Accidents resulting from medical issues

[Mike the Strike]

In recent discussions on accidents, there seems to be an assumption that a common cause is older pilots losing control - perhaps forgetting after fifty years how to do a coordinated turn. I have long suspected that many accidents may have a medical component resulting from the pilot becoming partially or totally incapacitated. Underlying medical issues may not be easy to find in a post mortem where a pilot was still alive on hitting the ground - the resulting trauma might easily conceal underlying issues.

I experienced such an issue a year ago on the third day of the TUSC OLC cross-country event. While doing a low save over rather unfriendly terrain, I suddenly experienced sharp pain and cramps in my left leg that left it almost completely disabled. Fortunately, I was able to return home doing mostly right turns and landed safely. This was caused by a deep-vein thrombosis (blood clot) in the major vein near my left knee.

Such clots are popularly called “coach class syndrome� and are often triggered by positional immobility. You can’t get much more immobile than in a racing glider cockpit! Contributing factors were dehydration, low blood oxygen and an inherited genetic condition that predisposes blood clotting. (This is shared by about 5% of people of European descent). Now properly diagnosed and treated, I am cleared to fly again, but in addition to anti%coagulant medication I take extra precautiions by keeping well hydrated, using oxygen at lower altitudes and limiting the length of my flights.

If the clot had broken and penetrated my lungs (not uncommon) the resulting pulmonary embolism could have been fatal or at least severely disabling. I could easily have ended up as one of the recent accident statistics with more questions than answers.

This is but one example of medical conditions that can overtake anyone, but especially older individuals, and that might lead to loss of control while flying. There are quite a few others too!

Mike

[[email protected]]

One of the bestg known examples, taken from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Johnson_(glider_pilot)#Death

"Dick Johnson died July 23, 2008, at age 85. He was flying a Ventus A glider from a Midlothian, Texas airport[4] when it crashed about 2.25 miles (3.5 km) from the airport after flying for some time. The Medical Examiner of Dallas County determined that Johnson died from the injuries he received in the crash. The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable accident cause to be an incapacitating cardiac event, as Johnson had severe coronary artery disease with symptoms and had been prescribed medication for it."

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 3:16:05 AM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
> In recent discussions on accidents, there seems to be an assumption that a common cause is older pilots losing control - perhaps forgetting after fifty years how to do a coordinated turn. I have long suspected that many accidents may have a medical component resulting from the pilot becoming partially or totally incapacitated. Underlying medical issues may not be easy to find in a post mortem where a pilot was still alive on hitting the ground - the resulting trauma might easily conceal underlying issues.
>
> I experienced such an issue a year ago on the third day of the TUSC OLC cross-country event. While doing a low save over rather unfriendly terrain, I suddenly experienced sharp pain and cramps in my left leg that left it almost completely disabled. Fortunately, I was able to return home doing mostly right turns and landed safely. This was caused by a deep-vein thrombosis (blood clot) in the major vein near my left knee.
>
> Such clots are popularly called “coach class syndrome� and are often triggered by positional immobility. You can’t get much more immobile than in a racing glider cockpit! Contributing factors were dehydration, low blood oxygen and an inherited genetic condition that predisposes blood clotting. (This is shared by about 5% of people of European descent). Now properly diagnosed and treated, I am cleared to fly again, but in addition to anti%coagulant medication I take extra precautiions by keeping well hydrated, using oxygen at lower altitudes and limiting the length of my flights.
>
> If the clot had broken and penetrated my lungs (not uncommon) the resulting pulmonary embolism could have been fatal or at least severely disabling. I could easily have ended up as one of the recent accident statistics with more questions than answers.
>
> This is but one example of medical conditions that can overtake anyone, but especially older individuals, and that might lead to loss of control while flying. There are quite a few others too!
>
> Mike

The answer to this issue is self awareness, self responsibility, and self grounding. Or acceptance of the possible outcomes.

[Mike the Strike]

Tough to be aware of an underlying condition that is undiscovered, symptomless and undiagnosed - perhaps just like the majority of medical issues that catch you unawares.

Maybe we should all self-ground as we age, but at what age - 65?, 70?, 80?

