typical rookie mistake: judging by movement over ground and taking it for true air speed. causing the pilot to brake dangerously close to stall speeds, the final 180 degree turn was the final push, braking on the right side in order to turn caused right wing to stall, and enter a flat spin
judging by the wing, the pilot should not be a rookie
caraio, vocês devem colocar no video oque aconteceu, para que outros pilotos não cometam omesmo erro, ficam dessa discordia igual melheres, curva aixa altura sem respeitar a direção dovento e a velocidade de curva, esclareção oky
@ocosmos Pow mas nesse video foi simples, o cara exagerou no freio do lado direito, o lado entrou em stall e spinou. Claro, considerando condicao do vento, o gradiente...erro juvenil, o cara devia ser cabaco :-P
Abracao, meu velho, bons voos ! (To ha 2 sem voar, desde que me mudei pra Noruega. Nao vejo a hora de trazer a vela, hehe)
Hello!Don't fight friends :) What murray hay is saying is true, many paragliding trainers aren't that responsible especially in training. Rarely an instructor really care about their students.. I salute one of my paragliding instructor Mr Bernad (who are an instructor in Bali).. He focus on correct timing and knowledge to fly, not just aiming to launch a student in the air. Murray Hay emphasizes and give opportunity for those who don't know where to get retraining and he offers his expertise.
That's not the definition of arrogance. Measuring self-worth relative to others is exactly how Murrayhay attacks the BHPA (and other clubs) at every opportunity. Anyone ghoulish enough to exploit fatal incidents to promote his agenda and call others homicidal is going to attract some much deserved criticism. I gave this guy every chance in PM's I ignored the warning signs of entire communities set against him and leading websites that he's rendered useless, I learned the root of the problem.
In paragliding Arrogance is not only VERY dangerous it very much a case of insisting that 'The Emperor's New Clothes' are in fact fine... when the TRUTH is that is not the case...
Put it simply is is only due to idiots like you that PG accident rates can be MAINTAINED.... as more and more pilots work out that the REASON for 'normal' accident rates is the 'normal' training things, sports wide, WILL rapidly improve!
Remember PG pilots CHOOSE to RE-train for a very good reason! SAFETY!
I wonder if the number of BHPA deaths, serious injuries during 2009.... and of course the significant monetry cost to the country (emergency services/power outages due to PG pilots 'taking out' powerlines... etc.) have resulted in Dorbie to reconsider WHO is 'arrogant'.
Yet again in '09, at sites our club flys, we have seen BHPA 'trained' pilots who have required ambulances and even one heli medivac flight....
How many more deaths/injuries will it take before the BHPA Limited change?
Murray, you're an arrogant ghoulish self-promoting prick. I'm not even in the BHPA.
You have waged a single handed campaign against conventional aeronautical theory. In communications where I attempted to reach out to you you were so entrenched and unamenable to reason that you disputed Newton's 3rd law of motion; you made yourself look like a moron.
Your lack of reason and bullshit has shut down an entire PG site causing members to flee your nonsense. Now go sell stupid somewhere else.
The blood of the injured & dead is also on the hands of ALL THOSE IN THE SPORT WHO CHOOSE TO SUPPORT / FUND the incompetent 'sporting bodies' which CHOOSE to keep injuring and killing PG pilots rather that face up to their incompetence....
There is nothing 'ghoulish' in pointing out incompetent instructors/sporting bodies KILL/injure the suckers they have conned
Never forget the vast majority if my students are CHOOSING to RE-train following being INJURED by BHPA stupidity & greed...
Scum like you can lie all you want (Ref: your current comment on Newton's 3rd Law and what I teach) however no matter how often those like you lie the bottom line is that what I teach saves lives and what you support has a L O N G history of generating accidents, injuries & deaths...
As was pointed out on the PG forum not long ago.... all I need do is keep outliving idiots like the BHPA... something I've managed easily for the last 6,000hrs airtime!
@murrayhay The fact remains that you're one man in opposition to an entire club and further, in opposition to the international community because you spread your bullshit to public forums and single-handedly destroyed a great website that others had built. You've bulshitted and pedantically feigned superiority in personal discussions with me after I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
We both know I'm not lying about you denying Newton's 3rd law. It's right there in my inbox. Shall I quote it?
Never forget that it is due to the incompetence of individuals like YOU that groups like the BHPA (and USHGPA etc.) keep injuring & killing pilots!
And as shown in the comments here I am far from being a single person trying to stop these idiots killing yet more PG pilots, every year more and more in the sport are CHOOSING life over the incompetence of the so called 'sporting bodies'!
Newton's 3rd.. Post away... but for once try to avoid lying yet again!
It is your own inability to communicate effectively and reach ANY comon ground with others that undermines your teaching efforts.
You jumped the gun, my other followup has already established that I was correct on Newton's 3rd law and you were wrong using your typically arrogant style AND you just lied about it.
'Common ground' REQUIRES a CORE to work from but as 95% of 'normal' teaching is DANGEROUS there is NO 'common ground'...
I've been teaching paragliding since the late 90's, mainly for students CHOOSING to train/RE-train including PPL inst. & airline pilots... so clearly communications is no problem.. of course PROVIDED pilots ARE willing to think!
Re: 'ARROGANCE' IT KILLS, AS THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT SHOWS..
Lying, as you do simply helps 'sporting bodies' kill/injure yet more people.
the quotes and posts are accurate. You simultaneously want to deny it AND argue the point. Calling the bedrock of modern aerodynamics wrong is a pretty major flaw when it comes to core theory.
The beauty of the action and reaction model in dynamic flight totally accounts for all factors emerging from measurements or CFD calculations.
It's not my stupidity, it's self evident very basic Newtonian physics that all modern aerodynamicists know.
Ask a COMMERCIAL qualified pilot if much of what is taught at 'PPL' level is in fact not just simplified but is often in fact 'simplified' to such a level as to be wrong.. and they will tell you it is!
When we look at what is 'taught' in 'normal' PG 'training' 95% is totaly wrong.. this would not matter if it was not for the FACT these errors RESULT in a LOT of injured & dead pilots.....
YOU have a choice, keep playing Russian Roulette with lives, or look to SAFE alternatives...
Try and grasp basic PHYSICS.... Powered aircraft (during the thrust stages of flight) are 'FOUR Force' aircraft, often (but not always) flying PITCH +, and with a (range of) +AoA..
PG's, SUBJECT under question are 'THREE Force' aircraft -Pitch -AoA
'Wake' has a number of speeds relevant.. ROTATION (BIGGEST risk) 'seperation' (slow) as the two wakes drift outwards, wake also drifts downwards slowly.. mainly wake REMAINS in the location it was generated! In soaring wake drifts up slope
In POWERED flight with the wing PITCHED + air is FORCED downwards by the underside of the wing to a far greater extent than air is ALSO forced upwards by the upper surface of the wing..
Now YOUR stupidity/incompetence is shown yet again!
While in a GLIDING (no power) flight the air is 'split' UP & DOWN.. and the GLIDING wing has a NEGATIVE Pitch... Wake in paragliding drifts with air movement as the energy in it dissipates to the rest of the air!
Any local movement in air will dissipate, it is still a net downward displacement.
Imagine a skydiver exits an aircraft and reaches terminal velocity, compare him to a man falling in a vacuum. What do you think happens to the air underneath the skydiver throughout terminal?
You do not understand Newton's 3rd as it applies to lift in aerodynamics.
You're so dumb you think there's a free reactionary ride when it comes to lift against gravity, and you call OTHERS ignorant.
You still don't show understanding of basic PHYSICS... i.e it's YOU thats 'dumb'
I can only advise YOU try to go back to the basics, the PITCH of a steady state gliding wing is NEGATIVE... due to it's negative pitch it 'slides' FORWARDS & DOWNWARDS through the air, as can be SEE (underside of PG) in a glide the 'dominant force' follows Bernoulli rather than Newton...
The incompetence of those like YOU, as is seen from history KILLS & injures PG pilots!
YOU have shown yet again that YOU don't understand the basics of THREE Force gliding aircraft i.e. includes paragliders!
Remember GRAVITY force on mass is always VERTICAL.. so for 'lift' to be 'equal & opposite' (as YOU state) Lift on a paraglider would be REQUIRED to be vertical, clearly this is NOT the case in any THREE Force gliding aircraft during steady state flight, as there is NO '4th force' to ballance DRAG!
THREE Force aircraft in a steady glide MUST 'zero sum' Lift/Gravity/DRAG
I have already stated and agreed that the forces are ballanced on a paraglider that is not accelerating, but that does not imply what you claim it does.
You keep dodging back to these force claims. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Drag in a steady state counteracts the component of rearward deflected air that gives the wing forward thrust against drag so horizontal deflection is zero, in a steady state, but things are not always in a steady state.
Yet again YOU clearly refuse to study the basic PHYSICS!
Starting with the simplest, Forces on the pilots MASS
Primary Vector: GRAVITY is DIRECTLY DOWN
Drag on the pilot is 'backwards'
Vector Addition gives a RESULTANT Force acting 'Down&Back'
In a steady state glide (no acceleration) we KNOW (Newton 3) there MUST be a ballancing force that is Equal & Opposite to D&B.. this is LIFT from the airflow PAST the PG is UP & FORWARD!
That silly line is getting old, as is your ignorance.
There are two congruent compatible ways to conceptualize, action/reaction model and force vector. They are NEVER inconsistent and are two aspects of the same model.
Wing at trim, pulled down by gravity deflects air back and down, backwards deflection is offset exactly by drag (push), downwards deflection is the action that generates lift reaction.
Calling the component forces a ham sandwich, doesn't alter the physics.
Old... yep it is old news that the theory/practice/procedures YOU support RESULTS in a LOT of injured/dead pilots.
Try to grasp the basic fact that IF I was stupid enough to teach the nonsense you keep stating I would see the same accident. injury & death rates as YOU support... It's NEVER going to happen as I care about my students and pilots in general.
Inconsitent.... It's simple ONE of us is DANGEROUS and ONE of us saves lives.. Two DIRECTLY OPPOSING views in PHYSICS are NOT the 'same'
I am intrested in saving lives so I ONLY ever teach based on solid PHYSICS...
'Clowns' don't scare me as I have NEVER been stupid enough to fly based on the sort of nonsense YOU keep spouting... Shame those like YOU keep injuring & KILLING PG pilots...
NOTE: 'Flat' wings, also both symmetrical and asymmetrical airfoils can all fly, PROVIDED FLOWN WITHIN THE DESIGN PARAMETERS...
Understanding the (PHYSICS) diffrences between THREE & FOUR force flight is VITAL to PG flight safety!
Earlier I pointed out YOUR incompetence regarding 'Forces', the method I used was to high light the simple Vector ADDITION (PHYSICS) that is VITAL to reducing/eliminating PG launch accident/deaths..
Before you try ''Spliting vectors' you need to understand that in steady GLIDING flight 'Lift' NEVER is 'Equal & Opposite' to Gravity...
Any force vector can be split into component force vectors along any desired orientation using a simple mathematical vector dot products and vector * scalar.
This permits for example the calculation of the vertical component of lift. And in a steady glide the vertical component of life is always the exact opposite of gravity.
Vectors can be resolved into (by convention) components WHICH WOULD IF THEY IN FACT EXISTED, GENERATE THE SAME EFFECT ON A MASS AT ANY GIVEN INSTANT...
Convention FOR ANY GIVEN CASE, is chosen as suits the problem under study, in PG as the Prime Force Vector is Gravity on pilots MASS, that is the refrence starting point (PG's are used to MOVE the PILOT!)
IF teaching is based on the incompetence YOU display the RESULT is far too often moving the pilots mass to their death!
Quote: 'The wing at trim, pulled down by gravity..'
Time you learnt some BASIC PHYSICS!
FACT: Gravity mainly acts on the (larger) PILOTs MASS.. this RESULTS (via the lines) in a force ***ON THE WING*** due to the pilots 'G Load AND Parasitic Drag... that is Down AND BACKWARDS. Lift is (steady glide state) UP & FORWARDS, Bernoulli in action as the air flows PAST the top & bottom surface gives the wing it's 'inflated' shape.
NB there is of course also gravity acting directly on the wing)
You really think I don't know where the load on a PG wing comes from you fuckwit?
You get Newton's 3rd UTTERLY WRONG. You claim Bernoulli is in play INSTEAD of Newton and then you come up with self-superior bullshit like this.
Forward component of lift is the reaction for deflected air action rearward. The deflected air forward "pushed" is the action resulting in drag reaction. They cancel perfectly in stable flight.
Quote: Drag in a steady state counteracts the component of ***rearward deflected air that gives the wing forward thrust*** against drag **so horizontal deflection is zero**.
This incompetent statment appears to indicate that YOU think that 'thrust' (to ballance drag) is simply due to Newton 3rd on the underside of the wing... Totaly ignoring the top of the wing! Not even the BHPA are that incompetent!
As for 'Horiz deflection is zero'.... Well TRY to remember GLIDING wings fly FORWARDS!
This highlights that YOU don't understand the action reaction model on a wing. It's NOT just deflected air from the underside. It is all the deflected air from the wing from all aerodynamic effects.
You're such a dishonest fuckwit it's not even possible to have an argument with you Murray. You take your own ignorance and stupidity and project it.
Gliding wings do NOT accelerate forwards or backwards. Horizontal components of force sum to zero, this is Newton's first law you moron.
