Prices for Paragliding P2 Lessons in Vancouver, Whistler, Pemberton.

Provider	Price	Location	Accepts PayPal*	Notes
JetSet Paragliding	$2500	Fraser Valley	No
FlyBC	$2184	Fraser Valley	Yes
DeimosPG	$2000	Fraser Valley	No
iParaglide	$2397	Fraser Valley	No	Price does not include $160 - $320 in 'i4x4' fees
Sea To Sky Paragliding	$2362	Pemberton	Yes

* If the provider does not accept PayPal (with its purchaser protection) - make sure to get a receipt.

** Schools will often advertise 'includes X flights' - it is important to know there is no established standard in Canada as to what constitutes a paragliding flight. It could be a single run down the training hill or a proper flight off the top of a mountain. Be sure to inquire what the program actually entails before making any payment.

DISCLAIMER

The posting of prices/links is in no way an endorsement for any of the above paragliding businesses. It is the responsibility of the client (you) to confirm that the instructor is properly trained, certified, licensed, and insured by an appropriate body. Paragliding is a dangerous activity that can result in serious injury and/or death.

Paragliding 103: HPAC Novice/P2 vs. Asymmetric Collapses

Asymmetric Collapse

The asymmetric collapse, an inevitability of learning to fly in thermic air. We learn to first mitigate and then prevent them by flying in increasingly active air, preferably under instruction.

Mitigation can come by way of active weight shift and braking technique. The ultimate goal is collision avoidance, be it with the ground, terrain, or other pilots.

Another means of mitigation is wing selection (passive safety). A lower EN/LTF rated wing can help reduce the aftermath of the collapse. An instructor is the best place to start with deciding which wing is best suited to the pilot. That said, the first steps we take as a pilot-in-command is making and accepting responsibility for own decisions. The more information the new pilot has, the better the decision they can make.

The basic certification system (EN/LTF) is not perfect, as per Divide 'EN', Conquer. But the certification system is continually evolving. Part of this evolution is the trial testing of wings by the DHV using a data logger and documenting the post collapse behaviour beyond a simple change of direction/pitch.

DHV Safety Class

The core of the DHV Safety Class is a trio of safety ratings per wing: symmetric collapse, asymmetric collapse, and spiral dive. In addition, notes are provided on altitude loss, G forces experienced, cravat and cascade tendencies. It is these notes that are of interest.

Below are the DHV Safety Class Notes on unaccelerated asymmetric collapses for common paragliders used in the Fraser Valley (Vancouver) for student and novice pilots:

The source for these values and notes can be found under the DHV Safety Test webpage.

In addition, the suitability for training and manufacturer notes regarding the target pilot are included to give a more complete picture. This data was pulled from the manufacturer webpage and user manuals.

Wing Made/Model	Height Loss	Pitch Angle	G Force	Training Suitable	DHV Notes	Manufacturer Notes
Skywalk Mescal 4	20 - 29 m	-60 degrees	2.4G	Yes	Massive collapses and maximum deformations usually recover with little diving and course change.	Suitable for beginners on the training hill, the MESCAL4 also offers lasting satisfaction for ambitious hobby pilots for their first XC flying experiences.
Icaro Cyber TE	30 - 39 m	-65 degrees	2.3G	Yes	Relative moderate reactions, moderate dynamics	Beginners who are looking for a fun, but performant and fast glider, that—nevertheless—still is gentle and easy to fly, will find a good companion in the new Cyber TE.
Ozone Mojo 4	40 - 49 m	-65 degrees	2.3G	Yes	Greater height loss and course change angles than other [...] gliders.	The Mojo 5 is designed for new pilots. First and foremost it is a safe, fun, and easy high-performance wing suitable for students in training but ideal for the newly qualified.