Mike

[Retting]

What!? You must be young. Kid, it’s like this.....
The choices I’ll have will be sitting in a wheelchair next to the pool after a stroke watching my lovely wife straps on lead weights while singing Amazing Grace, OR
.....auger in.
I say fly your ass off.....let terra firma be your tantou, seppuku your glory...�HAI�!
R

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

The problem is that incapacitating events are only loosely correlated with

age. Heart attacks can strike apparently fit 30 year olds (one of my
brothers in law is a case in point; ex Royal Marine, age 38, passed a
public
transport driving medical less than a month before dropping dead of a
previously undetected heart problem. The actual number of medical
induced glider accidents is so low that we will never get any statistical
evidence to give a science-based numerical age limit.

My observation is that most ageing pilots do give up gliding when they
decide their reflexes/eyesight or some other reason make them query their
ability to continue. That's typically somewhere between 65 and 80, with
exceptions either side. Personally, I've only been gliding for 58 years
and
still have more to do - until I decide to stop.



At 13:24 11 September 2018, Mike the Strike wrote:
>Tough to be aware of an underlying condition that is undiscovered,
>symptomless and undiagnosed - perhaps just like the majority of medical
>issues that catch you unawares.
>
>Maybe we should all self-ground as we age, but at what age - 65?, 70?,
80?
>
>Mike
>

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-7, pete purdie wrote:
> The problem is that incapacitating events are only loosely correlated with
> age.


My friend started asking me to be a safety pilot in his Mooney when he reached his mid 80s. After one flight, he said he would be away the following week. "I'm going skiing" he explained.

[gkemp]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 7:33:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-7, pete purdie wrote:
> > The problem is that incapacitating events are only loosely correlated with
> > age.
>
>
> My friend started asking me to be a safety pilot in his Mooney when he reached his mid 80s. After one flight, he said he would be away the following week. "I'm going skiing" he explained.

I flew for almost 40 years and always had said I would retire at 70, I did!! I do miss it but don't regret it.

Gary Kemp "NK"

[BobW]

I long ago concluded "I'm OK with sudden/unexpected single-pilot deaths - mine
or others - in the general aviation/sport-flying community," (even though they
likely "fuzz up" explicit accident conclusions. Kinda-sorta related, "for all
practical purposes," sudden death vs. chronological age is only loosely
correlated; IMO aging realities have a *big* standard deviation...as has
previously been anecdotally noted in this thread.

At the same time - personalizing things a bit more - I've long held the view
that I never wanted to become one of those pilots "we all know at the home
gliderport" who I felt "should hang up his spurs," for general safety's sake.

Both entirely personal views, which work for me.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Good post.
Age has many meanings. While statistics may state a cutoff, some go a lot longer and some are WAY overdue.
A lot depends on the pilot and whom they respect.
Some is genetics some is diet/exercise.
Please, listen to those that may have valid input and put aside your pride in determining your status.
I am approaching 60, I may not like some comments, but I will weigh them.
Yes, over 40 years flying gliders, ex CFIG, gold with 2 diamonds, couple thousand hours in sailplanes, nothing more than torn off gear doors.....
"Suck it up buttercup"...,, listen to those that may have valid info.
Flying solo, sucks for your family and friends, but you may be happy.
Flying rides or instruction, different ballgame.

Just something to think of.
Not judging one way or another. Sorta YOUR choice as PIC!

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 2:30:10 PM UTC-4, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Flying solo, sucks for your family and friends, but you may be happy.

Spare a thought for how accidents affect the rest of the community and how many potential new pilots might decide that the sport is too dangerous and walk away.

[Vaughn Simon[_2_]]

On 9/11/2018 4:14 PM, wrote:
> Spare a thought for how accidents affect the rest of the community and how many potential new pilots might decide that the sport is too dangerous and walk away.

Precisely! Your actions can affect the entire soaring community in a
very direct way. Read this article and you will see what I mean!
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-Chair-Sumwalt-The-FAA-Should-Act-231457-1.html


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Dan Marotta]

I retired at 58 or 59, but I'm still flying at 70.Â* No end in sight.