To continue, horizontal drag is exactly ballanced by forward thrust. Both deflect air in exactly equal proportion, net zero effect. (you can ascribe different labels to these force vectors), however lift under gravity, (a constant acceleration force), is a reaction to the vertical action of dicplaced air.
The forces on the wing STILL sum to zero in a steady state, but the lift action comes from something other than pixie dust.
Quote: The forces on the wing STILL sum to zero in a steady state...
Idiot, TRY learning
1) what a PG aircraft consists of
2) How it flys.. (basic PHYSICS!)
NB In teaching PG using PHYSICS (so slashing accident rates!) a PG is best viewed as an aircraft with an under slung load (Pilots Mass).. Clearly YOUR statment (forces on wing sum zero) is incompetent as it ignores the FACTS of PG flight, it would also help if YOU remembered the wing has an upper surface!
Thats the problem with incompetent scum like YOU.... The point I have ALWAYS MADE IS THAT IN TEACHING PARAGLIDING IT IS BEST TO LOOK AT THE SIMPLE STATE FIRST (steady gliding flight, i.e. NO acceleration) when scum like YOU finaly start to grasp YOUR errors YOU try to deflect by changing 'colours'...
NEVER forget it takes those like YOU for the injuries & deaths to remain at their 'normal' appaling levels.. the blood is on YOUR hands!
You've shown why you are an international pariah and why your presence killed the worlds largest thriving online PG community.
I started this exchange in PMs giving you the benefit of the doubt but learned why you earned your pariah status.
Keep spouting the same shite here, it'll keep you off the forums you're not banned from and may save a life. The only pilot I know suckered by your crap is the only one I know to have near fatal PG accidents.
YOU and those like YOU are responsibe for a LOT of injured & dead pilots... TRY to grasp a basic fact of life... PG pilots will never come to an alternative training method (having already ended up in hospital due to the incompetence YOU support...!) because they wish to ***Increase their accident risk*** rather THEY COME TO ME TO AVOID HAVING PG ACCIDENTS!!!
I know a LOT of pilots who have had near fatal PG accidents! Remember 75% of my students come to RE-train!
Those reading these comments can look at Dorbie ~ With 14 YouTube clips, most NOT of PG.. no information on how often/much flying he does Etc. no information as to if he has ever been involved in teaching etc.
Me, well PLENTY of evidence on YouTube in Paraglider Magazine, on the PG Show Etc. etc. that not only do I fly thousands of hours, teach 100's of students (MOST CHOOSING TO RE-TRAIN WITH ME!)
They can of course READ what Dorbie in FACT stated... and STUDY his highlighted errors
The great thing about PHYSICS is it is objective, physics does NOT 'care' what a PG pilot was taught/thinks....
PHYSICS is impartial, get it RIGHT and you 'tend' in the middle of a 'bell curve' centered on SAFE flight...
OR
If your incompetent PG instructor has the PHYSICS totally wrong then YOU will 'tend' to hit the middle of the 'bell curve' of normal PG accident rates and so have a FAR higher risk of death/injury as the HISTORY of the sport shows!
So you DON'T think that when Ali5mith became 'moderator' (after me) and deemed it 'acceptiable' to have 100 'cut & past' posts that stated 'Murray Fucks Goats' on every thread I was on... that THAT action (in breach of the long established forum rules!) was the main reason that AFTER I WAS NO LONGER ON BIG AIR... Forum use & membership No's. crashed...
NOTE: When I was moderator of Big Air I was asked to, (and did) approve the posts Ref: the (new) PG Forum,
It's a fact you killed that forum and have been banned from it's replacement after being given more chances than you deserve. You're delusional to deny it, pilots deserted it DURING your tenure saying they left because of your stupidity.
I really didn't know what was going on with you and gave you the benefit of the doubt but like everyone else who gives you a chance, you showed what a tool you are.
Wrong! Ali5mith drove in the nails that killed Big Air!
The fact is that there are 2 approaches to training, 1 side RESULTS in the accident, injury & death rates that are regarded as 'normal'... the OTHER (mine) approach has (for 12 years) RESULTED in as much as a 95% REDUCTION in PG accident risk.
As this is all about SAFETY PG pilots can chose which how much RISK they want in the sport..
BTY I'm just back from a great afternoons flying with Kalid & Adrian.. BOTH CHOSE TO RE-TRAIN!
Murray YOU killed Big Air and the world knows it, everyone who knew anything about physics left because they got sick of your inaccurate incessant badgering bullshit.
Paraglidingforum was chosen by many as the best alternative and it became the new venue almost ovenight, it has now banned you completely after many warnings; you can't have a rational factual discussion with anyone.
BigAir is advertising that your ass is gone to tempt people back.
So Dorbie YOU don't think that having many 100 'cut & past' posts all saying 'Murray Fucks Goats'... and those posts being 'approved' by the new 'Moderator'...... had anything to do with BigAir membership crashing AFTER I STOPPED BEING MODERATOR OF BIG AIR... was the reason..
Well I think most reading all this can work out just how YOU 'think'!
Murray, that's a diversion. Whatever happened after you killed the forum is pretty irrelevant to most pilots. By then the forum was a turd-rate also ran.
People openly state why they left that forum. The reason is YOU. Why even deny this?
There were tumble weeds blowing through due to your being ensconced as a moderator. Pointing the finger at something years later that bent your nose out of shape is irrelevant, except to your reality distortion field, it's a sad excuse.
Dorbie, as I've already pointed out YOU stating something that is un-true is lying!
YOU say 'years later'... NOT SO!
As the then moderator of BigAir a significant part of the workload was removing abusive post, MANY OF WHICH WERE NOT DIRECTED AT ME... True I was a major 'target' but at least those attacks ('Goats' etc') were easy to deal with, i.e. unlike other more 'borderline' dodgy posts which would be discused with Jerome/Kinsley etc. before removal/let to stand..
Just one more thing you disagree with the world on. People know what killed bigair and caused the exodus. YOU. It was overtly stated by those who left.
Every forum gets spam and abuse, that was not the issue. Your stupidity was.
It's the same reason you're now banned from the replacement. THE biggest paragliding forum online & The Great Gob of Murray Hay is BANNED.
I suppose you have an excuse for that too.
You'll have to post your excuse on Youtube, because you can't there :-)
It is SIMPLE, what YOU call 'my stupidity' is my absolute refusal to injure & kill students by teaching the nonsense THAT HAS SINCE THE SPORT STARTED RESULTED IN THE ACCIDENT, INJURY AND DEATH RATES REGARDED AS 'NORMAL'.
NOTE: Despite the fact they refuse to change in a way that will easily cut PG accident rates, as seen (YET AGAIN!) in Skywings even Dave Thomson says 'We need to change'!
Just how stupid do you have to be to KNOW you need to change, yet to REFUSE to cut accident rates??
@dorbie Quote: You'll have to post your excuse on Youtube, because you can't there :-)
YOU choose to ' :-) '... well that says it all, YOU are happy to see action taken that RESULTS in yet more injuries & deaths... REMEMBER just like Dave Thomson MANY pilots on the PG Forum say there is a need for change... yet the 'moderators' CHOOSE to lock threads and to block (and no I am not refering to me here) posters that suggest/support alternatives to the theory/training that GENERATES PG ACCIDENTS!
But when it comes (just as an example) to YOUR safety I am totally objective.. in that it makes zero diffrence to me if you live or die..
This is as YOU have shown no intrest in acting to cut accident rates in PG, and as far as I can tell YOU don't teach/coach so YOUR incompetence only directly effects YOUR accident risk....
Hence as long as 'normal' PG injures/kills, I will keep providing RE-training!
Part 2 Lies again... I NEVER said Newton did not apply!
In fact Newton's 3rd is vital to PG gliding flight 'aircrafts with no primary rigid structure', (tension on the lines) however in steady state gliding flight it is the forces stated in Bernoulli that give the WING (material not the lines) it's structure 'inflated appearance'.
NB the level of stupidity to teach that PG's (in flight) are 'Ram Air' is directly reflected in the accident, injury & death rates that RESULT from 'normal' PG!
Murray, don't call me a liar for qouting you when your own quote was an attempt to impugn my Newtonian claims. You said "in a glide the 'dominant force' follows Bernoulli rather than Newton"
You're welcome to correct yourself but I was in no way unfair in that comment. All forces comply with ALL of Newton's law at ALL times.
I only call you a liar when YOU choose to! In the same way as because the 'normal' training YOU support DOES injure & KILL I highlight that fact as well!
NB I stated that Bernoulli('s Thorem) IS the 'dominate force' because it IS in fact the dominate force rather than Newtons 3rd... NOTE: Newton's 3rd however IS dominate during stalls and when 'wall building' The GREAT thing about teaching PG based on PHYSICS is it RESULTS in slashing accident rates!
A fact YOU clearly can't grasp is that what is commonly refered to as Newtonian World, works fine WITHIN IT'S LIMITS...
We are lucky in paragliding (low speed aviation) that (for all practical purposed) EVERYTHING is well explained by Bernoulli's Thorem & Newton's laws...
HOWEVER those thorem's & Laws MUST both understood AND applied correctly IF PG PILOTS WISH TO SEE ACCIDENT RATES SLASHED... fail to do so and you WILL tend to see 'normal' PG accident rates, YES IT IS THAT SIMPLE!
The limits of Newtonian physics do not apply to PG flight and the context of this discussion. Not even close by a million orders of magnitude in either direction. What a conceited arrogant git you are trying to make that non-point.
Bernoulli is bound by Newton's laws of motion it operates within Newton's laws you moron.
Try understanding Newton's 3rd under gravity before making insipid pronouncements on the limits of Newton you clown.
I did not say Bernoulli was the same as Newton, Liar.
I said it is bound by Newton. The resulting forces from Bernoulli also apply straight to a Newtonian model.
The modern way of treating this because Bernoulli and associated labels are outmoded w.r.t. modern theory, is to use action and reaction products of deflected air mass. It sums Bernouli, direct deflection, Coanda etc, the net fluid action results in a calculable wing reaction under all conditions.
If you had any class you'd apologise for lying, and then calling me a liar in the face of the evidence, but based on your track record I know that's impossible for your ego to handle.
That's a direct quote from your reply to that SPECIFIC section of post, and it is absolutely damning.
Now even IF you disagreed any level headed teacher would discuss theoretical differences but you just jumped right into your wide open gob with both feet using your usual bullshit hyperbole.
The question is not about 'class' (that is for others to judge... and CLEARLY THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO RE-TRAIN WITH ME SO THEY CAN AVOID ACCIDENTS don't agree with you on the subject of 'class'...
ALL I am intrested in is slashing PG accident rates, I do this by STARTING with each aspect of 'normal' PG theory, due to it's almost total incompetence it is EASY for THINKING students to gain insight into the direct connection with 'normal' PG accident, injuries & deaths!
Again when you're spanked on the theory you retreat to unsupported annecdotes about accident rates.
You've been absolutely owned on Newton's 3rd law here, you've shown your profound confusion.
Even if you have a workable force model that gets you by, being so wrong on the basics of theory yet so arrogant in calling the bedrock of modern aerodynamics and those who know it wrong is just astonishing.
You have no shame. Go dance on some more graves you self-promoting ghoul.
PLEASE explain exactly WHY what YOU support injures & kills so many pilots....
'Shame' Well let's see... I have spent thousands of pounds of my own money, and provided thousands of hours working to slash PG accident rates...
While those like YOU do everything they can to help incompetent 'sporting bodies' keep their instructors out of jail... and MAINTAIN the 'normal' accident, injury & death rates.
NEVER forget the graves are of YOUR & yours making
Your favourite tactic, resorting to baseless annecdotal claims that present you as the PG messiah after getting spanked on the theory. That's twice in three posts now.
When you can bring your ego to admit you were wrong in dismissing basic Newton's 3rd as it applies to air action vs wing reaction you'll be a lot closer to being able to communicate with the PG community you routinely call killers because they don't take everything you say about theory as gospel.
If you can't handle the basic PHYSICS you can always look at the 'OUTPUT' (in this case accident, injury & death rates) that RESULTS from a given 'Input' (Training/theory/practice/procedures)
What has been clear from the ACTIONS.. and CHOICES of those like you over the last 20 yrs is that it WILL take court action to stop DANGEROUS training!
12 years ago I was highlighting the incompetence of those like you and asking... HOW MANY MORE PILOTS MUST DIE?
Newton's 3rd actually refers to action and reaction dumbass.
Deflected airmass to anyone with a clue is the aggregate sum of all deflected air and could not possibly mean anything else. This is a classic example of you trying to cover up your total fuckup.
The deflected air is the action, I specifically call lift & drag on the wing the "reaction" It could not be clearer.
That quote is CORRECTLY taken from your SPECIFIC reply to that SPECIFIC section.
So now YOU label action and reaction forces and mentioned gravity force to observe that forces are ballanced in steady flight. Of course forces are ballanced in any steady non accelerating situation. (Amazing you think this is a revelation)
Upward lifting action on a wing still has the reaction of displaced air downwards.
Just as a hovering (or steadily descending) rocket has ballanced forces, but vehicle action is opposite of rocket action.
Hi Scott as you are no doubt fully aware as well as the 7 deaths the BHPA also put a LOT of PG pilots into hospital.... inc. in that number were several pilots WHO FIRST TRAINED WITH THE INCOMPETENT, DANGEROUS IDIOTS AT THE BHPA... and who fly with me, it is VITAL that pilots never forget the significant risks from 'Unsafe Regression' i.e reverting to BHPA 'training'!
