Fotoglider Law

Rule One : Question Everything Except Rule Two

Rule Two : Never Question the Wisdom of Rule One 

Precision Paragliding Club

Continuing in 2007 to ensure a safer CHOICE always remains available to the UK paragliding pilots!

July 2007 - 90 days flown and with well over 250 hours it is looking to be a record year!

Why a safer choice?

 Back in the late 90's when I was looking at taking up the sport the very first thing I did was research what theory mainstream PG training is based on, the reason being was that it appeared the sport had far more accidents than could be reasonably explained by actual 'pilot error', that being the common conclusion seen in many 'official' PG accident reports.

NB. Unfortunately freeflight accidents in UK paragliding are currently investigated by those that provided the training in the first place.... this is as the CAA does not get involved with paragliding accidents & deaths, perhaps if this changes in the future corrections will be forced on those who keep teaching generating the high accident rates.

 When looking into the core theories I found it surprisingly easy to see basic mistakes which unfortunately give rise to the typical 'normal' PG practices, these often being the very practices that lead to far too many totally avoidable accidents.

# CAA = Civil Aviation Authority

History can, if you are prepared to learn from past mistakes, can help pilots avoid repeating old errors.

 With a sport in which the materials & equipment have vastly improved over twenty odd years, I looked to see if there has been, as you would expect, any significant improvement in actual pilot safety.

 Unfortunately the conclusion from careful study was that around 90% of the theory used in PG training is in fact based on a couple of basic errors, as a result of these core mistakes many of the common practices actually increase in a pilots accident risks! This goes a long way to explain why the accident rates have not dropped significantly with  the advances over the years.

So what did I do?

 With a background in problem solving by using science & HP&L to find solutions, as well as many years partaking in sports like sailing, where a good core understanding of the 'How & Why' of wind power greatly helps investigating paragliding flight, I made the informed choice to self train (not something I would generally advise!) and so avoid all the common PG errors, resulting in thousands of safe flying hours despite mainly flying high performance DHV 2/3 or comp gliders!

# HP&L = Human Performance & Limitations

Can anyone reduce their chances of having a PG accident?

 Yes.... but unfortunately what the last eight years providing re-training to other PG pilots has shown, time and tine again, is that due to unsafe regression the errors in first training pilots undertook can never be fully corrected!

 Experience shows it tends to take longer to re-train a PG pilot than train a new pilot..... a "Old dogs/new tricks" situation!

 My best guess is that using the typical accident rates of the last 20 years as the base level, re-training pilots can generally expect a reduction of 30% to 70% in the chances of them having an accident, while those who choose to train in the first place based on correct theory and good aviation practices can anticipate a 70% to 90% reduction in the chance of them having an accident.

Why will using correct theory still never eliminate all PG accidents?

 No..... While theory (or rather any errors in theory) is significant in the root causes of PG accidents, the system which makes up the complete aircraft of course includes the pilot! So theory and practices based on that theory is only part of the system.

 ONLY by also including a significant amount of HP&L training from 'day one', can we add in practice & procedures from the very start of you flying which will help reduce (but still never totally avoid) paragliding accidents.

 Many other areas are well covered in the training at PPC, all being built on from the very first day. One especially important to pilots in use of and solid understanding of, MET information, this in today's information rich medium of the internet can greatly assist in safe flying and avoid pilots having the typical poor ratio of non flown/flyable days that most UK pilots experience.....  

Pilots need to be aware that those in the mainstream of paragliding could if they wished, easily also produce a drop the accident, injury & death rate among their members in the range of 70-90% (new pilots) and around 30% to 70% in those previously trained who go on to re-train!

However to do this they would have to finally face up to the errors in what they have been teaching for years.... this would of course require also facing up to the responsibility for a significant percentage of past accidents which were not in fact just down to 'pilot error' but rather actually instruction error.

ALL PG pilots have a simple choice..... are you going to be like those who continue to support theories and practices that result in the high accidents rates the sport suffers from despite advances in the equipment over the last 20 years or will you CHOOSE instead to become part of the solution?

Because if you are not part of the solution then (even if only by your inaction) then you ARE part of the problem!

So what do we do about the common errors?

 At Precision Paragliding during every stage of training of new pilots (or re-training of BHPA pilots), we start by first looking at 'normal' PG theory (and so practice), then with the addition of clear and simple evidence the pilot will be able to work out for themselves, the core reasons why far too many pilots down the years have (and continue to have) largely avoidable accidents!

 By using correct knowledge & understanding of PG flight, any PG pilot who wishes can greatly increase their chance of avoiding most common types of PG accidents, however due to unsafe regression the damage done by the errors their first training was based on can never be fully corrected.

