Appendix 3
Safety Bulletin No 3 Welcome to Safety Bulletin No 3. This will be a departure from the earlier bulletins, it is shorter and is included as part of the Nation’s Favourite Read. The relative brevity is down to the fact that I am packing my kit for a trip to Spain, departing tomorrow. More crucially, at the moment of writing it looks flyable on Barton so something has to give. I had undertaken to provide a summary of Chris Little’s Columbian accident in this bulletin. However, for reasons which I will explain I have decided not to provide a summary but use the example as a more general discussion on the Club’s approach to safety and the value of forum discussion. It was my hope that we, as a flying community, could adopt a more open attitude to safety. In particular I hoped that our forum would become the principal means of achieving this openness. In Bulletin 2, I analyzed at some length Rick’s mini‐wing accident on Wolf Crag. We should be particularly grateful to Rick whose openness demonstrated the value of this approach. It provided a number of important lessons in the areas of glider choice, pre‐flight checks, emergency and first aid procedures, the restorative effects of gas and air and much more. The result has been greater awareness of important safety issues and a demand for more club based activity in support of safety training and awareness: first aid, mountain rescue, safety focused social evenings, SIV training. My hope is that this is not a short term surge in interest in response to the recent accidents. There are encouraging signs that this is not the case which is demonstrated by the forum response to Chris’s Columbian accident. After initial discussion on the accident it became clear that the main area of interest (and controversy) was his choice of wing. As a result, Ali Westle initiated a secondary thread on Glider Choice. The combined total of posts on the two threads exceeded 70 with just short of 1000 viewings. In summary; Chris was flying his Ozone M6, an EN D wing. Several pilots challenged this choice arguing that such a choice is intrinsically unsafe. Furthermore, the intricacies, physical and mental, of flying such a high performance glider actually detract from the flying experience and can reduce the potential achievement of the actual flight, measured by, say, distance achieved. Much of the discussion was conducted by some of the club’s most experienced pilots. Strong opinions were evident. Chris robustly defended his choice but it is probably fair to say some of his critics were not convinced by his argument. This highlights an important issue with paragliding safety. As pilots, where does our responsibility to other pilots lie? We call it free flight. We are all free to fly whatever wing we want. Equally, if we see a pilot doing something which we feel is unsafe we must have some degree of moral responsible to speak out. Equally, if criticized, we are fully entitled to argue our case and carry on. As CSO my view is that I (we) are required to inform pilots (in a polite, non‐pontificating manner) where we believe their choices are unsafe. It is not my (your) job to harass and harangue. I believe the forum, in spite of some initial misgivings, can achieve this function and in this instant succeeded. And again I would like to thank Chris Little for airing the subject. As to the content of the discussion, it was wide ranging but at times fairly nuanced. It would be hard to produce a summary that does justice to all the views expressed, so I won’t. I suggest any pilot thinking of moving up an EN category takes a look. As one of my contributions to the discussion I said “This latter part of the discussion on the thread, Wing Choice, is probably the least relevant to most of our pilots in that it has become focused almost entirely on the wisdom of upgrading to an EN D wing. How many of you out there are thinking of flying an EN D? Well good for you, I'm sure you know where/who to go to for advice in the unlikely event you need it. For the rest of us mere mortals what advice is there for pilots considering going from A to B or perhaps C? Or it, seems more relevantly, to climb the performance ladder within the EN B category”. I still think this is true. One of the interesting and important lines of discussion that did emerge from the thread was the massive variation of performance (and hence safety) within the EN B classification with several comments along the lines that EN rating is not a useful start point for choosing a low/mid‐range glider. As evidence it was pointed out the 2016 Ozone Comp at Chabre will base its classes on aspect Ratio. Simply put, it’s all about Aspect Ratio! (the ratio of the flat Span/Average chord.) There is a great deal of information on this issue out there. I chose to look at the February – March edition of Cross Country Magazine No 157 for enlightenment. It contains details of a discussion and comment by various paraglider designers. Here is a flavour: “The higher the aspect ratio, the more intelligent the conversation between you and the wing has to be.[…] but you need to be able to understand the conversation.”