RE court, YEP the single best chance of seeing an improvment in UK PG safety standards would be the BHPA ending up in court!
A basic fact in aviation is that the reason pilots come to RE-train with me is the the trully appaling accident, injury & death rates that RESULT from 'normal' training..
IF (Highly unlikely in view of their history) the BHPA were to CHOOSE to slash their accident rates.... there would of course be no NEED for PG pilots to RE-train!
The BHPA can only MAINTAIN the accident rates as long as they are funded by enough of those like you.. and BHPA member Nos. keep falling... Ever wonder WHY!
If that happens, Mr Hay will be spanked by expert witnesses with real qualifications in aeronautics and regardless of outcomes everyone's premiums and therefore membership will increase to the detriment of the sport.
MH has a track record online that will be mined to prove he's a dangerous fool.
The clown even claimed he could reverse lift a wing in no wind, without moving backwards. He was tested indoors and couldn't do it. Proving he spouts shite without thinking.
Oh yes Dorbie... so those would be the 'experts' whose teaching RESULTS IN THE APPALING ACCIDENT, INJURY & DEATH RATES... that RE-training pilots (including PPL instructors/airline pilots etc. etc...) come to me as they wish to AVOID those accident rates!
It's SIMPLE if you want to see more accidents just support those that DO injure & kill, and CHOOSE not to face up to their incompetence!
Ref: 'Indoors' I 'launched' in LESS distance/effort than the 'expert' The REAL videos prove me right!
Dorbie care to state WHY those like you resort to lying? YOU state I said 'without moving backwards', when in fact that is NOT what I said!
My point was that during the major phase (time) of a zero wind reverse launch, I move UP SLOPE, and so I move UNDER the wing as it flys UP on the 'double bounce'....
This vastly safer method of launching is why we have almost eliminated launch accidents and 99.9% of our launches are 'Reverse' INCLUDING ZERO WIND TANDEM LAUNCHES!
Murray, you looked like an arse after agreeing to an indoor attempt & failing so keep trying to re-spin it. You FAILED in the attempt, where a competent pilot would have known not to try.
Now it transpired you're so incompetent you collided your student!!
You're the ONLY PG instructor I've heard of who's so incompetent he's managed to collide with his student.
Holy shit you could have killed both of you and you still talk shite about others WOW!!!
Quote: where a competent pilot would have known not to try.
Mmm so does that mean in your twisted mind that the other 'expert' (who did NOT manage as well as I did INDOORS i.e. NOT in actual real flying 'zero wind' conditions) was not a 'competent pilot' because he was also prepared to attempt (good on him for his efforts to prove a point) a launch demo??
Murray, there are first hand accounts from objective observers. You failed to accomplish what you opined online could be done. i.e. when called on your bullshit you FAILED.
Dorbie YOU say 'objective'... do YOU even remotely think that?
For ***Objective*** TESTING of a ZERO WIND 'double bounce reverse launch, with no BACKWARDS RUN (the point in question) in non-katabatic conditions, you could as any for many, many 100's of students or view numerous videos ALL OF WHICH CONFIRM ME TO BE CORRECT!
OR of course YOU can CHOOSE to keep supporting that which injures & kills...
@dorbie YOU can CHOOSE to belive Scott, the FACTS remain the same that Scott is lying.
Out of intrest (setting aside the fact he was NOT trainingetc. etc. I.e the TRUTH!
IF YOU were on the ground having TOP landed and another pilot, ridge soaring, chose to fly into YOUR left wing tip... from BEHIND, ending up with a safe landing with YOUR wing wrapped around his legs...
Would YOU say 'While standing on the ground I suddenly decided to fly backways without moving into the pilots legs..?
So while you are happy to quote BHPA figures, compiled for public consumption, Are you going to tell us how many of your students were hospitalised and required medical treatment in 2009?
It is VERY SIMPLE... if you CHOOSE to state that 'Murray flew into his student' you are LYING!
Regarding 'hospitalised' as I have already stated some of the pilots who fly with the club ***AND TRAINED WITH THE BHPA*** ended up in hospital due to UNSAFE REGRESSION that is reverting to the DANGEROUS, incomptent training they FIRST undertook!
BHPA standards are easiest judged by the appaling number of pilots they have KILLED and INJURED over the years!!!
@murrayhay Hey, as far as I am concerned, the more assholes who wan to fly fucking aragliders you can hospitalise the better, maybe ther will be room for me to fly (HG) at Pandy again some day without all these cunts pointing stationary into wind slow up i nthe thermal, speed up in the sink (but didn't anyone ever teach them how to turn?).
@Skippieralph No, you seem to assume that everybody shares your particular afflictions. I am suffering from having to fly around a load of assholes twittering each other and blocking anyone who actually wants to get up and fuck off away from all the posers at ridge level.
Scott remember you can CHOOSE to tell the truth, if so you were say to state something like: Well I was sitting quite some distance along the ridge from where Murray top landed, and I saw Ian, who was BEHIND and to the LEFT of Murray's wing, fly INTO THE BACK OF THE LEFT WING TIP OF MURRAY'S WING..
Then of course you would not be lying!
However saying I flew into Ian IS ALWAYS A LIE!
It's your choice, LIE or not / fund those that KILL & INJURE PG pilots.. or not..
Side point, as a general rule (it does depend of the stage of training etc.) my students fly with (legal/licenced/'type approved' Airband) radios...
There were four pilots from ESP club flying that site that day, and as NO ONE WAS STILL UNDER TRAINING.. Radio are not needed at that site (no airspace or ATC issues), and are only used here (apart from training) occasionaly when filming.
BTY there are several YouTube clips from that day :-)
@dorbie Quote 'now you're saying he was not a student'
YOUR statment (presuming you are refering to THAT day, or in fact any subsequent day, or even any day from the previous months... SINCE HE STOPPED BEING A STUDENT... implies that I have said 'he was training when HE flew into MY left wing tip, while I was STANDING ON THE GROUND... and then I suddenly changed to saying he's not a student'.
YOUR statment is of course incorrect! Both in fact AND in implication, as stated Scott did lie!
@dorbie Quote: But it's clear why you would deny it given your habit of pointing the finger at every other instructor out there.
OK so why do YOU think 'normal' PG training generates so many accidents, injuries & deaths?
Do YOU think there is/is not, any connection (as an example) between BHPA instructors who DO 'sign off' as CP 'rated' pilots with under an hours airtime and the subsequent rates?
Do YOU think Dave Thomson is wrong when he says the sport need to change its approach?
i COULD SAY 'I WISH' however no one thinks the BHPA INTENDED to injure & kill those pilots..
Mind you... greedy BHPA instructors who DO sign off 'students' as CP 'rated' with under ONE hours flight time???
The reality in the UK is that court action, against those that ***ARE responsible for the accident, injury & death rates in UK paragliding** will be by the families of those effected by the incompetence of the BHPA, instructors & coaches, the EASY way to avoid this is just SLASH rates!
What do YOU think about the fact that many BHPA 'instructors' will 'sign off' as rated (It's NOT a qualification!) as Club Pilot students with under ONE hour airtime (in fact this can be as little as 20mins!)......
Maywell be the case I wouldn't know, clearly not as well versed as yourself, but then I am not aware of any other instructors colliding with their students.
or going to the police on fictious assalt allegations, ( wasting public money etc)
The day in question was when I had TOP landed from a easy (WIDE lift) RIGHT beat, and the pilot (NOT under training!) who was: HIGHER, to MY left, OVERTAKING etc.... FLEW HIS FEET INTO MY LEFT WING TIP...... and as he had my left wing tip wrapped around his legs came in and landed, uninjured, on the hill...
The pilots first 'training' was with the BHPA... among MANY errors one time he was launching with ZERO straps done up till I stopped him!
It was 'intresting' reading in Skywings (info for for non-UK folk that's the BHPA magazine) Dec '09 edition ~ (Quote) Another season gone and, yet again, everyone has been shaken by a number of accidents.... ...It's pretty obvious that the accident statistics **WILL REMAIN CONSTANT UNLESS WE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE SOMETHING ABOUT HOW WE DO OUR SPORT... David Thomson
Of course the SAME comments have been appearing in Skywings since it was 1st published... and the BHPA still REFUSES to change!
too much brakes, loose of lift due to stall. either "just" too much brakes, or the correct amount of brakes for that wing, but then the wing was not tested for a longer time and lost lift or changed the "glide angle" - anyway, pilots error
I agree with murray, he talks sense, instruction incompetance in uk for sure, useless infact. I have seen pilots fresh from cp hert themselves and never return. A cp is a licence to kill yourself, if you make it through the first 50 hours,welldone. All that said, my training was overseas anf that was crap too!
I wouldnt take too much stock in what Murray says. His inability to take on standard aeronautical theory caused such a furor it destroyed the big air paragliding forum and made most pilots leave that forum and start up a new one.
Ali Smith was the one who did the 'Death Blow'... his idea of 'moderation' was that it was OK for someone to post ONE HUNDRED 'cut & past' posts saying 'Murray F&*%S goats' on any and every thread I was contributing too...
Ok so YOU may well support 'standard (PG) aero theory' DESPITE the number of PG pilots it kills... but of me I am intrested in saving pilots lives.. hence RE-training students CHOOSING to 'switch' to an instructor THEY trust over the BHPA!
I don't support BHPA standard theory, like I said I learned in the USA and I took my instruction and added it to my existing body of knowledge; instructor standards vary. I support modern physics and aerodynamic theory. Anyone presenting alternative ideas needs to be subject to peer review. If not by PG pilots then by people who understand the fundamentals. Reciprocating with mud slinging doesn't help advance those ideas.
Of course looking at the safety situation (total free flight accidents) US v UK is going to be effected by the HG/PG split... not to mention the PPG numbers US v UK...
That all said, total pilot numbers in the US v UK are similar... it is intresting to note that US accident RATES are often higher than the (very poor) UK BHPA accident rates..
Bottom line is the BHPA have neve shown any PRACTICAL intrest in cutting accident rate, rather they work to reduce their LIABILITY to claims...
Your 'peers' are those of the same 'level' as you are....
Ok, now as my teaching generates as much as a 95% REDUCTION in accidents when compared to 'normal' PG theory/practice/procedures... who would you say were my 'peers'?
In aviation the BEST form of 'review' is to look at the RESULTING safety record of any training!
You're not statistically significant enough to make that claim. There is no independent auditing of the claim and there will be individual instructors with equally good accident rates in any organization.
It really is a stretch for anyone to accept your claims at face value.
10+ years will LESS than 5% of the 'normal' PG accidents rates, from easily over 1,000 students out to re-train (and train) with a total number of total 'Pilot Hours' of over 10,000hrs is NOT 'statistically significant enough' when compared to the accident, injury & death rates commonly seen in the sport?
Ok so just how many more 'normal' accidents & deaths will it take before the 'stats' ARE relevant in your opinion? Another 100 deaths?
Again, you're not statistically significant enough as one instructor to base any claims on that data (self assessed too I might add), HOWEVER, if your students are getting more airtime and the UK club students are getting 40 minutes over 2 years that that alone may be the most significant factor. 40 minutes of flying over 2 years is not enough for a trained paraglider pilot to remain current nevermind enough for a new pilot to learn.
NOTE: In the UK the BHPA ARE in fact also 'self assesed'.... the diffrence is their appaling accident record!
Which is of course why about 75% of my students are RE-training pilots...
As those students have seen BOTH 'sides of the coin' their CHOICE is based on the various safety standards!
I have plenty of time, if I have to wait yet another 10 years and 100's more 'normal' PG deaths to see a significant change I will do that, after all I simply provide a CHOICE...
You can keep repeating that line Murray, but one last time you're just one instructor, you are NOT statistically significant enough to make the claims you do. Furthermore this may be due to increased flight hours based on your earlier comments and claims rather than other factors. That you continue to make grandiose claims in spite of this really undermines your credibility, you don't seem to want to show any caution or restraint when it comes to making unproven claims.
Also, there are degrees of ratings in the USA, you can be cleared to fly very safe sites unsupervised but not others for example. Of course nobody can stop a fool, experienced or otherwise flying beyond their limits, it's still a free country.
So when you say cleared to fly without further instruction that can mean many things.
Yep in many ways I prefer the 'style' (if not content!) of the USHGA (as was) system with specific added *Sign Off's* (i.e. Cliff Launch) and have always done something similar with my students.
Site specfic 'sign off' and/or hours requirments, all aimed at keeping the landowners happy i.e. near ZERO accidents!
PS. in fact I've passed both P3 & P4 written papers (and still have a copy of both the P3 and P4 exam paper from a few years ago!)
The most dramatic differentiators I think are the P1, P2 and P3 progressions. You can get your P1 after a few sled rides and maybe a top landing at Torrey (and after a lot of ground handling and theory & test), the P2 is more involved and includes flight skills evaluation, if you're flying like an idiot you won't get signed off until you improve (and I've seen this done),
P3 will require additional experience, competence signoffs etc. it is not taken lightly.
If and IF! you claim to be the great one you say you are then why dont you go try to take over BHPA on a legal basis due to the hundreds of deaths you go on about. I am sure they would love to listen to you! Go put on a helmet first then come back to us, and a life saver if you tend to fly around open water! your just as bad as everyone else is, neglecting ones safety
The BHPA over their history have consistently shown ZERO interest in taking EFFECTIVE action to slash their accident RATES.. they have shown their true colours in the number of times they are willing to blame 'Pilot Error, no failing in training, no breach of procedures'
I wouldn't 'take over' the BHPA, I would like to see them finally face up to their legal liability! The best thing for the sport in the UK would be for the CAA to shut them down before yet more PG pilots are killed/injured.