Wing Made/Model	Height Loss	Pitch Angle	G Force	Training Suitable	DHV Notes	Manufacturer Notes
Ozone Buzz Z4	30 - 39 m	-60 degrees	2.3G	N/A*	Moderate dynamics, height loss < 40m. Maximum collapses result in large pitch forward dives and occasional opposing collapses, but without course changes.	The Buzz Z4 is an ideal choice for pilots who fly approximately 30-50 hours per year [...] .
Skywalk Tequila 4	40 - 49 m	-75 degrees	2.9G	Yes	Difficult to collapse to measurement field limits. Marked rotation with dive angles of up to 75° for large collapses. Opposing collapses observed with occasional cravats and course changes.	The T4 is quite forgiving, making it the right choice for talented beginners.
Icaro Instinct TE	40 - 49 m	-75 degrees	2.9G	Yes	Without using special collapse techniques the wing collapses very steeply and has high rotation and pitching dynamics, resulting in opposing collapses and cravats on both wingtips.	Since it performs at a very high level, but is also very pleasant and well-behaving at the same time, the Instinct TE is the perfect glider for all pilots who want to feel comfortable in the air.
Icaro Wildcat TE	40 - 49 m	> -75 degrees	2.6G	No	Height loss is average for its class, but reactions are very dynamic, dive forward angles are severe and course changes are rapid. The canopy folds steeply, creating a lot of resistance and turns abruptly and dives forward steeply. Total height loss was average for the class. Generally the canopy shows a tendency to dive forward steeply which often leads to cascades and cravats.	Recommended flight experience: 20 - 30 flying hours per year.
Gin Atlas	50 - 59 m	-60 degrees	2.3G	N/A*	Relatively low dynamics (pitching, G-forces, sink velocity) for its class, but delayed recovery resulting in higher height and course changes. In some cases, recovery had to be aided with a little pilot input.	The Atlas is suitable for beginning to intermediate pilots.

* There is no clear indication regarding suitability (or lack there of) for training. Consult your instructor.

Side note: notice any differences between the DHV and Manufacturer Notes?

The HPAC Novice/P-2

The current Hang Gliding/Paragliding Association of Canada (HPAC) requirement to be awarded a Novice/P-2 rating includes the following prerequisites:

B. Prerequisites

• Paragliding P1 Beginner Rating
• Thermal Endorsement or the Coastal/Ridge Endorsement

 The Thermal Endorsement includes the following:

• Demonstrates proper directional control and correction of full (i.e. 50% of the wing span) asymmetric collapses.

Anyone flying in the Fraser Valley will receive their Novice/P-2 with the Thermal Endorsement (due the lack of a consistent Coastal/Ridge Soaring Site). 

Under the current HPAC requirements, the Novice/P-2 candidate who satisfies the Thermal Endorsement will have demonstrated the proper response to a 50% asymmetric collapse. 

Re-read the above descriptions of asymmetric collapse behaviour and ask which wing would you want to be on with less than 25 flights and asked to demonstrate the 'proper directional control and correction of full (i.e. 50% of wing span) asymmetric collapses'. Demonstrating a response means experiencing the collapse to then demonstrate the proper response.

I suspect if this requirement was fully enforced by HPAC, we would see very few students on EN B wings.

It is better to have a wing you can grow out of than one you need to grow into.

Happy Sky Birthday* to me!

June 26, 1999.
Mile High Parachuting.
Jump 1.

A rather warm sunny Saturday in Arnprior, Ontario.

Nervous energy moves throughout a group of lads of varying origins, ages, and occupations.  They have congregated at this small airport with one goal in mind - to jump solo out of an airplane for the first time.

The skittish herd was greated by a trio of instructors ('Turtle', Eldon, and Cyr) and ushered into a classroom to learn a pair of mantas needed to complete a IAD (Instructor Assisted Deployment) jump. The first being the dynamic exit - "Have you got my pilot chute, left foot, left hand, right root, wingtip. Arch-thousand. Two-thousand. Three-thousand. Four-thousand. Check-thousand." The second being a cutaway and reserve deployment - "Look. Reach. Pull. Look. Reach. Pull.".

Throughout the morning of lessons we were prompted to repeat these mantras, louder and louder. Drilling home these distilled steps. Nail these, let gravity do its thing, and everything will be ok.

Following the classroom was the hands on training: chucking ourselves from the mockup of the Cessna C-182 onto a thick mat, learning the art of PLF, and the (soon to be dreaded) hanging harness...