On 9/11/2018 10:27 AM, gkemp wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 7:33:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-7, pete purdie wrote:
>>> The problem is that incapacitating events are only loosely correlated with
>>> age.
>>
>> My friend started asking me to be a safety pilot in his Mooney when he reached his mid 80s. After one flight, he said he would be away the following week. "I'm going skiing" he explained.
> I flew for almost 40 years and always had said I would retire at 70, I did!! I do miss it but don't regret it.
>
> Gary Kemp "NK"

--
Dan, 5J

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

OK, yes, a death or injury is a death or injury.
Offing passengers is a lot larger.
Keeping injuries or deaths in Soaring is even better.

I will not argue with either.
But, I will say, sorta like, "I want to off myself" vs. "I want to off myself and a theater along with me".
I don't find either good, but one is less good than the other.

So, flying with a health issue may be bad (sorta depends on if known or not) by yourself or with a passenger or two are different things.
Keep in mind (last I looked) the US has for glider (and others), "no known issues that preclude me from piloting ((fill in the blank).

[Tom[_21_]]

As pointed out - an accident impacts the whole sport, family, friends, the line kid who launched you, first responders, local general aviation, the airport and the community in general. It effects insurance rates, perception of risk among potential pilots and passengers.

I will always have in my mind the tragedies I've witnessed or have been involved with as either an investigator, witness or the person who has had to deal with the outcome in one way or another.

No one "flies alone".

Regards, Tom

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-7, gkemp wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 7:33:04 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-7, pete purdie wrote:
> > > The problem is that incapacitating events are only loosely correlated with
> > > age.
> >
> >
> > My friend started asking me to be a safety pilot in his Mooney when he reached his mid 80s. After one flight, he said he would be away the following week. "I'm going skiing" he explained.
>
> I flew for almost 40 years and always had said I would retire at 70, I did!! I do miss it but don't regret it.
>
> Gary Kemp "NK"

Age is clearly a general indicator, but a very imprecise one. I'd say that good health, which we all recognize, or can be measured by a medical certificate, is enough to carry on flying, both solo and with passengers, no matter what the age.

[Mike the Strike]

Absolutely agree about age, but I have to disagree that a medical certificate is a guarantee of good health, since underlying conditions may be hidden or unknown. I point to the incidence of commercial airline pilots who die on the job - not high, but not zero either.

Mike

[Duster[_2_]]

Please; age is a demographic, not a symptom or disease. People talk about slowed reflexes. In the older population, what do you mean; slower conduction velocity? Molasses in the neuromuscular junction that retards chemical transmission? Take 15 minutes to do a Google search before you turn me into Soylent paste. There's great truth in the phrase, "use it or lose it".

[Retting]

sorry bub, you get rejected at the cream machine and get fed to the fish.
R

[Mike Borgelt[_2_]]

On Thursday, 13 September 2018 07:43:57 UTC+10, Retting wrote:
> sorry bub, you get rejected at the cream machine and get fed to the fish.
> R

"No pleasures in life are worth foregoing for another 5 years in the geriatric ward" - Horace Rumpole from the British TV series "Rumpole of the Bailey"

The socialists here can go hang. The chance of hurting anyone else on the ground in a glider are minimal. The first responders will have attended hundreds, if not thousands of automobile accidents for every glider pilot accident. Not even a statistical blip.

In the last twelve months 7 Australian glider pilots died in aviation accidents (one in a homebuilt RV-6). I knew quite well all but two of them. All but two were over 70. Sad but not tragic in all but one case. Nobody on the ground was hurt and zero property damage.

The tragic case was a 62 year old instructor with a 60 year old student who suddenly dived in to the ground from 50 feet on a normal approach, witnesses by the instructor's wife who had just launched the flight. Weather was fine, glider had nothing wrong with it. The instructor was known to me and was IMO one of the most thoughtful, flight safety conscious, people I knew.

This sport is DANGEROUS, more so than general aviation as a whole. New entrants should be carefully briefed on this and if they decide it is not for them, so be it. As Bruno Gantenbrink said 25 years ago, you should think carefully about the risks and decide if the risks are worth the rewards. It is a PERSONAL decision and risk.