ParaglideUK is yet another Anon and new (joined 10th July 2009) YouTuber user name....
The VAST majority of 'spam' YouTube attacks at my stance against dangerous BHPA PG 'training' (remember you can gain a BHPA 'CP' rating with as little as TWENTY mins airtime!!!!) come from 'new' YouTube user accounts which give no indication of the users real name....
My name is Murray Hay and the majority of my students are EX-bhpa 'trained' and come to me CHOOSING to RE-train!
regarding a new user account to true to be blue for you! i take it you been trying to get info from me! find out who i am where i am from, i bet its digging away at you.. Enjoy your evening. lets just say i was warned about you..
Good for you, I LIKE people that are prepared to stand up and be accountable (US president, I will fit for your right to say that which I disagree with stuff)
I simply looked at your profile, I get a LOT of 'attack spam' from Anon 'new accounts'....
I hope those that 'warned you about me' also mentioned the FACT that there are BHPA 'CP' pilots flying in Wales with as little as TWENTY mins airtime in training...
well let me tell you theres no one i know of in my school that i am in has had less than 20 minuites of air time for CP! And regarding my question! Where is your certificate to say you have every right to teach! and where is your insurance, public liability etc etc.
Glad to hear it, certainly I know of one school in Wales that requires their students to have about 5 hours airtime.... of course that is still slightly LESS than many of my students do in a couple days training...
A more vital point is that 95% of the THEORY I teach DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what the BHPA teach... hence the vast diffidence in flying standards (accident RATES) and of course the REASON why so many (including a fair number of my RE-training students who come up from Wales to Scotland)
well let me say this and then im going to bed im no Enemy! but what i am against is the fact that anyone including you can just teach the sport without any Certificates or instructors course. Lifes are clearly at risk from every angle, and to stand up in court! and say "I Taught this person to fly and he died through a accident" which would be the instructors responsibility is deeply concerning. The courts would frown deeply on this specially if he/she has no right to teach.
The BHPA have 'no right to teach'... what the DO teach RESULTS in the 'normal' PG accident, injury & death rates... THINK on that fact!
Almost everything I teach DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS BHPA training and as a RESULT we do NOT suffer 'normal' PG accident rates and so most of my students are EX-bhpa 'trained' and CHOOSE to RE-train with me!
What about all the people who have not had Accident! and there are systems in place to report accidents to help safeguard someone just like you would when you are in work and have an accident for insurance purpouses. How many people are qualified with you, are they hourly paying customers.
Lots of PEOPLE go through life and avoid accidents... however the sad truth is that a LOT of Paragliding Pilots DO have accidents... which is of course EXACTLY why so many of those who CHOOSE to come to me are EX-bhpa 'trained'... if they were NOT having lots of incidents & accidents there would be no NEED for an alternative to the BHPA...
So it's simple, if you don't want an alternative to 'normal' PG 'training' just REMOVE the NEED for RE-training by slashing 'normal' accident rates!
I have only noticed one thing with this Scottish guy! he comments Greatly on Negatives and none on the ones who do well. Why hes here trying to make a point on everyones fuck up saying the same shit over and over and over is beyond me! He thinks he is michael jackson and is going to rule the world, but the paragliding world.
Murrayhay you were booted before from the paragliding forums due to your crap! im sure people here will boot you from their pages as well i sure have..
Wrong, the truth is I was 'booted from the PG Forum' because I REFUSE to injure & kill my students by repeating the incompetent nonsense the BHPA promote....
I've heard the same crap from those like you since the late 90's... of course a LOT of those that were spouting the 'party line' you are repeating are no longer able to fly...
Yes yes, I'm sure you were booted because you refused to kill people, Sigh, just what planet are you on Murray?! You can't even be honest about the reasons for the entire PG community rising up and kicking your bullshitting ass off a forum.
Here you are relegated to ranting on youtube.
When you actually learn Newton's 3rd law of motion instead of telling other pilots they should quit for stating it then you might have a shred of credibility ranting about "PHYSICS".
Newton's 3rd Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, in simple therms this is used along with Vector Addition to:
1) Explain why 'normal' PG training RESULTS in so many launch accidents..
2) And how by teaching based on PHYSICS rather than the nonsense the BHPA preach it is EASY to slash PG accidents rates (in this case launch accidents)
I was 'booted off' because I REFUSE to teach that which DOES RESULT in the 'normal' PG accident, injury & deaths rates!
You can post the 3rd law but the fact remains that in PMs you gobshited your way into opposing it before backpedalling, even being so arrogant as to suggest that a pilot who applies the theory should give up flying.
That speaks to YOUR credibility not anyone elses. Repeating the same dogma about accident rates won't change that. I'm not in the BHPA, never have been.
You have so big a chip on your shoulder you cannot have a reasonable chat on training even where there's common ground.
Think about it... the vast majority of my students have always been RE-training pilots seeking to ESCAPE the dangers of 'normal' PG training...
As they ARE active paragliding pilots they are by definition part of the PG community!
NB a significant No. of 'normal' UK PG pilots hardly ever fly.. this is reflected in the drop out rates and the trend in falling member No's of the BHPA..
You can post the 3rd law but the fact remains that in PMs you gobshited your way into opposing it before backpedalling, even being so arrogant as to suggest that a pilot who applies the theory should give up flying.
That speaks to YOUR credibility not anyone elses. Repeating the same dogma about accident rates won't change that. I'm not in the BHPA, never have been.
You have so big a chip on your shoulder you cannot have a reasonable chat on training even where there's common ground.
'And you can lie as much as you want but it does not alter the fact that 'normal' PG training RESULTS in 'normal' accident, injury & death rates... while my teaching which IS based on PHYSICS & HP&L is CHOSSEN by a considerable (and growing) number of RE-training pilots IS correct!
'Where there is common ground' as you clearly fail to grasp BASIC PG PHYSICS so no common ground to base a discussion on!
'Chip on shoulder' INCORRECT, rather I simply don't like incompetent Instruction!
Common ground would be that 20 minutes of flight is inadequate.
Also basic info on flight as a first order approximation but of course you showed your true colors when you pretended you knew more than anyone else with pedantic bullshit.
Finally you demonstrated your profound ignorance of modern aerodynamics in a failed attempt to appear superior because putting everyone else down is your only modus operandi.
You have a silly ego driven personal agenda, and it shows.
did he get hurt?
GoFlyDude 3 months ago
cacao mustard bitchfuck
olyansincs 6 months ago
STALL
MrAromaish 6 months ago
PILOT ERROR....ALWAYS is
brettsvchs 6 months ago
frequent rookie mistakes:
stalling in tail winds
frontals in head winds
wrong weather assessments
commandro 10 months ago
typical rookie mistake: judging by movement over ground and taking it for true air speed. causing the pilot to brake dangerously close to stall speeds, the final 180 degree turn was the final push, braking on the right side in order to turn caused right wing to stall, and enter a flat spin
judging by the wing, the pilot should not be a rookie
commandro 10 months ago 2
Could you please repeat it once more
serratop 1 year ago
caraio, vocês devem colocar no video oque aconteceu, para que outros pilotos não cometam omesmo erro, ficam dessa discordia igual melheres, curva aixa altura sem respeitar a direção dovento e a velocidade de curva, esclareção oky
ocosmos 1 year ago
@ocosmos Pow mas nesse video foi simples, o cara exagerou no freio do lado direito, o lado entrou em stall e spinou. Claro, considerando condicao do vento, o gradiente...erro juvenil, o cara devia ser cabaco :-P
Abracao, meu velho, bons voos ! (To ha 2 sem voar, desde que me mudei pra Noruega. Nao vejo a hora de trazer a vela, hehe)
erikborgersen 6 months ago
Hello!Don't fight friends :) What murray hay is saying is true, many paragliding trainers aren't that responsible especially in training. Rarely an instructor really care about their students.. I salute one of my paragliding instructor Mr Bernad (who are an instructor in Bali).. He focus on correct timing and knowledge to fly, not just aiming to launch a student in the air. Murray Hay emphasizes and give opportunity for those who don't know where to get retraining and he offers his expertise.
nottywan 2 years ago
Arrogance is to judge ones self-worth by comparison with others.
Ask yourself this, what reflection of arrogance do YOU see when relaying YOUR insults?
SpiritQi 2 years ago
That's not the definition of arrogance. Measuring self-worth relative to others is exactly how Murrayhay attacks the BHPA (and other clubs) at every opportunity. Anyone ghoulish enough to exploit fatal incidents to promote his agenda and call others homicidal is going to attract some much deserved criticism. I gave this guy every chance in PM's I ignored the warning signs of entire communities set against him and leading websites that he's rendered useless, I learned the root of the problem.
dorbie 2 years ago
In paragliding Arrogance is not only VERY dangerous it very much a case of insisting that 'The Emperor's New Clothes' are in fact fine... when the TRUTH is that is not the case...
Put it simply is is only due to idiots like you that PG accident rates can be MAINTAINED.... as more and more pilots work out that the REASON for 'normal' accident rates is the 'normal' training things, sports wide, WILL rapidly improve!
Remember PG pilots CHOOSE to RE-train for a very good reason! SAFETY!
murrayhay 2 years ago
'My agenda' is simple, I would like to see those who are RESPONSIBLE for the avoidable 'normal' PG accidents in jail.
IF the BHPA were to slash their accident rates I would have no problem with them..
murrayhay 2 years ago
I wonder if the number of BHPA deaths, serious injuries during 2009.... and of course the significant monetry cost to the country (emergency services/power outages due to PG pilots 'taking out' powerlines... etc.) have resulted in Dorbie to reconsider WHO is 'arrogant'.
Yet again in '09, at sites our club flys, we have seen BHPA 'trained' pilots who have required ambulances and even one heli medivac flight....
How many more deaths/injuries will it take before the BHPA Limited change?
murrayhay 2 years ago
Murray, you're an arrogant ghoulish self-promoting prick. I'm not even in the BHPA.
You have waged a single handed campaign against conventional aeronautical theory. In communications where I attempted to reach out to you you were so entrenched and unamenable to reason that you disputed Newton's 3rd law of motion; you made yourself look like a moron.
Your lack of reason and bullshit has shut down an entire PG site causing members to flee your nonsense. Now go sell stupid somewhere else.
dorbie 2 years ago 2
The blood of the injured & dead is also on the hands of ALL THOSE IN THE SPORT WHO CHOOSE TO SUPPORT / FUND the incompetent 'sporting bodies' which CHOOSE to keep injuring and killing PG pilots rather that face up to their incompetence....
There is nothing 'ghoulish' in pointing out incompetent instructors/sporting bodies KILL/injure the suckers they have conned
Never forget the vast majority if my students are CHOOSING to RE-train following being INJURED by BHPA stupidity & greed...
murrayhay 2 years ago
Scum like you can lie all you want (Ref: your current comment on Newton's 3rd Law and what I teach) however no matter how often those like you lie the bottom line is that what I teach saves lives and what you support has a L O N G history of generating accidents, injuries & deaths...
As was pointed out on the PG forum not long ago.... all I need do is keep outliving idiots like the BHPA... something I've managed easily for the last 6,000hrs airtime!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay The fact remains that you're one man in opposition to an entire club and further, in opposition to the international community because you spread your bullshit to public forums and single-handedly destroyed a great website that others had built. You've bulshitted and pedantically feigned superiority in personal discussions with me after I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
We both know I'm not lying about you denying Newton's 3rd law. It's right there in my inbox. Shall I quote it?
dorbie 2 years ago
Wrong again, on all counts!
Never forget that it is due to the incompetence of individuals like YOU that groups like the BHPA (and USHGPA etc.) keep injuring & killing pilots!
And as shown in the comments here I am far from being a single person trying to stop these idiots killing yet more PG pilots, every year more and more in the sport are CHOOSING life over the incompetence of the so called 'sporting bodies'!
Newton's 3rd.. Post away... but for once try to avoid lying yet again!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
It is your own inability to communicate effectively and reach ANY comon ground with others that undermines your teaching efforts.
You jumped the gun, my other followup has already established that I was correct on Newton's 3rd law and you were wrong using your typically arrogant style AND you just lied about it.
Call me lying scum again, clown.
dorbie 2 years ago
'Common ground' REQUIRES a CORE to work from but as 95% of 'normal' teaching is DANGEROUS there is NO 'common ground'...
I've been teaching paragliding since the late 90's, mainly for students CHOOSING to train/RE-train including PPL inst. & airline pilots... so clearly communications is no problem.. of course PROVIDED pilots ARE willing to think!
Re: 'ARROGANCE' IT KILLS, AS THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT SHOWS..
Lying, as you do simply helps 'sporting bodies' kill/injure yet more people.
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
the quotes and posts are accurate. You simultaneously want to deny it AND argue the point. Calling the bedrock of modern aerodynamics wrong is a pretty major flaw when it comes to core theory.
The beauty of the action and reaction model in dynamic flight totally accounts for all factors emerging from measurements or CFD calculations.
It's not my stupidity, it's self evident very basic Newtonian physics that all modern aerodynamicists know.
dorbie 2 years ago
Dorbie, one thing is VERY clear.
ONE of us in fact teaches paragliding to a standard that results in as much as a 95% REDUCTION in accidents..
ONE of us does understand science..
