Anecdotally, at Ed Levin, I've seen many PG accidents. I've also seen many that were do to pilot behavior, and can't really be blamed on the craft (the most recent fatality there, the guy was flying closer to the hill in a place I would never have flown in my hangglider, he did suffer a collapse, but I'm not sure a HG would have fared any better given it was probably in rotor on the lee side of the ridge, with some punchy thermals and sink[for Ed Levin]). I also don't have any empircal data on the relative frequencies of flights there. I'm likely to overestimate the HG share of flights, because I'm more likely to show up when its good for HGs (which may be blown out for PGs)

As I've posted multiple times before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis
Put an ABS system on a bunch of Taxis, and tell them they have ABS - accident rate doesn't change, even though you've made the cabs "safer".
I'd wager if you told someone they had ABS when they didn't, they accident rate would go way up, and if you told someone they didn't have ABS when they did, it would go down (until such time has passed that the drivers are familiar with their brakes capabilities regardless of what they were told).
It seems even if one craft is intuitively "safer" than another, statistics won't bear that out because of the way people behave.

The most important factors are how well each group asses the risks, and how much risk each group is willing to take.
You can make a craft more and more "unsafe" as long as the people flying them remain well aware of the limits of the craft
Besides, I have a VERY hard time believing that the big reason for the hatred of paraglider pilots is because hang glider pilots think they're flying more dangerous craft.
I won't argue with you there.
User avatar
By spork
#274467
Erik Boehm wrote: First, don't take my arguing with you as support for the "PGs are death traps" argument, sometimes I just like to argue (I just want to make sure my position is understood)
Understood.
My initial point was that is wasn't a very good argument to point out an area where HGs may be deficient, if PGs are more so in that area (ie wing loading), then its simply a matter of arguing what the threshold is.
Perhaps, but my point was that, relative to "real" airplanes, they're both a complete joke. It was kind of a "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" argument. I fly hang gliders, paragliders, and light aircraft. The important think in all cases is to know the limitations. I'm sure you'd agree.
Also, I'd argue that PGs aren't aerodynamically pitch stable. Their pitch stability does not come from the wing, but rather from hanging a mass far below the wing...
But:
A) That's the very design of the craft.
B) It will remain stable with an unconscious pilot.
indeed most aircraft have their mass relatively closer to the wing than hang gliders do, but that doesn't mean they aren't pitch stable)
But most aircraft have positive pitch stability. The C.G. is ahead of the center of pressure and they have a tail-plane that's pushing down. That simply is not the case with hang gliders.

I also don't have any empircal data on the relative frequencies of flights there. I'm likely to overestimate the HG share of flights, because I'm more likely to show up when its good for HGs (which may be blown out for PGs)
The stats I'm referring to don't reference number of flights, but rather years of exposure per pilot.
It seems even if one craft is intuitively "safer" than another, statistics won't bear that out because of the way people behave.
I'm generally inclined to agree, and that would be consistent with the last published numbers that I remember - which were both in the neighborhood of one fatality per 1000 pilots per year.
By OpenSoars
#274504
For someone like myself, who has never flown either a HG or PG (solo, or otherwise), and has only done a good bit of research online, watching videos, reading articles, etc., PG seems MUCH more dangerous to me than HG. My biggest concern about PG is wing collapse, and the fact that it appears that it can happen without any warning whatsoever, and that it can happen at too low of an altitude to correct, but high enough to be seriously injured or killed. As far as I'm aware, HG doesn't have an equivalent, unrecoverable incident that happens suddenly, without warning, that basically is a "you're f**ked" kinda moment.
User avatar
By spork
#274506
OpenSoars wrote:For someone like myself, who has never flown either a HG or PG (solo, or otherwise), and has only done a good bit of research online, watching videos, reading articles, etc., PG seems MUCH more dangerous to me than HG.
In that case you probably shouldn't fly PG's.

Not to mention, you live in an area with two of the biggest HG flight parks in the country - and PG's are not welcome. So your decision seems like an easy one.
As far as I'm aware, HG doesn't have an equivalent, unrecoverable incident that happens suddenly, without warning, that basically is a "you're f**ked" kinda moment.
As far as I'm aware, HG kills people at about the same rate as PG. Doesn't matter how or why.
User avatar
By jjcote
#274507
In New England, where I live, we have bunches of people flying both kinds of wings. I've never seen a PG accident, but I've seen between 3 and 10 HG accidents, depending on what you count. And the only fatality in this region in the time I've been flying was with a rigid.
By gluesniffer
#274508
With mavi, spork, and open sores this thread is more dangerous than hg and pg combined
User avatar
By Jason
#274509
where I come from some people masturbate with their left hand, some with their right. some with both......

I don't really care what you choose......i just wish i didn't have to listen to people argue about which was better
By Phoenix
#274520
Hey if there's gonna be flames, a paraglider is left with a pile of ashes,
while a hang glider can be turned in to the recycler for a 6 pack and
a porno mag.
User avatar
By spork
#274540
Jason wrote:where I come from some people masturbate with their left hand, some with their right. some with both......
I prefer it with someone else's hand - but I probably don't come from your area.
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#274542
spork wrote:The stats I'm referring to don't reference number of flights, but rather years of exposure per pilot.
Could you clarify that- of the recalled sample, was it referring to the number of fatalities per active pilot, or the number of fatalities per hour of flight? I judge the former subjectively useless for assessing safety.
theayeinthesky wrote:Hey if there's gonna be flames, a paraglider is left with a pile of ashes, while a hang glider can be turned in to the recycler for a 6 pack and
a porno mag.
Having witnessed hang gliders burning, I can attest that the aluminum is consumed as well- with only minor encouragement.
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#274543
spork wrote:
Jason wrote:where I come from some people masturbate with their left hand, some with their right. some with both......
I prefer it with someone else's hand - but I probably don't come from your area.
Stop avoiding the question- do you prefer the other's right, or left, or both?
User avatar
By spork
#274548
Mavi Gogun wrote: Could you clarify that- of the recalled sample, was it referring to the number of fatalities per active pilot, or the number of fatalities per hour of flight? I judge the former subjectively useless for assessing safety.
It was fatalities per pilot per year. There's a reasonable argument that this is a better basis for accident statistics than "per hour of exposure". I tend to agree with that argument. But anyone is welcome to whichever denominator they like I suppose.
Stop avoiding the question- do you prefer the other's right, or left, or both?
I'm not terribly picky that way. I like to think I'm generally grateful for any such attention. But I suppose my favorite is two hands and a mouth. That way they can generally cover about 2/3rds of the real-estate.
User avatar
By Willmrx
#274550
spork wrote:
Jason wrote:where I come from some people masturbate with their left hand, some with their right. some with both......
I prefer it with someone else's hand - but I probably don't come from your area.
:roflcat:
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

Campers, Has anybody seen the ElectraFlyer? (No r[…]

The only learning curve I found was everything hap[…]

Deserves a go,mates. https://www.youtube.com/watch[…]

Some Fall Color in SoCal

Friday 2017.11.17 at Crestline.... http://www.you[…]