I have noted elsewhere that the Australian government doesn't deny passports to people who want to go to Nepal to climb Mt Everest, where you have an excellent chnace of killing yourself. They don't even bother to bring abck the bodies, the mountain is littered with frozen corpsicles.

[Tom[_21_]]

Mike - I'm not a soclalist - I'm a grown up. You live the life you want - just don't delude yourself that there are no outside impacts to your behavior.

I have other thoughts but as usual I'd be wasting my time to try to convince you of anything - clearly you are all set.

Regards, Tom

[[email protected]]

After surviving the early (1970's) years of hang gliding, and continuing for a total of nearly thirty years and around 2,500-3,000 hours of flexible wing soaring flight, getting into sailplanes seemed like a major relief. It is incredibly easy to fly a relatively modern sailplane compared to a hang glider in Southwestern US thermal conditions. This is primarily because of the effortless three-axis control through the stick and rudder and the fact that landings are usually done on wheels. (I say "usually" because I doinked it last year.)

Compared to sailplanes, hang gliders have a very narrow operating envelope when it comes to wind speeds on launch and landing. Turbulent conditions and the instability of the air are also more demanding. A moderately rough day in a sailplane might make you hold the joystick with three fingers instead of two and, once in a while, you might lose track of your drinking tube. The same day in a hang glider will probably require every ounce of your strength to keep yourself centered in a nasty thermal core. I appreciate the fact that launch and landing speeds in a sailplane are higher and therefore more potentially dangerous, but the amount of control and the tripled or quadrupled glide ratio allows more range when selecting potential outlanding sites.

I transitioned to sailplanes, reluctantly giving up hang gliding. I still miss it terribly, as the experiences I treasure are rarely matched by flying sailplanes. Don't get me wrong- I enjoy sailplanes tremendously, but compared to the violent, visceral, physically challenging (and risky) experiences hang gliding served up, sailplanes are well, kinda ho-hum . Unfortunately, I just don't "bounce" like I used to. I hope to get another 20+ years of flying sailplanes (I am 65), but I will quit when I either tell myself I can't maintain competency or some good friend honestly informs me it is time to hang it up.

[[email protected]]

Just what MM said I agree totally! Best thrill I ever had in hang gliding just not sure I can handle it now!

[Charlie Quebec]

Oh yeh, Mike is that worst of all political persuasions, a libertarian and a climate change denier too, naturally.
Sad really, he otherwise seems a smarty guy.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 10:42:53 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> Oh yeh, Mike is that worst of all political persuasions, a libertarian and a climate change denier too, naturally.
> Sad really, he otherwise seems a smarty guy.

I'm pretty sure Mike would agree with the proposition that climate is changing all the time.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 23:23:32 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 10:42:53 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec
> wrote:
>> Oh yeh, Mike is that worst of all political persuasions, a libertarian
>> and a climate change denier too, naturally.
>> Sad really, he otherwise seems a smarty guy.
>
> I'm pretty sure Mike would agree with the proposition that climate is
> changing all the time.

If you're a glider pilot, or involved in another weather-dependent sport,
and yet claim to a climate change denier, then clearly you've not been
paying attention to the weather.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Retting]

.....and I bet you have all the answers why the wx is changing and anybody who might have a different thought from YOU on the matter is CLEARLY wrong because only YOUR opinions are right. Be careful Martin ‘cause when you dick it up you don’t want anyone to be CLEARLY trashing your arse before having all the facts and understanding of a complex issue.
Use of the word ‘clearly’ in your comment implies you are no longer open to input and have a closed mind.
Was that your intent?
Cheers
R

[6PK]

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:35:23 AM UTC-7, Retting wrote:
> ....and I bet you have all the answers why the wx is changing and anybody who might have a different thought from YOU on the matter is CLEARLY wrong because only YOUR opinions are right. Be careful Martin ‘cause when you dick it up you don’t want anyone to be CLEARLY trashing your arse before having all the facts and understanding of a complex issue.
> Use of the word ‘clearly’ in your comment implies you are no longer open to input and have a closed mind.
> Was that your intent?
> Cheers
> R

and Martin is 'clearly' correct......