Ref: 'The beauty.....' is that it easily explains WHY so many PG are killed/injured by those like you!
STUPIDITY kills, while application of SCIENCE to PG training SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the RISKS in aviation.
I ask again... HOW MANY MORE PILOTS MUST DIE DUE TO THE INCOMPETENCE OF THOSE LIKE YOU?
murrayhay 2 years ago
NOTE:
Ask a COMMERCIAL qualified pilot if much of what is taught at 'PPL' level is in fact not just simplified but is often in fact 'simplified' to such a level as to be wrong.. and they will tell you it is!
When we look at what is 'taught' in 'normal' PG 'training' 95% is totaly wrong.. this would not matter if it was not for the FACT these errors RESULT in a LOT of injured & dead pilots.....
YOU have a choice, keep playing Russian Roulette with lives, or look to SAFE alternatives...
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Ask a commercial pilot which direction the ACTION of wake turbulence travels in and at what speed.
dorbie 2 years ago
Try and grasp basic PHYSICS.... Powered aircraft (during the thrust stages of flight) are 'FOUR Force' aircraft, often (but not always) flying PITCH +, and with a (range of) +AoA..
PG's, SUBJECT under question are 'THREE Force' aircraft -Pitch -AoA
'Wake' has a number of speeds relevant.. ROTATION (BIGGEST risk) 'seperation' (slow) as the two wakes drift outwards, wake also drifts downwards slowly.. mainly wake REMAINS in the location it was generated! In soaring wake drifts up slope
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Aha, yes wake does indeed drift downwards. Now ask yourself why.
Murray, you can throw complicating scenarios out all you like, but you have all you need to understand that my comment about Newton's 3rd is correct.
Simplify away upward moving air on a slope and ask where the wake from a wing in gliding descent goes.
Or ask where the thrust from a hovering descending rocket sufficient to keep the mass of a man + harness aloft would go.
dorbie 2 years ago
Try learninf some basic PHYSICS...
In POWERED flight with the wing PITCHED + air is FORCED downwards by the underside of the wing to a far greater extent than air is ALSO forced upwards by the upper surface of the wing..
Now YOUR stupidity/incompetence is shown yet again!
While in a GLIDING (no power) flight the air is 'split' UP & DOWN.. and the GLIDING wing has a NEGATIVE Pitch... Wake in paragliding drifts with air movement as the energy in it dissipates to the rest of the air!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Any local movement in air will dissipate, it is still a net downward displacement.
Imagine a skydiver exits an aircraft and reaches terminal velocity, compare him to a man falling in a vacuum. What do you think happens to the air underneath the skydiver throughout terminal?
You do not understand Newton's 3rd as it applies to lift in aerodynamics.
You're so dumb you think there's a free reactionary ride when it comes to lift against gravity, and you call OTHERS ignorant.
dorbie 2 years ago
'Net downward displacement'
You still don't show understanding of basic PHYSICS... i.e it's YOU thats 'dumb'
I can only advise YOU try to go back to the basics, the PITCH of a steady state gliding wing is NEGATIVE... due to it's negative pitch it 'slides' FORWARDS & DOWNWARDS through the air, as can be SEE (underside of PG) in a glide the 'dominant force' follows Bernoulli rather than Newton...
The incompetence of those like YOU, as is seen from history KILLS & injures PG pilots!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Another gem of bullshit form you; "follows Bernoulli rather than Newton", and you claim to know physics. Dude you're joke.
Newton always applies. It doesn't matter where the force products come from.
You have not addressed ANY of the scenarios I have presented to help you see past your ignorance.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The action of lift against gravity requires a reaction of air (or vice versa). It is inescapable.
dorbie 2 years ago
YOU have shown yet again that YOU don't understand the basics of THREE Force gliding aircraft i.e. includes paragliders!
Remember GRAVITY force on mass is always VERTICAL.. so for 'lift' to be 'equal & opposite' (as YOU state) Lift on a paraglider would be REQUIRED to be vertical, clearly this is NOT the case in any THREE Force gliding aircraft during steady state flight, as there is NO '4th force' to ballance DRAG!
THREE Force aircraft in a steady glide MUST 'zero sum' Lift/Gravity/DRAG
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
I have already stated and agreed that the forces are ballanced on a paraglider that is not accelerating, but that does not imply what you claim it does.
You keep dodging back to these force claims. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Drag in a steady state counteracts the component of rearward deflected air that gives the wing forward thrust against drag so horizontal deflection is zero, in a steady state, but things are not always in a steady state.
dorbie 2 years ago
Quote: Drag in a steady state...
Yet again YOU clearly refuse to study the basic PHYSICS!
Starting with the simplest, Forces on the pilots MASS
Primary Vector: GRAVITY is DIRECTLY DOWN
Drag on the pilot is 'backwards'
Vector Addition gives a RESULTANT Force acting 'Down&Back'
In a steady state glide (no acceleration) we KNOW (Newton 3) there MUST be a ballancing force that is Equal & Opposite to D&B.. this is LIFT from the airflow PAST the PG is UP & FORWARD!
CHOOSE safety!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
That silly line is getting old, as is your ignorance.
There are two congruent compatible ways to conceptualize, action/reaction model and force vector. They are NEVER inconsistent and are two aspects of the same model.
Wing at trim, pulled down by gravity deflects air back and down, backwards deflection is offset exactly by drag (push), downwards deflection is the action that generates lift reaction.
Calling the component forces a ham sandwich, doesn't alter the physics.
dorbie 2 years ago
Old... yep it is old news that the theory/practice/procedures YOU support RESULTS in a LOT of injured/dead pilots.
Try to grasp the basic fact that IF I was stupid enough to teach the nonsense you keep stating I would see the same accident. injury & death rates as YOU support... It's NEVER going to happen as I care about my students and pilots in general.
Inconsitent.... It's simple ONE of us is DANGEROUS and ONE of us saves lives.. Two DIRECTLY OPPOSING views in PHYSICS are NOT the 'same'
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Still retreating to the unsupported claims after being spanked on the theory.
You should publish your theories on reactionless lift there's a Nobel prize for physics in there for you. Clown.
dorbie 2 years ago
I am intrested in saving lives so I ONLY ever teach based on solid PHYSICS...
'Clowns' don't scare me as I have NEVER been stupid enough to fly based on the sort of nonsense YOU keep spouting... Shame those like YOU keep injuring & KILLING PG pilots...
NOTE: 'Flat' wings, also both symmetrical and asymmetrical airfoils can all fly, PROVIDED FLOWN WITHIN THE DESIGN PARAMETERS...
Understanding the (PHYSICS) diffrences between THREE & FOUR force flight is VITAL to PG flight safety!
murrayhay 2 years ago
And splitting force vectors different components, e.g. horizontal and vertical as mundane physics, there is NOTHING untoward about it.
dorbie 2 years ago
YOU refer to 'splitting force vectors' ....
Earlier I pointed out YOUR incompetence regarding 'Forces', the method I used was to high light the simple Vector ADDITION (PHYSICS) that is VITAL to reducing/eliminating PG launch accident/deaths..
Before you try ''Spliting vectors' you need to understand that in steady GLIDING flight 'Lift' NEVER is 'Equal & Opposite' to Gravity...
murrayhay 2 years ago
Any force vector can be split into component force vectors along any desired orientation using a simple mathematical vector dot products and vector * scalar.
This permits for example the calculation of the vertical component of lift. And in a steady glide the vertical component of life is always the exact opposite of gravity.
You really are a fuckwit Murray.
dorbie 2 years ago
Vectors can be resolved into (by convention) components WHICH WOULD IF THEY IN FACT EXISTED, GENERATE THE SAME EFFECT ON A MASS AT ANY GIVEN INSTANT...
Convention FOR ANY GIVEN CASE, is chosen as suits the problem under study, in PG as the Prime Force Vector is Gravity on pilots MASS, that is the refrence starting point (PG's are used to MOVE the PILOT!)
IF teaching is based on the incompetence YOU display the RESULT is far too often moving the pilots mass to their death!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Quote: 'The wing at trim, pulled down by gravity..'
Time you learnt some BASIC PHYSICS!
FACT: Gravity mainly acts on the (larger) PILOTs MASS.. this RESULTS (via the lines) in a force ***ON THE WING*** due to the pilots 'G Load AND Parasitic Drag... that is Down AND BACKWARDS. Lift is (steady glide state) UP & FORWARDS, Bernoulli in action as the air flows PAST the top & bottom surface gives the wing it's 'inflated' shape.
NB there is of course also gravity acting directly on the wing)
murrayhay 2 years ago
Oh! really! WOW!
You really think I don't know where the load on a PG wing comes from you fuckwit?
You get Newton's 3rd UTTERLY WRONG. You claim Bernoulli is in play INSTEAD of Newton and then you come up with self-superior bullshit like this.
Forward component of lift is the reaction for deflected air action rearward. The deflected air forward "pushed" is the action resulting in drag reaction. They cancel perfectly in stable flight.
Labels don't change the physics.
Clown.
dorbie 2 years ago
Quote: Drag in a steady state counteracts the component of ***rearward deflected air that gives the wing forward thrust*** against drag **so horizontal deflection is zero**.
This incompetent statment appears to indicate that YOU think that 'thrust' (to ballance drag) is simply due to Newton 3rd on the underside of the wing... Totaly ignoring the top of the wing! Not even the BHPA are that incompetent!
As for 'Horiz deflection is zero'.... Well TRY to remember GLIDING wings fly FORWARDS!
murrayhay 2 years ago
This highlights that YOU don't understand the action reaction model on a wing. It's NOT just deflected air from the underside. It is all the deflected air from the wing from all aerodynamic effects.
You're such a dishonest fuckwit it's not even possible to have an argument with you Murray. You take your own ignorance and stupidity and project it.
Gliding wings do NOT accelerate forwards or backwards. Horizontal components of force sum to zero, this is Newton's first law you moron.
dorbie 2 years ago
It's the incompetence that YOU once again display that 'helped' the BHPA have 7 deaths last year...
It takes an appaling disregard for human suffering to keep injuring & killing rather than face up to YOUR incompetence!
Hence 'scum'...
I've no doubt, IF you do in fact fly still PG's, and IF you manage to survive YOUR incompetence for yet another year...
By the time it's 2011 YET MORE NEEDLESS INJURIES & DEATHS WILL HAVE HIT THE SPORT, thanks to those like YOU!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
To continue, horizontal drag is exactly ballanced by forward thrust. Both deflect air in exactly equal proportion, net zero effect. (you can ascribe different labels to these force vectors), however lift under gravity, (a constant acceleration force), is a reaction to the vertical action of dicplaced air.
The forces on the wing STILL sum to zero in a steady state, but the lift action comes from something other than pixie dust.
dorbie 2 years ago
Quote: The forces on the wing STILL sum to zero in a steady state...
Idiot, TRY learning
1) what a PG aircraft consists of
2) How it flys.. (basic PHYSICS!)
NB In teaching PG using PHYSICS (so slashing accident rates!) a PG is best viewed as an aircraft with an under slung load (Pilots Mass).. Clearly YOUR statment (forces on wing sum zero) is incompetent as it ignores the FACTS of PG flight, it would also help if YOU remembered the wing has an upper surface!
murrayhay 2 years ago
You're an utter moron, any non accelerating object has forces applied which sum to zero and by sum I mean vector addition.
With every post you show you don't know physics.
dorbie 2 years ago
Thats the problem with incompetent scum like YOU.... The point I have ALWAYS MADE IS THAT IN TEACHING PARAGLIDING IT IS BEST TO LOOK AT THE SIMPLE STATE FIRST (steady gliding flight, i.e. NO acceleration) when scum like YOU finaly start to grasp YOUR errors YOU try to deflect by changing 'colours'...
NEVER forget it takes those like YOU for the injuries & deaths to remain at their 'normal' appaling levels.. the blood is on YOUR hands!
murrayhay 2 years ago
I'm done with you and your bullshit.
You've shown why you are an international pariah and why your presence killed the worlds largest thriving online PG community.
I started this exchange in PMs giving you the benefit of the doubt but learned why you earned your pariah status.
Keep spouting the same shite here, it'll keep you off the forums you're not banned from and may save a life. The only pilot I know suckered by your crap is the only one I know to have near fatal PG accidents.
dorbie 2 years ago
YOU and those like YOU are responsibe for a LOT of injured & dead pilots... TRY to grasp a basic fact of life... PG pilots will never come to an alternative training method (having already ended up in hospital due to the incompetence YOU support...!) because they wish to ***Increase their accident risk*** rather THEY COME TO ME TO AVOID HAVING PG ACCIDENTS!!!
I know a LOT of pilots who have had near fatal PG accidents! Remember 75% of my students come to RE-train!
UNSAFE REGRESSION KILLS!
murrayhay 2 years ago
FACT: PG pilots travel from all over the UK to RE-train (and train) with me.
FACT: A small number of pilots travel across to the UK to RE-train with me
FACT: The theory YOU promote has injured & KILLED a LOT of pilots
FACT: What I teach slashes PG accident rates to a tiny fraction of the 'normal' rates
FACT: Poor standards can only exist as long as pilots are prepared to fund those whose training RESULTS in high accident rates
FACT: ALL I NEED DO IS KEEP OUTLIVING IDIOTS LIKE YOU!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Those reading these comments can look at Dorbie ~ With 14 YouTube clips, most NOT of PG.. no information on how often/much flying he does Etc. no information as to if he has ever been involved in teaching etc.
