Anyone try paragliding?

Antoñio wrote:

Yes. And if you had ever been in a paraglider yourself in a thermal
you would know that you often experience partial deflations.
....
My statement stands though: If you thermal in a paraglider you *will*
experience deflations.

Of course, I agree on this. But a partial deflation is not the same
thing as a collapsing canopee. A partial deflation is not inherently
dangerous. (More precisely: It is dangerous, if you're not adequately
trained, as are all aviation activities.)

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
Anto=F1io wrote:

Yes. And if you had ever been in a paraglider yourself in a
thermal
you would know that you often experience partial deflations.
...
My statement stands though: If you thermal in a paraglider you
*will*
experience deflations.

Of course, I agree on this. But a partial deflation is not the same
thing as a collapsing canopee. A partial deflation is not inherently
dangerous. (More precisely: It is dangerous, if you're not adequately

trained, as are all aviation activities.)

Stefan

You say it is and it is not dangerous in the same paragraph. You don't
seem to realize that a full collapse begins with a wing tip deflation.
A deflation can go unrecognized even by an expert until it's too late.


You also failed to reply to my comment about ever having been in a
paraglider. Have you ever actually flown a paraglider?

I once flew a paraglider off of a 6000 ft mountain at about 10am when
the thermals were not yet developed. I launched, and had been flying
about 30 seconds when I noticed the relative wind pick up *beneath* me.
I looked down because I though it was kind of odd.

What I didn't realize was that I was falling and picking up speed. I
looked up just in time to see my paraglider reopen on its own. I was
very lucky it held together.

Later, my friends who had been watching my launch described my chute as
"a wadded ball of aluminum foil".

So don't tell me that paragliders don't collapse! =20

Antonio

Anto=F1io wrote:
The paraglider is not the same machine as a parachute, as you have
noticed.
snip

Thanks for the thorough explanation. I appreciate it!

John Galban=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DN4BQ (PA28-180)

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:04:19 -0600, "Michael 182"
wrote:
Very good info. I may reconsider... Thanks,

Michael, don't let all the scare stories scare you. Yes, paragliding
has its risks, just as does GA. Like GA, those risks can be reduced
by good training and careful decision making, and also like GA, can't
be eliminated. It's all about flying within your limitations and the
limitations of the aircraft.

I have around 200 hours now in _powered_ paragliders (following around
600 hours GA). Powered paragliding (PPG) is about the most fun I've
had in the air, and the motor gives the flexibility to avoid the
thermic conditions required to keep an unpowered paraglider or hang
glider aloft. A year or so ago, I looked at the statistics. The
number of PPG pilots in the U.S. isn't all that large and data is hard
to come by, but as near as I could figure, the fatality rate per hour
is about the same as GA (though the risk of a minor injury is higher).
Unpowered paragliding is somewhat (but not horribly or unacceptably)
worse.

To answer your original question, GA experience does help as general
background... not so much at first, or for the actual flying, but if
you continue with it there's some stuff that you won't have to relearn
(aerodynamics, airspace, regs, etc.)

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dyslexics Untie!

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:59:55 -0400, Dana M. Hague
d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote in
::

Powered paragliding (PPG) is about the most fun I've
had in the air ...

A subscription to this magazine will give one an idea of the state of
the PPG art: http://www.ultraflight.com/

"Dana M. Hague" d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:04:19 -0600, "Michael 182"
wrote:
Very good info. I may reconsider... Thanks,

Michael, don't let all the scare stories scare you. Yes, paragliding
has its risks, just as does GA. Like GA, those risks can be reduced
by good training and careful decision making, and also like GA, can't
be eliminated. It's all about flying within your limitations and the
limitations of the aircraft.

With a big emphasis on "the limitations of the aircraft". One huge problem
with a paraglider is that the wing can be compromised by turbulent air or
thermic action at the worst possible time, during your approach to land.
When you're 30 feet above the ground and your wing is suddenly 50% collapsed
due to localized turbulent air or a nearby thermal lifting off, no amount of
training is going to help you deal with the 30 foot plummet you are about to
experience because there isn't going to be time to recover.

One very important thing to keep in mind is that conditions that a GA pilot
wouldn't normally give a second thought to can be very significant to an
aircraft like a paraglider or an ultralight, especially when your legs and
feet are your landing gear.

"BDS" wrote in message
...
"Dana M. Hague" d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:04:19 -0600, "Michael 182"
wrote:
Very good info. I may reconsider... Thanks,

Michael, don't let all the scare stories scare you. Yes, paragliding
has its risks, just as does GA. Like GA, those risks can be reduced
by good training and careful decision making, and also like GA, can't
be eliminated. It's all about flying within your limitations and the
limitations of the aircraft.

With a big emphasis on "the limitations of the aircraft". One huge
problem
with a paraglider is that the wing can be compromised by turbulent air or
thermic action at the worst possible time, during your approach to land.
When you're 30 feet above the ground and your wing is suddenly 50%
collapsed
due to localized turbulent air or a nearby thermal lifting off, no amount
of
training is going to help you deal with the 30 foot plummet you are about
to
experience because there isn't going to be time to recover.


Well spoken description of a significant risk. IMHO this risk increases
with the higher performance PGs. It claimed one of the very best PPL/HG/PG
(several time national champion) pilots I have known.

One very important thing to keep in mind is that conditions that a GA
pilot
wouldn't normally give a second thought to can be very significant to an
aircraft like a paraglider or an ultralight, especially when your legs and
feet are your landing gear.

From personal experience my preference for free flight is hang gliders.
While they are a flex wing they have a ridgid frame and have much better
penetration and fly more like a traditional wing. Soaring them is a truly
exqusite experience. Current models are well developed and proven designs,
and even intermediate types offer good performance.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "BDS" wrote:

With a big emphasis on "the limitations of the aircraft". One huge problem
with a paraglider is that the wing can be compromised by turbulent air or
thermic action at the worst possible time... no amount of
training is going to help you...

True. However, the training I refer to includes how to avoid these
conditions, often (at least by powered paragliders) by flying in the
calm air of early morning or evening.

One very important thing to keep in mind is that conditions that a GA pilot
wouldn't normally give a second thought to can be very significant to an
aircraft like a paraglider or an ultralight, especially when your legs and
feet are your landing gear.

No argument there.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Don't put it off, procrastinate today.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:10:53 GMT, "private"
wrote:
Well spoken description of a significant risk. IMHO this risk increases
with the higher performance PGs. It claimed one of the very best PPL/HG/PG
(several time national champion) pilots I have known.

The higher performance PG's are definitely riskier to fly. However,
the performance of even entry level PG's has gotten so close to the
performance models that most recreational pilots stick with the basic
models nowadays.

From personal experience my preference for free flight is hang gliders.
While they are a flex wing they have a ridgid frame and have much better
penetration and fly more like a traditional wing. Soaring them is a truly
exqusite experience. Current models are well developed and proven designs,
and even intermediate types offer good performance.

The flying is very different; certainly a HG has better performance...
but you lose in portability, and the higher speed adds its own element
of risk. Actually, HG and PG accident statistics are pretty similar.

-Dana


--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Don't put it off, procrastinate today.