[Charlie Quebec]

Yes, the denialist go against the vast evidence and science that makes it clearly beyond reasonable doubtto a thinking person that human induced CO2
is causing rapid unnatural climate change, to argue otherwise is only a result of following deluded political propaganda.
As such, I have no respect for the intellect of the dumb as bowling ball denialist trash.

[Mike the Strike]

Despite the thread drift from my original post, I will weigh in on the climate change comments.

Using perjorative terms for climate change proponents or skeptics convinces no-one. Yes, some proponents can be evangelical in their zeal and many skeptics may well have a hidden agenda linked to the fossil-fuel industry. Calling them names is unhelpful.

I have been gently skeptical of some climate change claims, especially those that are based on unverified models, some of which rely on speculative feedback mechanisms. In my view, there are just too many variables in weather and climate systems to enable accurate predictions to be made far ahead. Some of these variables may have positive feedback on warming, some negative, and some we don’t understand them very well at all. Melting polar ice, for example, could interrupt present-day ocean currents, which could be very interesting, especially for Western Europe.

Also, while atmospheric temperature rise has tracked carbon dioxide levels, correlation alone does not prove causation. It is not impossible that some third variable could be involved. This could also be linked to industrial activity, but what if it is methane emissions or deforestation, for example, rather than carbon dioxide? The fix might be quite different from those most currently popular.

In any event , we humans have not been good stewards of the planet and I am sure we will never agree on any unified action to clear up the mess we have made.

Mike

[BobW]

> Yes, the denialist go against the vast evidence and science that makes it
> clearly beyond reasonable doubtto a thinking person that human induced CO2
> is causing rapid unnatural climate change, to argue otherwise is only a
> result of following deluded political propaganda. As such, I have no
> respect for the intellect of the dumb as bowling ball denialist trash.

Mercy! The above vitriol has *what* to do with soaring? (Well, other than for
half a century now our, unmentioned-above, sailplanes have been made almost
entirely from - gasp! - plastic and Petroleum-derived materials...)

Regarding specifically the "dumb as a bowling ball" sputum, if the writer's
thermalling etiquette doesn't seriously exceed his lack of interactional
civility, there's no way *this* bowling ball will be voluntarily/knowingly
sharing a thermal with him.

Bob - unconvinced all anthropormorphic change is definitionally bad - W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Dan Marotta]

Both Bob and Mike must be dumb as bowling balls for not agreeing
wholeheartedly with CQ AKA Mike Standish (according to his return
address). [sarcasm off]Â* As Buggs Bunny once famously said, "What a maroon!"

On 9/15/2018 7:49 AM, BobW wrote:
>> Yes, the denialist go against the vast evidence and science that
>> makes it
>> clearly beyond reasonable doubtto a thinking person that human
>> induced CO2 is causing rapid unnatural climate change, to argue
>> otherwise is only a
>> result of following deluded political propaganda. As such, I have no
>> respect for the intellect of the dumb as bowling ball denialist trash.
>
> Mercy! The above vitriol has *what* to do with soaring? (Well, other
> than for half a century now our, unmentioned-above, sailplanes have
> been made almost entirely from - gasp! - plastic and Petroleum-derived
> materials...)
>
> Regarding specifically the "dumb as a bowling ball" sputum, if the
> writer's thermalling etiquette doesn't seriously exceed his lack of
> interactional civility, there's no way *this* bowling ball will be
> voluntarily/knowingly sharing a thermal with him.
>
> Bob - unconvinced all anthropormorphic change is definitionally bad - W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Retting]

So....we agree then the answer is yes. Tighter than jack rabbit a....

R

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 2:23:50 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> Despite the thread drift from my original post, I will weigh in on the climate change comments.
>

Hey Mike,

It may not be thread drift. I think angry pilot may in fact be a medical issue. Also, since a glider pilot license doesn't require a medical, it may explain a higher incidence of the condition among glider pilots.

The condition may additionally be age, gender and ethnicity related, and therefore linked to both grumpy old man disease and angry white male disease, but further studies need to be performed.

My main question is: Does spewing vitriolic personal insults make the condition better or worse? I'm betting on the latter.

