Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide

On Mar 22, 1:54*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:53*am, bildan wrote:

Soaring isn't inherently dangerous of itself but human factors such as
lack of skill and knowledge can certainly make it so. *Training and
experience is how we address human factors.

I see this in the opposite way: I firmly believe that soaring is
inherently unforgiving, and it is only through training and judgment
that we mitigate the risks. I think that no conscientious sailplane
developer or human factors specialist would say otherwise.

We fling ourselves through the air in lightweight plastic shells that
have only modest crash protection at speeds up to 150 MPH. We do not
always have full control over the conditions under which we land, or
where we land. Our machines have myriad idiosyncrasies that give rise
to sometimes awkward handling. We often operate these machines in
close proximity to one another, despite the fact that even the
slightest collision can result in structural failure. We often operate
them at altitudes conducive to hypoxia, which causes disorientation.
We fly in contests that place incentive on calibrated risk-taking.

Against all that we have training, skill, judgment, discretion,
engineering, a handful of electronics, some compressed gasses,
statistical probability, and a few books full of rules. And so far,
that stuff has kept the danger down to a dull roar, down to where
soaring is about as dangerous as you make it. It obviously cannot be
exactly as dangerous as you make it; in addition to the subjective
risks there are objective risks such as getting run down by the
occasional airplane that comes from behind. But for the most part
subjective risks reign, and training and experience hold the field.

Thanks, Bob K.

Well said.

Bill, My comment was in reaction to the last statement in his post.

"That seems different from our sailplane experience, where I'd say most
glider crashes involve an airworthy glider."

My point was simply that a glider with an improper hookup is not
airworthy. I know there are a lot of accidents because of this
phenomenon, but I don't know how significant this is statistically.

This does not take away from your argument.

Best,

Nyal



At 15:49 22 March 2011, bildan wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:20=A0am, Nyal Williams wrote:
Have you factored out the unairworthy gliders made so by faulty
assembly?


Why would anyone do that? Proper assembly is a pilot responsibility
whether he rigged the glider or not. Pilots have the final
responsibility to perform a pre-flight inspection which includes
checking for proper assembly. If a pilot crashes due to improper
assembly, he alone bears the blame. Again, training and experience is
critically important.

On 3/22/2011 8:20 AM, Nyal Williams wrote:


worthyAt 01:29 22 March 2011, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 3/21/2011 6:00 PM, bildan wrote:


An airworthy spar in a glider flown by a well trained pilot who knows
and follows the rules has a 0% chance of breaking.

Wasn't that the point of the website? That the paraglider has a
relatively large, non-zero chance of "breaking", even though you are
well trained and follow the rules? I don't know if he's right, but
seemed to be reasonable argument, that many/most accidents began when
the paraglider became unairworthy. That seems different from our
sailplane experience, where I'd say most glider crashes involve an
airworthy glider.

Have you factored out the unairworthy gliders made so by faulty assembly?

Yes, I was thinking of gliders that were airworthy at the beginning of
the flight. I would also exclude all paragliders that were not airworthy
at the beginning of the flight.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)