Me, well PLENTY of evidence on YouTube in Paraglider Magazine, on the PG Show Etc. etc. that not only do I fly thousands of hours, teach 100's of students (MOST CHOOSING TO RE-TRAIN WITH ME!)
They can of course READ what Dorbie in FACT stated... and STUDY his highlighted errors
murrayhay 2 years ago
The great thing about PHYSICS is it is objective, physics does NOT 'care' what a PG pilot was taught/thinks....
PHYSICS is impartial, get it RIGHT and you 'tend' in the middle of a 'bell curve' centered on SAFE flight...
OR
If your incompetent PG instructor has the PHYSICS totally wrong then YOU will 'tend' to hit the middle of the 'bell curve' of normal PG accident rates and so have a FAR higher risk of death/injury as the HISTORY of the sport shows!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@dorbie
Killed 'Big Air'...
So you DON'T think that when Ali5mith became 'moderator' (after me) and deemed it 'acceptiable' to have 100 'cut & past' posts that stated 'Murray Fucks Goats' on every thread I was on... that THAT action (in breach of the long established forum rules!) was the main reason that AFTER I WAS NO LONGER ON BIG AIR... Forum use & membership No's. crashed...
NOTE: When I was moderator of Big Air I was asked to, (and did) approve the posts Ref: the (new) PG Forum,
murrayhay 2 years ago
It's a fact you killed that forum and have been banned from it's replacement after being given more chances than you deserve. You're delusional to deny it, pilots deserted it DURING your tenure saying they left because of your stupidity.
I really didn't know what was going on with you and gave you the benefit of the doubt but like everyone else who gives you a chance, you showed what a tool you are.
Physics is objective you're not.
8 replies? Prolific but repetitive.
I'm done here.
dorbie 2 years ago
Wrong! Ali5mith drove in the nails that killed Big Air!
The fact is that there are 2 approaches to training, 1 side RESULTS in the accident, injury & death rates that are regarded as 'normal'... the OTHER (mine) approach has (for 12 years) RESULTED in as much as a 95% REDUCTION in PG accident risk.
As this is all about SAFETY PG pilots can chose which how much RISK they want in the sport..
BTY I'm just back from a great afternoons flying with Kalid & Adrian.. BOTH CHOSE TO RE-TRAIN!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Ha ha,
Your delusion is complete.
Murray YOU killed Big Air and the world knows it, everyone who knew anything about physics left because they got sick of your inaccurate incessant badgering bullshit.
Paraglidingforum was chosen by many as the best alternative and it became the new venue almost ovenight, it has now banned you completely after many warnings; you can't have a rational factual discussion with anyone.
BigAir is advertising that your ass is gone to tempt people back.
dorbie 2 years ago
So Dorbie YOU don't think that having many 100 'cut & past' posts all saying 'Murray Fucks Goats'... and those posts being 'approved' by the new 'Moderator'...... had anything to do with BigAir membership crashing AFTER I STOPPED BEING MODERATOR OF BIG AIR... was the reason..
Well I think most reading all this can work out just how YOU 'think'!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Murray, that's a diversion. Whatever happened after you killed the forum is pretty irrelevant to most pilots. By then the forum was a turd-rate also ran.
People openly state why they left that forum. The reason is YOU. Why even deny this?
There were tumble weeds blowing through due to your being ensconced as a moderator. Pointing the finger at something years later that bent your nose out of shape is irrelevant, except to your reality distortion field, it's a sad excuse.
dorbie 2 years ago
Dorbie, as I've already pointed out YOU stating something that is un-true is lying!
YOU say 'years later'... NOT SO!
As the then moderator of BigAir a significant part of the workload was removing abusive post, MANY OF WHICH WERE NOT DIRECTED AT ME... True I was a major 'target' but at least those attacks ('Goats' etc') were easy to deal with, i.e. unlike other more 'borderline' dodgy posts which would be discused with Jerome/Kinsley etc. before removal/let to stand..
murrayhay 2 years ago
Just one more thing you disagree with the world on. People know what killed bigair and caused the exodus. YOU. It was overtly stated by those who left.
Every forum gets spam and abuse, that was not the issue. Your stupidity was.
It's the same reason you're now banned from the replacement. THE biggest paragliding forum online & The Great Gob of Murray Hay is BANNED.
I suppose you have an excuse for that too.
You'll have to post your excuse on Youtube, because you can't there :-)
dorbie 2 years ago
It is SIMPLE, what YOU call 'my stupidity' is my absolute refusal to injure & kill students by teaching the nonsense THAT HAS SINCE THE SPORT STARTED RESULTED IN THE ACCIDENT, INJURY AND DEATH RATES REGARDED AS 'NORMAL'.
NOTE: Despite the fact they refuse to change in a way that will easily cut PG accident rates, as seen (YET AGAIN!) in Skywings even Dave Thomson says 'We need to change'!
Just how stupid do you have to be to KNOW you need to change, yet to REFUSE to cut accident rates??
murrayhay 2 years ago
@dorbie Quote: You'll have to post your excuse on Youtube, because you can't there :-)
YOU choose to ' :-) '... well that says it all, YOU are happy to see action taken that RESULTS in yet more injuries & deaths... REMEMBER just like Dave Thomson MANY pilots on the PG Forum say there is a need for change... yet the 'moderators' CHOOSE to lock threads and to block (and no I am not refering to me here) posters that suggest/support alternatives to the theory/training that GENERATES PG ACCIDENTS!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Quote: Physics is objective you're not.
Of course NO ONE is ever fully objective!
But when it comes (just as an example) to YOUR safety I am totally objective.. in that it makes zero diffrence to me if you live or die..
This is as YOU have shown no intrest in acting to cut accident rates in PG, and as far as I can tell YOU don't teach/coach so YOUR incompetence only directly effects YOUR accident risk....
Hence as long as 'normal' PG injures/kills, I will keep providing RE-training!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Part 2 Lies again... I NEVER said Newton did not apply!
In fact Newton's 3rd is vital to PG gliding flight 'aircrafts with no primary rigid structure', (tension on the lines) however in steady state gliding flight it is the forces stated in Bernoulli that give the WING (material not the lines) it's structure 'inflated appearance'.
NB the level of stupidity to teach that PG's (in flight) are 'Ram Air' is directly reflected in the accident, injury & death rates that RESULT from 'normal' PG!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Murray, don't call me a liar for qouting you when your own quote was an attempt to impugn my Newtonian claims. You said "in a glide the 'dominant force' follows Bernoulli rather than Newton"
You're welcome to correct yourself but I was in no way unfair in that comment. All forces comply with ALL of Newton's law at ALL times.
dorbie 2 years ago
I only call you a liar when YOU choose to! In the same way as because the 'normal' training YOU support DOES injure & KILL I highlight that fact as well!
NB I stated that Bernoulli('s Thorem) IS the 'dominate force' because it IS in fact the dominate force rather than Newtons 3rd... NOTE: Newton's 3rd however IS dominate during stalls and when 'wall building' The GREAT thing about teaching PG based on PHYSICS is it RESULTS in slashing accident rates!
Time YOU learn to live with that fact!
murrayhay 2 years ago
A fact YOU clearly can't grasp is that what is commonly refered to as Newtonian World, works fine WITHIN IT'S LIMITS...
We are lucky in paragliding (low speed aviation) that (for all practical purposed) EVERYTHING is well explained by Bernoulli's Thorem & Newton's laws...
HOWEVER those thorem's & Laws MUST both understood AND applied correctly IF PG PILOTS WISH TO SEE ACCIDENT RATES SLASHED... fail to do so and you WILL tend to see 'normal' PG accident rates, YES IT IS THAT SIMPLE!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
The limits of Newtonian physics do not apply to PG flight and the context of this discussion. Not even close by a million orders of magnitude in either direction. What a conceited arrogant git you are trying to make that non-point.
Bernoulli is bound by Newton's laws of motion it operates within Newton's laws you moron.
Try understanding Newton's 3rd under gravity before making insipid pronouncements on the limits of Newton you clown.
dorbie 2 years ago
Dorbie Try to grast the fact that ARROGANCE KILLS AND INJURES PG PILOTS......
Unlike you I've been saving pilots from injury & death for a dozen years, ONLY ONE OF US IS A 'MORON'
So just how stupid do YOU need to be to not grasp the FACT that Bernoulli's Thorem AND Newton's Third Law are NOT the same thing?
After all have you ever heard of Bernoulli-Newton's Third Thorem....? or even Newton-Bernoulli's Thorem Third!!!
murrayhay 2 years ago
I did not say Bernoulli was the same as Newton, Liar.
I said it is bound by Newton. The resulting forces from Bernoulli also apply straight to a Newtonian model.
The modern way of treating this because Bernoulli and associated labels are outmoded w.r.t. modern theory, is to use action and reaction products of deflected air mass. It sums Bernouli, direct deflection, Coanda etc, the net fluid action results in a calculable wing reaction under all conditions.
dorbie 2 years ago
@murrayhay
If you had any class you'd apologise for lying, and then calling me a liar in the face of the evidence, but based on your track record I know that's impossible for your ego to handle.
That's a direct quote from your reply to that SPECIFIC section of post, and it is absolutely damning.
Now even IF you disagreed any level headed teacher would discuss theoretical differences but you just jumped right into your wide open gob with both feet using your usual bullshit hyperbole.
dorbie 2 years ago
The question is not about 'class' (that is for others to judge... and CLEARLY THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO RE-TRAIN WITH ME SO THEY CAN AVOID ACCIDENTS don't agree with you on the subject of 'class'...
ALL I am intrested in is slashing PG accident rates, I do this by STARTING with each aspect of 'normal' PG theory, due to it's almost total incompetence it is EASY for THINKING students to gain insight into the direct connection with 'normal' PG accident, injuries & deaths!
Yep ONE of us 'bullshits'
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Again when you're spanked on the theory you retreat to unsupported annecdotes about accident rates.
You've been absolutely owned on Newton's 3rd law here, you've shown your profound confusion.
Even if you have a workable force model that gets you by, being so wrong on the basics of theory yet so arrogant in calling the bedrock of modern aerodynamics and those who know it wrong is just astonishing.
You have no shame. Go dance on some more graves you self-promoting ghoul.
dorbie 2 years ago
Dorbie do the PG world a favor...
PLEASE explain exactly WHY what YOU support injures & kills so many pilots....
'Shame' Well let's see... I have spent thousands of pounds of my own money, and provided thousands of hours working to slash PG accident rates...
While those like YOU do everything they can to help incompetent 'sporting bodies' keep their instructors out of jail... and MAINTAIN the 'normal' accident, injury & death rates.
NEVER forget the graves are of YOUR & yours making
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Your favourite tactic, resorting to baseless annecdotal claims that present you as the PG messiah after getting spanked on the theory. That's twice in three posts now.
When you can bring your ego to admit you were wrong in dismissing basic Newton's 3rd as it applies to air action vs wing reaction you'll be a lot closer to being able to communicate with the PG community you routinely call killers because they don't take everything you say about theory as gospel.
dorbie 2 years ago
There are two ways to encourage others in the sport to also CHOOSE to slash accident rates! Something which is VERY easy to do!
The best one, which I teach all the time, REQUIRES pilots to be able to THINK & Question. Clearly this is something you are unwilling/unable to do...
The other method is not as good, and works like amimal training i.e. does not require higher cogniative functions... it goes like this:
Method A 'normal' RESULTS in 'normal' accidents OR method B avoids accidents!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Clearly ONE of us IS wrong...
If you can't handle the basic PHYSICS you can always look at the 'OUTPUT' (in this case accident, injury & death rates) that RESULTS from a given 'Input' (Training/theory/practice/procedures)
What has been clear from the ACTIONS.. and CHOICES of those like you over the last 20 yrs is that it WILL take court action to stop DANGEROUS training!
12 years ago I was highlighting the incompetence of those like you and asking... HOW MANY MORE PILOTS MUST DIE?
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Me:
"but ultimately obey Newton's 3rd law, lift and drag are the equal and opposite reaction to deflected air mass, always"
You:
" If you trully think this is true I can only advise you to give up flying paragliders before you kill yourself! "
This is how modern aerodynamicists work because labelling discrete terms doesn't work well in an integrated framework.
So Murray, you're the liar, I even cited Newton's 3rd in my post and you STILL gobshited.
dorbie 2 years ago
Newton's 3rd refers to 'equal & opposite FORCES' (i.e. not mass, but FORCE on mass)
First issue is YOU fail to state context to the nonsense you just posted..
Next is a Your VERY obvious error regarding saying 'deflected air mass'..
'Lift' and 'Drag' are of course terms refering to (Vectors) FORCES, 'Lift' being Up&Forwards, 'Drag' is 'backwards'
In GLIDING flight air is deflected BOTH upwards & downwards (+ in/outwards at tips) by the passage of the wing.
YOUR Stupidity KILLS!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
Newton's 3rd actually refers to action and reaction dumbass.
Deflected airmass to anyone with a clue is the aggregate sum of all deflected air and could not possibly mean anything else. This is a classic example of you trying to cover up your total fuckup.
The deflected air is the action, I specifically call lift & drag on the wing the "reaction" It could not be clearer.
That quote is CORRECTLY taken from your SPECIFIC reply to that SPECIFIC section.
dorbie 2 years ago
Yet again pointless/incomptent/stupid comments..
Newtons 3rd Law refers to the face that applying a FORCE on a mass results in a FORCE of equal amount but opposite 'sense' (Basic Vector stuff!)