“In the last few years there has been a revolution in glider design, plastic rods, sharknose, more efficient line layouts, 3D panel shaping and cleaner aerofoils. Wings are punchier, easy to fly and more collapse resistant. An outcome is that performance wings are regularly getting EN C or even EN B ratings. The upside is safer wings however it has implications for pilot education. The Gin Carerra is often used as an example of the problem. It was designed as an EN C class glider but was given EN B certification although the manufacturer insists that it is for experienced XC pilots. Although that is how it was marketed there were cases of EN B pilots getting on board and getting a fright. Being a B wing does not mean it is for B pilots”. “It is all about balancing the progression of longer skinnier gliders becoming safer because of advances in design with the need for pilot education. The message is slowly getting through. Pilots need to make themselves much more aware about the characteristics of the wing before flying them”. “Relying on EN Class was never enough, and is even less important now” High Aspect Versus Low Aspect Given the same overall weight, in general a pilot can expect: Lower A/R
The glider will roll more easily and will be more maneuverable; you can turn more easily in a thermal.
Has more induced drag. (drag created by wing tip vortices etc)
… but less parasitic drag. (drag created by lines, wing surfaces etc)
…. Hence performance is not so good.
Has easier launch characteristics.
Will be more forgiving of pilot error.
Higher A/R
Has less roll so takes more space to turn.
Has less induced drag …
… but more parasitic drag
… which results in a better glide performance. Has more demanding launch and flying characteristics.
Needs more precise piloting and will be less forgiving of errors.
“low A/R wings are more forgiving in every situation … when the glider moves [on launch or in the air] if the pilot’s reactions are late then they can have problems” For interest, here are a few examples of wings and ENB ratings: Manufacturer Glider
Aspect Ratio
EN Rating Comment
Ozone
Atom 3
4.26
A
Buzz Z5
5.16
B
Rush 4
5.55
B
Delta 2
6.0
C
Mantra 6
6.9
D
Advance
Alpha
4.8
A
Epsilon
5.15
B
Iota
5.5
B
Sigma
5.8
C
Omega X Alps
6.9
D
Gin
Bolero
4.8
A
Atlas
5.21
B
Carerra
6.2
B
Boomerang 10
7.7
CCC
“performance class”
Data taken from manufacturer web sites.
The key point for pilots thinking of changing gliders particularly in the EN B classification is to seek advice from a trusted source. (and perhaps avoid a bargain Carrera on E Bay) There is a massive choice out there, particularly in the EN B classification. The key to making the right choice is to be absolutely honest in your self‐assessment; you have to balance your flying aspirations with your ability. If they don’t match make the effort to balance the equation. But returning to the theme of safety on the forum! Not all the discussion has been about accidents. There have been a number of posts referring to incidents and situations not resulting in an injury but which could have done so in slightly different circumstances. The full details are on the forum for those interested however: http://www.cumbriasoaringclub.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3709 Ali starts a thread “4 bad things happen to me”. Each event could have caused a serious problem but everything worked out for the better. It’s worth looking at if you haven’t already but the lessons are:
Do your pre‐flight checks.
If you land, do them again.
If you’re flying and things look weird, don’t panic.
Review all your new equipment for potential inflight problems (even gloves).