 In addition our improved training generally leads to pilots flying many more hours that the normal in the UK, while more hours flying might be presumed to give rise to greater risks (more 'exposure') in fact it keeps pilots current, which in it's self assists can significantly improve the pilots safety.

So what is the typical view/comment I get from pilots who started with the BHPA then switched to a far safer standard.

The following is a copy of a post one re-training pilot made on a Scottish PG newsgroup.... as a result he was immediately banned as they do not wish the truth about their 'standard' to be known!

Hi,

Read the recent postings regarding training schools and noticed a recommendation to avoid Dundee school.

I currently train with the school I assume these posts refer to and would be interested in hearing why you think he should be avoided.

I completed elementary training with a BHPA school 12 years ago and have to say that in comparison ,thus far anyway, I have found the training in Dundee to be much more in-depth, thorough and safety conscious than any I received in almost a year with the BHPA school. I have had about 10 times the airtime in Dundee than in over a year with BHPA School and always in a safe secure and well instructed environment.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are first class BHPA schools out there who have excellent experience teaching pilots and would have no hesitation recommending them when I find them. Similarly I would have absolutely no hesitation in recommending the Dundee school to anyone who wants to learn properly and safely and how to handle less than ideal conditions. I have seen many BHPA CPs on sites and have watched trainees with the Dundee school out fly and out control them enough times now to convince me of the quality of the instruction I receive there. I myself, with my very limited experience, recently successfully took of doing a reverse launch in very light conditions after three BHPA cps told me it was impossible and a alpine launch was the only way. One of the pilots had 20years BHPA experience.

I would like to add that I am not writing this to promote one school or teaching method over another and have the utmost respect for any instructor who teaches with intelligence, sensitivity and safely. However, I cannot sit by and watch one school be derided over another without justification or publication of facts to back it up.

I hope therefore that the people who posted the message regarding the Dundee schools reputation can substantiate their negative comments and look forward to reading them with interest.

As a P.S I would perhaps like to add that while I was training with the BHPA school on every occasion I was there someone had an accident. These ranged from the usual minor ankle and wrist sprains to more serious back injuries. In two months of weekly training in Dundee I have yet to see an accident of any kind.

Regards

Joe.

NB. I was not aware he was posting on this group until he brought it to my attention in a email.

As the rash of ATTACKS (the standard approach of these BHPA pilots) was cross posted on another news group which I am a member of, I forwarded a sample of these to Joe, he then made the following post on that newsgroup....

Hi All,

It was myself who posted the original message in defence of Murray
on the SMPC forum. You might be interested to note that I have now
been banned from the site after my 1 and only post. I wonder if the
site moderator has taken similar action on the other posters. I
doubt it!

It was not my intention to start a huge debate on the subject but
merely to redress the unjustified (in my opinion) comments made to a
new flyer regarding Murrays teaching. I don't have an issue with any
one recommending any school BHPA or other wise what I did object to
was the recommendation to avoid the Dundee school without any
reasoning given other than 'speak to the boys down at the Steading
if you don't know where I'm coming from'.

However, it really does seem that 'all of us are equal but some of
us are more equal than others' or maybe its just a case of 'you can
say what you like on here as long as we agree with it'.

As I said in my original post on the smpc site I have great respect
for any instructor who teaches intelligently and safely wether they
are BHPA, BHPC or NA other and who understands how to instruct.

I am a qualified instructor in outdoor education and know a good
instructor when I see one and can spot someone who knows what they
are talking about a mile away. I am also intelligent enough and have
enough experience in a multitude of 'extreme' sports never to just
accept what people tell me without question. People may not agree
with all the theories and methods Murray adopts however they should
respect his opinions and they should respect his safety record and
finally they should accept the views of past and current trainees
who have then gone on to become safe and active flyers. Just because
the 'establishment' doesn't agree with him does it mean that all he
teaches is necessarily wrong?

If it were not for 'deviance' would the 'norms' ever change?

regards

Joe

What is certain is that BHPA membership numbers are in decline, in a recent copy of Skywings they reported over 400 notified accidents in a two year period..... it is worth noting that excluding deaths (far too many of those) at best only around 1/3rd of accidents are ever formally reported and this figure many in fact be as low as only 10%..... a couple of years ago when visiting a BHPA site in England in one afternoon (great flying conditions) I personally witnessed EIGHT accidents!

Of the 40 odd accidents summarised in the article the average pilot age was 49.... so an ageing pilot base and a lowering of the numbers of new pilots joining... is it connected with their low standards as indicated by the accident rates?

[ Home ] [ Training ] [ Video Clips ] [ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ] [ Located in Scotland ] [ 'Respected Pilots' ] [ Insurance ] [ PG newsgroups ] [ ESP club ]

Send mail to murray@pbmphotographic.co.uk with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 06/19/07