LIFT in steady state GLIDING flight is 'Up&Forwards' while DRAG is 'backwards', Gravity (acting on the aircraft/pilot) is ALWAYS directly downwards..
The Vector Sum of the THREE forces is of course zero (no unballanced force) while in steady gliding flight.
So HOW many more pilots must die?
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay
So now YOU label action and reaction forces and mentioned gravity force to observe that forces are ballanced in steady flight. Of course forces are ballanced in any steady non accelerating situation. (Amazing you think this is a revelation)
Upward lifting action on a wing still has the reaction of displaced air downwards.
Just as a hovering (or steadily descending) rocket has ballanced forces, but vehicle action is opposite of rocket action.
dorbie 2 years ago
Hey Idiot (Murray Hay)
How many of your students were hospitalised and required medical treatment in 2009?
Both the training ones and past ones for a comparison.
Any New Year resolutions? Wishing death to others, people in court perhaps?
Happy New Year.
paraglenner 2 years ago
Hi Scott as you are no doubt fully aware as well as the 7 deaths the BHPA also put a LOT of PG pilots into hospital.... inc. in that number were several pilots WHO FIRST TRAINED WITH THE INCOMPETENT, DANGEROUS IDIOTS AT THE BHPA... and who fly with me, it is VITAL that pilots never forget the significant risks from 'Unsafe Regression' i.e reverting to BHPA 'training'!
RE court, YEP the single best chance of seeing an improvment in UK PG safety standards would be the BHPA ending up in court!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Dear Idiot (Murray Hay)
Yes it is true there are accidents and deaths involving BHPA members.
Are you going to tell us how many of your students were hospitalised and required medical treatment in 2009?
paraglenner 2 years ago
A basic fact in aviation is that the reason pilots come to RE-train with me is the the trully appaling accident, injury & death rates that RESULT from 'normal' training..
IF (Highly unlikely in view of their history) the BHPA were to CHOOSE to slash their accident rates.... there would of course be no NEED for PG pilots to RE-train!
The BHPA can only MAINTAIN the accident rates as long as they are funded by enough of those like you.. and BHPA member Nos. keep falling... Ever wonder WHY!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Dear Idiot (murray Hay)
RE court, YEP the single best chance of seeing an improvment in UK PG safety standards would be the BHPA ending up in court!
And I guess you'll be the man to do it this yeat eh?
paraglenner 2 years ago
If that happens, Mr Hay will be spanked by expert witnesses with real qualifications in aeronautics and regardless of outcomes everyone's premiums and therefore membership will increase to the detriment of the sport.
MH has a track record online that will be mined to prove he's a dangerous fool.
The clown even claimed he could reverse lift a wing in no wind, without moving backwards. He was tested indoors and couldn't do it. Proving he spouts shite without thinking.
dorbie 2 years ago
Oh yes Dorbie... so those would be the 'experts' whose teaching RESULTS IN THE APPALING ACCIDENT, INJURY & DEATH RATES... that RE-training pilots (including PPL instructors/airline pilots etc. etc...) come to me as they wish to AVOID those accident rates!
It's SIMPLE if you want to see more accidents just support those that DO injure & kill, and CHOOSE not to face up to their incompetence!
Ref: 'Indoors' I 'launched' in LESS distance/effort than the 'expert' The REAL videos prove me right!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Part 2
Dorbie care to state WHY those like you resort to lying? YOU state I said 'without moving backwards', when in fact that is NOT what I said!
My point was that during the major phase (time) of a zero wind reverse launch, I move UP SLOPE, and so I move UNDER the wing as it flys UP on the 'double bounce'....
This vastly safer method of launching is why we have almost eliminated launch accidents and 99.9% of our launches are 'Reverse' INCLUDING ZERO WIND TANDEM LAUNCHES!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Murray, you looked like an arse after agreeing to an indoor attempt & failing so keep trying to re-spin it. You FAILED in the attempt, where a competent pilot would have known not to try.
Now it transpired you're so incompetent you collided your student!!
You're the ONLY PG instructor I've heard of who's so incompetent he's managed to collide with his student.
Holy shit you could have killed both of you and you still talk shite about others WOW!!!
dorbie 2 years ago
@dorbie
Quote: where a competent pilot would have known not to try.
Mmm so does that mean in your twisted mind that the other 'expert' (who did NOT manage as well as I did INDOORS i.e. NOT in actual real flying 'zero wind' conditions) was not a 'competent pilot' because he was also prepared to attempt (good on him for his efforts to prove a point) a launch demo??
murrayhay 2 years ago
Murray, there are first hand accounts from objective observers. You failed to accomplish what you opined online could be done. i.e. when called on your bullshit you FAILED.
dorbie 2 years ago
Dorbie YOU say 'objective'... do YOU even remotely think that?
For ***Objective*** TESTING of a ZERO WIND 'double bounce reverse launch, with no BACKWARDS RUN (the point in question) in non-katabatic conditions, you could as any for many, many 100's of students or view numerous videos ALL OF WHICH CONFIRM ME TO BE CORRECT!
OR of course YOU can CHOOSE to keep supporting that which injures & kills...
murrayhay 2 years ago
Murray,
you call people liars despite facts. How much credibility does your accusation against Scott have? Or anyone else for that matter?
Am I to believe that you just showed up indoors and failed to reverse raise your wing and the context of YOUR FAILURE is a lie?
Perhaps you failed to get a wing above you indoors with witnesses on a whim?
Geeze Murray, the point is your bullshit did not match your ability or reality, AGAIN.
And you collided with your student, you muppet.
dorbie 2 years ago
No Dorbie, I only call them liers when the CHOOSE to lie!
YOU say (quote) 'you just showed up indoors and failed to reverse raise your wing'
Now IF this was true it would of course be true... as YOUR statment is in fact NOT true it is of course a LIE!
Yep it's that simple, no matter how often those like YOU repeat a lie it still remains EXACTLY THAT... A LIE!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@dorbie quote: 'How much credibility does your accusation against Scott have?'
It's simple, Scott CHOOSES to state that I FLEW INTO A STUDENT... so is this true?
1) I was on the grond NOT in the air, I was standing still!
2) The pilot was NOT under training, he had 'trained' with the BHPA, then choosen to do some RE-training with me, he still flys with the club.
3) the pilot FLYING was to the LEFT of me/At my wings height/Behind me
etc. etc.
murrayhay 2 years ago
More splitting hairs Murray,
Frankly I believe Scott and he was a student under your charge at the time, now you're saying he wasn't a student.
Pretty disgraceful conduct, both the incident and the excuses.
But it's clear why you would deny it given your habit of pointing the finger at every other instructor out there.
dorbie 2 years ago
@dorbie YOU can CHOOSE to belive Scott, the FACTS remain the same that Scott is lying.
Out of intrest (setting aside the fact he was NOT trainingetc. etc. I.e the TRUTH!
IF YOU were on the ground having TOP landed and another pilot, ridge soaring, chose to fly into YOUR left wing tip... from BEHIND, ending up with a safe landing with YOUR wing wrapped around his legs...
Would YOU say 'While standing on the ground I suddenly decided to fly backways without moving into the pilots legs..?
murrayhay 2 years ago
Dear Idiot (Murray Hay),
keeping up the usual form of calliing me a liar.
So while you are happy to quote BHPA figures, compiled for public consumption, Are you going to tell us how many of your students were hospitalised and required medical treatment in 2009?
paraglenner 2 years ago
@paraglenner Hi Scott
It is VERY SIMPLE... if you CHOOSE to state that 'Murray flew into his student' you are LYING!
Regarding 'hospitalised' as I have already stated some of the pilots who fly with the club ***AND TRAINED WITH THE BHPA*** ended up in hospital due to UNSAFE REGRESSION that is reverting to the DANGEROUS, incomptent training they FIRST undertook!
BHPA standards are easiest judged by the appaling number of pilots they have KILLED and INJURED over the years!!!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@murrayhay Hey, as far as I am concerned, the more assholes who wan to fly fucking aragliders you can hospitalise the better, maybe ther will be room for me to fly (HG) at Pandy again some day without all these cunts pointing stationary into wind slow up i nthe thermal, speed up in the sink (but didn't anyone ever teach them how to turn?).
armandin2048 6 months ago
Hi Armandin2048
:-) .... it's not just 'How to turn' training that's lacking!
I've had a some HG's out to fly with me (I've LOTs of top drivable sites!)
Give me a shout if your ever up in Scotland
(PS Glenshee Ski Centre is open with Cairnwell Chair Lift for Mtn. Bike @ Free Flyers, some of the lads were there today
murrayhay 6 months ago
@armandin2048 Hey Armandin...suffering small penis syndrome?
Skippieralph 4 months ago
@Skippieralph No, you seem to assume that everybody shares your particular afflictions. I am suffering from having to fly around a load of assholes twittering each other and blocking anyone who actually wants to get up and fuck off away from all the posers at ridge level.
armandin2048 4 months ago
@paraglenner
Scott remember you can CHOOSE to tell the truth, if so you were say to state something like: Well I was sitting quite some distance along the ridge from where Murray top landed, and I saw Ian, who was BEHIND and to the LEFT of Murray's wing, fly INTO THE BACK OF THE LEFT WING TIP OF MURRAY'S WING..
Then of course you would not be lying!
However saying I flew into Ian IS ALWAYS A LIE!
It's your choice, LIE or not / fund those that KILL & INJURE PG pilots.. or not..
murrayhay 2 years ago
Of course it was nothing to do with you, the big boy did it and ran away didn't they?
paraglenner 2 years ago
@dorbie
Side point, as a general rule (it does depend of the stage of training etc.) my students fly with (legal/licenced/'type approved' Airband) radios...
There were four pilots from ESP club flying that site that day, and as NO ONE WAS STILL UNDER TRAINING.. Radio are not needed at that site (no airspace or ATC issues), and are only used here (apart from training) occasionaly when filming.
BTY there are several YouTube clips from that day :-)
Search 'Knock of Formal'
murrayhay 2 years ago
@dorbie Quote 'now you're saying he was not a student'
YOUR statment (presuming you are refering to THAT day, or in fact any subsequent day, or even any day from the previous months... SINCE HE STOPPED BEING A STUDENT... implies that I have said 'he was training when HE flew into MY left wing tip, while I was STANDING ON THE GROUND... and then I suddenly changed to saying he's not a student'.
YOUR statment is of course incorrect! Both in fact AND in implication, as stated Scott did lie!
murrayhay 2 years ago
@dorbie Quote: But it's clear why you would deny it given your habit of pointing the finger at every other instructor out there.
OK so why do YOU think 'normal' PG training generates so many accidents, injuries & deaths?
Do YOU think there is/is not, any connection (as an example) between BHPA instructors who DO 'sign off' as CP 'rated' pilots with under an hours airtime and the subsequent rates?
Do YOU think Dave Thomson is wrong when he says the sport need to change its approach?
murrayhay 2 years ago
i COULD SAY 'I WISH' however no one thinks the BHPA INTENDED to injure & kill those pilots..
Mind you... greedy BHPA instructors who DO sign off 'students' as CP 'rated' with under ONE hours flight time???
The reality in the UK is that court action, against those that ***ARE responsible for the accident, injury & death rates in UK paragliding** will be by the families of those effected by the incompetence of the BHPA, instructors & coaches, the EASY way to avoid this is just SLASH rates!
murrayhay 2 years ago
So Scott...
What do YOU think about the fact that many BHPA 'instructors' will 'sign off' as rated (It's NOT a qualification!) as Club Pilot students with under ONE hour airtime (in fact this can be as little as 20mins!)......
murrayhay 2 years ago
Dear Idiot (Murray Hay)
Maywell be the case I wouldn't know, clearly not as well versed as yourself, but then I am not aware of any other instructors colliding with their students.
or going to the police on fictious assalt allegations, ( wasting public money etc)
paraglenner 2 years ago
He collided with a student!? Got any links?
dorbie 2 years ago
Of course Scott can't BACK UP HIS OLD LIES!
The day in question was when I had TOP landed from a easy (WIDE lift) RIGHT beat, and the pilot (NOT under training!) who was: HIGHER, to MY left, OVERTAKING etc.... FLEW HIS FEET INTO MY LEFT WING TIP...... and as he had my left wing tip wrapped around his legs came in and landed, uninjured, on the hill...
The pilots first 'training' was with the BHPA... among MANY errors one time he was launching with ZERO straps done up till I stopped him!
murrayhay 2 years ago
It was 'intresting' reading in Skywings (info for for non-UK folk that's the BHPA magazine) Dec '09 edition ~ (Quote) Another season gone and, yet again, everyone has been shaken by a number of accidents.... ...It's pretty obvious that the accident statistics **WILL REMAIN CONSTANT UNLESS WE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE SOMETHING ABOUT HOW WE DO OUR SPORT... David Thomson
Of course the SAME comments have been appearing in Skywings since it was 1st published... and the BHPA still REFUSES to change!
murrayhay 2 years ago
too much brakes, loose of lift due to stall. either "just" too much brakes, or the correct amount of brakes for that wing, but then the wing was not tested for a longer time and lost lift or changed the "glide angle" - anyway, pilots error
sadly, there are too much pilot errors in PG...
mckee14 3 years ago
I agree with murray, he talks sense, instruction incompetance in uk for sure, useless infact. I have seen pilots fresh from cp hert themselves and never return. A cp is a licence to kill yourself, if you make it through the first 50 hours,welldone. All that said, my training was overseas anf that was crap too!
bigbountybar 3 years ago
I wouldnt take too much stock in what Murray says. His inability to take on standard aeronautical theory caused such a furor it destroyed the big air paragliding forum and made most pilots leave that forum and start up a new one.
pgpete 3 years ago
Ali Smith was the one who did the 'Death Blow'... his idea of 'moderation' was that it was OK for someone to post ONE HUNDRED 'cut & past' posts saying 'Murray F&*%S goats' on any and every thread I was contributing too...