James Harrison continued the movement with a confession that having landed and removed his helmet he failed to refasten. It fell off in flight. Happy ending, he managed to find it in the snow. Pre‐flight checks ‐ again! Simon Blake then responded with the stronger advice along with evidence for his view – “NEVER under any circumstances, be strapped to a paraglider without a helmet fastened on your head”. James Jackson joined the fray with his description of a Winter fly‐down from Blease. “Anyway, within 2 minutes I was at cloud base on big‐ears and full speed bar with the wing thrashing around. Oh, and by now it was snowing!” The lesson he identified was if your head says “it feels a bit weird, don’t take off in this” but your heart says “go on, it’ll be a laugh”…. listen to your head! Actually there are no new lessons in any of this. It is a reiteration of all the lessons learnt when we started out as pilots but subsequently have lost sight of due to over‐familiarity, over confidence, a blasé attitude or perhaps rushing to get in the air. This is the value of our Forum Discussion. It serves as an ongoing reality check and an aide memoire. Because we share a familiarity with the pilots involved and the sites they are flying it resonates and is more likely to sink in. Please read the Club Forum even if you don’t intend to post. Fly lots, fly safe! Chris Field CSO
Appendix 4
Grid and Notam Reference The previous version of the CSC emergency card included a selection of site locations. However, given the range and number of sites this is impractical. So, I have extracted a list of all current CSC sites with the OS grid reference and for good measure the CANP/Notam reference for those members who wish to create a personal site list. We recommend that you print out and carry a copy of this with you whenever you fly in the lakes so that you
can give the grid reference to emergency services. – Chris Field Safety Officer. Site
GRID 675870
NOTAM
Barkin Fell
SIERRA DELTA
Barton Fell
NOVEMBER YANKEE 463212
Bewaldeth
NOVEMBER YANKEE 211362
17.014
Black Combe (East)
SIERRA DELTA
149850
17.055
Black Combe (South)
SIERRA DELTA
131828
17.055
Black Combe (West)
SIERRA DELTA
119862
17.055
Bleansley
SIERRA DELTA
204895
17.056
Blease Fell
NOVEMBER YANKEE 306261
17.023
Brigsteer
SIERRA DELTA
488892
17.022
Burlington
SIERRA DELTA
251844
17.059
Burnbank
NOVEMBER YANKEE 112213
17.058
Burney Fell
SIERRA DELTA
17.059
Buttermere Moss
NOVEMBER YANKEE 187169
Carrock Fell
NOVEMBER YANKEE 348338
17.004
Clough Head
NOVEMBER YANKEE 328231
17.006
Coniston Old Man
SIERRA DELTA
276974
Corney Fell
SIERRA DELTA
138920
Ellerside
SIERRA DELTA
354805
17.063
Farlton Knot
SIERRA DELTA
538804
17.013
Great Langdale
NOVEMBER YANKEE 285073
Haig Pit
NOVEMBER XRAY 965177
Humphrey Head
SIERRA DELTA
392735
17.066
Jenkin Hill
NOVEMBER YANKEE 279264
17.072
Latrigg
NOVEMBER YANKEE 277246
17.067
Lowca
NOVEMBER XRAY 980215
17.068
Rebecca
SIERRA DELTA
Sandbeds/West Fell
NOVEMBER YANKEE 326364
17.071
Silecroft
SIERRA DELTA
118815
17.055
Souther
NOVEMBER YANKEE 355291
17.015
St Bees
NOVEMBER XRAY 962117
Swinside
NOVEMBER YANKEE 174243
Troutbeck
NOVEMBER YANKEE 423032
259855
17.053
230784
17.076
Ullock Pike
NOVEMBER YANKEE 240304
17.077
Walla Crags
NOVEMBER YANKEE 277214
17.078
Wastwater Screes
NOVEMBER YANKEE 135025
Whinfell
SIERRA DELTA
588999
Whibarrow Scar
SIERRA DELTA
455850
17.081
Whitestones
SIERRA DELTA
635984
17.064
Wolf Crags
NOVEMBER YANKEE 362223
17.083
Wrynose Pass
NOVEMBER YANKEE 279030
17.084
17.08
Club Emergency Card Following a spate of accidents we have re‐visited the Club Emergency Card, an aide memoire for use in the event of an accident. The attached version is an amalgamation of several versions that are in use by various clubs and organisations. The intention is that members can print and laminate the card as they wish. Any comments and suggestions should be sent to the CSO. These will be incorporated into a final version which will be professionally produced in credit card style and issued to all members. The previous CSC emergency card included a selection of site locations. However, given the range and number of sites this is impractical. So, I have extracted a list of all current CSC sites with the OS grid reference and for good measure the CANP/Notam reference for those members who wish to create a personal site list. For technical reasons this will be sent in a separate email to all members. Chris Field (CSO)