Andy

[[email protected]]

This has been a test of the Soaring Promotional Marketing System. This was only a test. If this had been an actual attempt to promote Soaring to the general public, you would all be told where to go and what to do.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Yes, bugs would say maroon...... real live peeps may say moron.
Is moreon better than more off?
LOL......


Way too many factors.
Self evaulate sorta at odds end. Of course we are the best and healthy!
Maybe listen to others, "Dude, really, hang it the frig up!".

I am a, "flew a few thousand hours, many types, ex CFIG, many off airport landings with no real damage, WTF you saying I am not safe!!!!"
I hope I still Frikkin listen!

I remember watching a Dr in a -24 roll off the south end of HHSC quite a long time ago. Dude, a ASW had great brakes, period.
He was self insured since he had broken too much stuff. Basically, many peeps said, find something else to do!
Insurance basically said, what is ship value? You pay that premium every year since we believe you will trash it!

Not sure if he still flies.

Yes, even a great medical exam for a commercial aircarrier may not mean your health is good.
You could get a great checkup and die on the way to your car.

[Duster[_2_]]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 8:36:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> After surviving the early (1970's) years of hang gliding, and continuing for a total of nearly thirty years and around 2,500-3,000 hours of flexible wing soaring flight, getting into sailplanes seemed like a major relief. It is incredibly easy to fly a relatively modern sailplane compared to a hang glider in Southwestern US thermal conditions. This is primarily because of the effortless three-axis control through the stick and rudder and the fact that landings are usually done on wheels. (I say "usually" because I doinked it last year.)
>
> Compared to sailplanes, hang gliders have a very narrow operating envelope when it comes to wind speeds on launch and landing. Turbulent conditions and the instability of the air are also more demanding. A moderately rough day in a sailplane might make you hold the joystick with three fingers instead of two and, once in a while, you might lose track of your drinking tube.. The same day in a hang glider will probably require every ounce of your strength to keep yourself centered in a nasty thermal core. I appreciate the fact that launch and landing speeds in a sailplane are higher and therefore more potentially dangerous, but the amount of control and the tripled or quadrupled glide ratio allows more range when selecting potential outlanding sites.
>
> I transitioned to sailplanes, reluctantly giving up hang gliding. I still miss it terribly, as the experiences I treasure are rarely matched by flying sailplanes. Don't get me wrong- I enjoy sailplanes tremendously, but compared to the violent, visceral, physically challenging (and risky) experiences hang gliding served up, sailplanes are well, kinda ho-hum . Unfortunately, I just don't "bounce" like I used to. I hope to get another 20+ years of flying sailplanes (I am 65), but I will quit when I either tell myself I can't maintain competency or some good friend honestly informs me it is time to hang it up.

[Duster[_2_]]

You guys aren't the first I've heard lament at giving up hang gliding. The guy I bought my last glider from said he missed it very much too. It's understandable why the transition, given the greater physical challenge in hang gliding. Never having tried it myself, I regret it. Curious, though, has hang gliding suffered depleting ranks like GA and glider soaring? Know of any flying sports that are better off in this regard than "ours"? Thanks.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 2:13:47 PM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
> You guys aren't the first I've heard lament at giving up hang gliding. The guy I bought my last glider from said he missed it very much too. It's understandable why the transition, given the greater physical challenge in hang gliding. Never having tried it myself, I regret it. Curious, though, has hang gliding suffered depleting ranks like GA and glider soaring? Know of any flying sports that are better off in this regard than "ours"? Thanks.

Powered paragliding in IL, In, Mi, and Wi has been growing smartly of late, with a mix of newcomers aged roughly 14 to about 55.

[[email protected]]

I flew Hang Gliders for 38 years before I took up sailplanes. I do miss the adventure and physicality of it. It’s weight shift and you are connected to the air is a way that a canopied sailplane doesn’t offer. But like everything the atitude of newer pilots was about convienence over performance and it got watered down with paragliding. Instead of showing up at the hill ready to duel for distance it turned into more of a community fly in. I flew in the east where you needed to climb up some mountain trails to get to launch. Eventually that took its toll as many of us get older. I love flying my Ventus and being part of a soaring club today but I would be amiss if I didn’t;t admit that i sometime pine for those Glory days....apologies to Bruce -:)

DC