Ok so YOU may well support 'standard (PG) aero theory' DESPITE the number of PG pilots it kills... but of me I am intrested in saving pilots lives.. hence RE-training students CHOOSING to 'switch' to an instructor THEY trust over the BHPA!
murrayhay 2 years ago
I don't support BHPA standard theory, like I said I learned in the USA and I took my instruction and added it to my existing body of knowledge; instructor standards vary. I support modern physics and aerodynamic theory. Anyone presenting alternative ideas needs to be subject to peer review. If not by PG pilots then by people who understand the fundamentals. Reciprocating with mud slinging doesn't help advance those ideas.
dorbie 2 years ago
Of course looking at the safety situation (total free flight accidents) US v UK is going to be effected by the HG/PG split... not to mention the PPG numbers US v UK...
That all said, total pilot numbers in the US v UK are similar... it is intresting to note that US accident RATES are often higher than the (very poor) UK BHPA accident rates..
Bottom line is the BHPA have neve shown any PRACTICAL intrest in cutting accident rate, rather they work to reduce their LIABILITY to claims...
murrayhay 2 years ago
NOTE 'Peer review'
Your 'peers' are those of the same 'level' as you are....
Ok, now as my teaching generates as much as a 95% REDUCTION in accidents when compared to 'normal' PG theory/practice/procedures... who would you say were my 'peers'?
In aviation the BEST form of 'review' is to look at the RESULTING safety record of any training!
murrayhay 2 years ago
You're not statistically significant enough to make that claim. There is no independent auditing of the claim and there will be individual instructors with equally good accident rates in any organization.
It really is a stretch for anyone to accept your claims at face value.
dorbie 2 years ago
Ok so you don't think that:
10+ years will LESS than 5% of the 'normal' PG accidents rates, from easily over 1,000 students out to re-train (and train) with a total number of total 'Pilot Hours' of over 10,000hrs is NOT 'statistically significant enough' when compared to the accident, injury & death rates commonly seen in the sport?
Ok so just how many more 'normal' accidents & deaths will it take before the 'stats' ARE relevant in your opinion? Another 100 deaths?
murrayhay 2 years ago
Again, you're not statistically significant enough as one instructor to base any claims on that data (self assessed too I might add), HOWEVER, if your students are getting more airtime and the UK club students are getting 40 minutes over 2 years that that alone may be the most significant factor. 40 minutes of flying over 2 years is not enough for a trained paraglider pilot to remain current nevermind enough for a new pilot to learn.
dorbie 2 years ago
NOTE: In the UK the BHPA ARE in fact also 'self assesed'.... the diffrence is their appaling accident record!
Which is of course why about 75% of my students are RE-training pilots...
As those students have seen BOTH 'sides of the coin' their CHOICE is based on the various safety standards!
I have plenty of time, if I have to wait yet another 10 years and 100's more 'normal' PG deaths to see a significant change I will do that, after all I simply provide a CHOICE...
murrayhay 2 years ago
You can keep repeating that line Murray, but one last time you're just one instructor, you are NOT statistically significant enough to make the claims you do. Furthermore this may be due to increased flight hours based on your earlier comments and claims rather than other factors. That you continue to make grandiose claims in spite of this really undermines your credibility, you don't seem to want to show any caution or restraint when it comes to making unproven claims.
dorbie 2 years ago
Old errors when pointed out MUST give rise to the same 'old' points.. after all those errors have not changed in 20+ years!
'Un-proven' How so? 10 years, THOUSANDS of hours safe flying... etc. etc. How much more proof is needed?
Remember: to be SAFER is simple!
As long as 'normal' training generates 'normal' accident/injury/death rates I just need to keep doing what I do to KEEP GENERATING THE PROOF!
Slashing PG accident rates by up to 90+% is EASY for ANY pilot that wishes to!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Also, there are degrees of ratings in the USA, you can be cleared to fly very safe sites unsupervised but not others for example. Of course nobody can stop a fool, experienced or otherwise flying beyond their limits, it's still a free country.
So when you say cleared to fly without further instruction that can mean many things.
dorbie 2 years ago
Yep in many ways I prefer the 'style' (if not content!) of the USHGA (as was) system with specific added *Sign Off's* (i.e. Cliff Launch) and have always done something similar with my students.
Site specfic 'sign off' and/or hours requirments, all aimed at keeping the landowners happy i.e. near ZERO accidents!
PS. in fact I've passed both P3 & P4 written papers (and still have a copy of both the P3 and P4 exam paper from a few years ago!)
murrayhay 2 years ago
The most dramatic differentiators I think are the P1, P2 and P3 progressions. You can get your P1 after a few sled rides and maybe a top landing at Torrey (and after a lot of ground handling and theory & test), the P2 is more involved and includes flight skills evaluation, if you're flying like an idiot you won't get signed off until you improve (and I've seen this done),
P3 will require additional experience, competence signoffs etc. it is not taken lightly.
dorbie 2 years ago
If and IF! you claim to be the great one you say you are then why dont you go try to take over BHPA on a legal basis due to the hundreds of deaths you go on about. I am sure they would love to listen to you! Go put on a helmet first then come back to us, and a life saver if you tend to fly around open water! your just as bad as everyone else is, neglecting ones safety
paraglideuk 2 years ago
The BHPA over their history have consistently shown ZERO interest in taking EFFECTIVE action to slash their accident RATES.. they have shown their true colours in the number of times they are willing to blame 'Pilot Error, no failing in training, no breach of procedures'
I wouldn't 'take over' the BHPA, I would like to see them finally face up to their legal liability! The best thing for the sport in the UK would be for the CAA to shut them down before yet more PG pilots are killed/injured.
murrayhay 2 years ago
NOTE:
ParaglideUK is yet another Anon and new (joined 10th July 2009) YouTuber user name....
The VAST majority of 'spam' YouTube attacks at my stance against dangerous BHPA PG 'training' (remember you can gain a BHPA 'CP' rating with as little as TWENTY mins airtime!!!!) come from 'new' YouTube user accounts which give no indication of the users real name....
My name is Murray Hay and the majority of my students are EX-bhpa 'trained' and come to me CHOOSING to RE-train!
murrayhay 2 years ago
David Jones South wales Swansea
Got some issues pop on over...
regarding a new user account to true to be blue for you! i take it you been trying to get info from me! find out who i am where i am from, i bet its digging away at you.. Enjoy your evening. lets just say i was warned about you..
paraglideuk 2 years ago
Good for you, I LIKE people that are prepared to stand up and be accountable (US president, I will fit for your right to say that which I disagree with stuff)
I simply looked at your profile, I get a LOT of 'attack spam' from Anon 'new accounts'....
I hope those that 'warned you about me' also mentioned the FACT that there are BHPA 'CP' pilots flying in Wales with as little as TWENTY mins airtime in training...
murrayhay 2 years ago
well let me tell you theres no one i know of in my school that i am in has had less than 20 minuites of air time for CP! And regarding my question! Where is your certificate to say you have every right to teach! and where is your insurance, public liability etc etc.
paraglideuk 2 years ago
Glad to hear it, certainly I know of one school in Wales that requires their students to have about 5 hours airtime.... of course that is still slightly LESS than many of my students do in a couple days training...
A more vital point is that 95% of the THEORY I teach DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what the BHPA teach... hence the vast diffidence in flying standards (accident RATES) and of course the REASON why so many (including a fair number of my RE-training students who come up from Wales to Scotland)
murrayhay 2 years ago
well let me say this and then im going to bed im no Enemy! but what i am against is the fact that anyone including you can just teach the sport without any Certificates or instructors course. Lifes are clearly at risk from every angle, and to stand up in court! and say "I Taught this person to fly and he died through a accident" which would be the instructors responsibility is deeply concerning. The courts would frown deeply on this specially if he/she has no right to teach.
paraglideuk 2 years ago
The BHPA have 'no right to teach'... what the DO teach RESULTS in the 'normal' PG accident, injury & death rates... THINK on that fact!
Almost everything I teach DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS BHPA training and as a RESULT we do NOT suffer 'normal' PG accident rates and so most of my students are EX-bhpa 'trained' and CHOOSE to RE-train with me!
murrayhay 2 years ago
What about all the people who have not had Accident! and there are systems in place to report accidents to help safeguard someone just like you would when you are in work and have an accident for insurance purpouses. How many people are qualified with you, are they hourly paying customers.
paraglideuk 2 years ago
Lots of PEOPLE go through life and avoid accidents... however the sad truth is that a LOT of Paragliding Pilots DO have accidents... which is of course EXACTLY why so many of those who CHOOSE to come to me are EX-bhpa 'trained'... if they were NOT having lots of incidents & accidents there would be no NEED for an alternative to the BHPA...
So it's simple, if you don't want an alternative to 'normal' PG 'training' just REMOVE the NEED for RE-training by slashing 'normal' accident rates!
murrayhay 2 years ago
I have only noticed one thing with this Scottish guy! he comments Greatly on Negatives and none on the ones who do well. Why hes here trying to make a point on everyones fuck up saying the same shit over and over and over is beyond me! He thinks he is michael jackson and is going to rule the world, but the paragliding world.
Murrayhay you were booted before from the paragliding forums due to your crap! im sure people here will boot you from their pages as well i sure have..
paraglideuk 2 years ago
Wrong, the truth is I was 'booted from the PG Forum' because I REFUSE to injure & kill my students by repeating the incompetent nonsense the BHPA promote....
I've heard the same crap from those like you since the late 90's... of course a LOT of those that were spouting the 'party line' you are repeating are no longer able to fly...
PHYSICS will always win over incompetence!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Yes yes, I'm sure you were booted because you refused to kill people, Sigh, just what planet are you on Murray?! You can't even be honest about the reasons for the entire PG community rising up and kicking your bullshitting ass off a forum.
Here you are relegated to ranting on youtube.
When you actually learn Newton's 3rd law of motion instead of telling other pilots they should quit for stating it then you might have a shred of credibility ranting about "PHYSICS".
dorbie 2 years ago
Newton's 3rd Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, in simple therms this is used along with Vector Addition to:
1) Explain why 'normal' PG training RESULTS in so many launch accidents..
2) And how by teaching based on PHYSICS rather than the nonsense the BHPA preach it is EASY to slash PG accidents rates (in this case launch accidents)
I was 'booted off' because I REFUSE to teach that which DOES RESULT in the 'normal' PG accident, injury & deaths rates!
murrayhay 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can post the 3rd law but the fact remains that in PMs you gobshited your way into opposing it before backpedalling, even being so arrogant as to suggest that a pilot who applies the theory should give up flying.
That speaks to YOUR credibility not anyone elses. Repeating the same dogma about accident rates won't change that. I'm not in the BHPA, never have been.
You have so big a chip on your shoulder you cannot have a reasonable chat on training even where there's common ground.
dorbie 2 years ago
NOTE:
'The entire PG community'
That's a fairly stupid a statement to make!
Think about it... the vast majority of my students have always been RE-training pilots seeking to ESCAPE the dangers of 'normal' PG training...
As they ARE active paragliding pilots they are by definition part of the PG community!
NB a significant No. of 'normal' UK PG pilots hardly ever fly.. this is reflected in the drop out rates and the trend in falling member No's of the BHPA..
murrayhay 2 years ago
You can post the 3rd law but the fact remains that in PMs you gobshited your way into opposing it before backpedalling, even being so arrogant as to suggest that a pilot who applies the theory should give up flying.
That speaks to YOUR credibility not anyone elses. Repeating the same dogma about accident rates won't change that. I'm not in the BHPA, never have been.
You have so big a chip on your shoulder you cannot have a reasonable chat on training even where there's common ground.
dorbie 2 years ago
'And you can lie as much as you want but it does not alter the fact that 'normal' PG training RESULTS in 'normal' accident, injury & death rates... while my teaching which IS based on PHYSICS & HP&L is CHOSSEN by a considerable (and growing) number of RE-training pilots IS correct!
'Where there is common ground' as you clearly fail to grasp BASIC PG PHYSICS so no common ground to base a discussion on!
'Chip on shoulder' INCORRECT, rather I simply don't like incompetent Instruction!
murrayhay 2 years ago
Common ground would be that 20 minutes of flight is inadequate.
Also basic info on flight as a first order approximation but of course you showed your true colors when you pretended you knew more than anyone else with pedantic bullshit.
Finally you demonstrated your profound ignorance of modern aerodynamics in a failed attempt to appear superior because putting everyone else down is your only modus operandi.
You have a silly ego driven personal agenda, and it shows.
dorbie 2 years ago
Yep.. so the (ONLY) common ground is on the '20 min of flight is inadequate'...
Now in over 10 year I've yet to meet a BHPA 'trained' pilot with:
1) More than a couple of hours airtime during training, I look for students having 15-25hrs.
2) Who got PPL standard Aviation MET training (most have never headr of 214's/215's/TAF's/Synoptics etc.
3) Who have had Aviation standard HP&L training
NB It is EASY to see who is ignorant of aerodynamics it's those with a high accident rate!
murrayhay 2 years ago