We were walked through the process of identifying if a canopy could be landed, and if not, how to perform the physical actions that paired with the reserve deployment mantra. While hanging in a retired old skydiving harness, a picture of a canopy in some form of (non-)malfunction would be placed over  our head.  If judged to be a malfunction, we would be coached through the process of cutting away and deploying the reserve. Even if the canopy was land-able and we cut away, we were praised for making ultimately the right decision (if in doubt, cutaway).

After the first handful of passes, Cyr (a former Canadian Airborne Regiment NCM) took over. The tranquility of this sleepy country airport was shattered with a cacophony of yelling and shaking.

The first to fall victim went complete deer in headlights, plummeting to his virtual death.

Calm.

Repeat the cutaway process in a slow and controlled manner.

Success.

Set volume back to 10.

Success.

The seeds of stress inoculation are taking root.

My turn comes and goes like the others. One of mine was a good canopy chop due to line twists. When in doubt ...

Spring, 2002.
Skydive Chicago.
Jump 115.

Stoked after a successful dive out, chase and dock on a 4 way formation, I deploy typically high at 3500 feet.

Line twists during the opening. No big deal.

Then a turn and dive. I'm on my back and the wind noise cranks right back up. Big deal.

Back to that day with Cyr, instinct kicks in and I'm under a reserve.

Too this day, I credit the reserve pack job of the SDC rigger and the training at the hands of Cyr with saving my life. MileHigh drilled home the need to completely banish indecision and aggressively execute the needed corrective action in a stressful training environment. They had this in place before we ever set foot in the plane.

Today.
Vancouver.
A few hundred jumps more.

So what does this have to do with a paragliding blog?

I ask, how many paragliding schools (or national associations for that matter) require reserve training before high mountain flights?

I suspect you will quickly discover the same as I -> nada. Excuses abound.

Incidents occur - even during student training. Not having the foreknowledge to properly execute a reserve deployment greatly reduces the ability to respond.

Reserve training needs to be done in a recent, relevant, and realistic manner. At the very least that means a hanging harness with induced stress. Before feet leave the mountain.

It might save your life and enable you to share many of your own PG Sky Birthdays to come.

* Sky Birthday - a skydiving term for the day of your first solo jump. The day you were born a skydiver.

Paragliding Economics 101A: Shopping Around (First Paraglider Purchase).

Looking at lessons, trying to sort out the true costs.

No rental option, local used market is dried up (there is an ebb and flow to used wing availability - very dependant on time of year).

Guess a new wing it is.

If you are part of the rare 1% who has reigned in impulse and taken a step back to consider the true costs - you're likely wondering how to best save some coin on equipment purchase. 

The majority of the worlds wings are fabricated in a small number of factories that cater to multiple brands (a secret manufacturers don't make very public) and are made from a very small collection of fabrics. The result -> production costs are relatively similar.

In addition - R&D, administration, and marketing typically scale. Larger manufacturers pour more into marketing (sponsoring competition teams and factory pilots), have in house designers, and employ test pilots. Smaller shops outsource the entire design process and limit marketing to very specific regions/segments. 

What does this all mean?  

Commoditization.

A wing in EN class X should cost Y no matter the brand. A price above this is either result of inefficiency or the padding of margin somewhere between you and the manufacturer. The former will die due to decreasing market share, the latter will perish with an informed customer.

What can you do?

Become informed. Window shop around. This can be a touchy subject as it will eat into a schools margin. A *pre-authorized* purchase outside the school is sometimes offered as an unspoken option for an 'uncorking fee'  - typically around $500. It will not hurt to ask up front before paying for lessons, if I want to buy a different brand than what you carry, what is the additional cost? If nothing else, it could pressure the school dealer to price match if they wish to maintain market share.

How much could you save?

Pricing options for low end EN-B (a common first wing here) plus harness and reserve in the Vancouver market:

Equipment	Dealer A	Dealer B	Dealer C
Wing	$3900	$3500	$4000
Harness (with back protection)	$900	$650	$1100
Medium Reserve	$660	$700*	$1000

* I had to query the reserve price, as none was published.

The right combination of the above can net over $1200 in savings.The catch is the need to negotiate. A smart dealer will realize a customer who feels they are getting a good deal will become a repeat customer.

In the end the right questions cost you nothing and can save you alot.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Chatting with a flying counterpart a week or so ago, they mentioned they wanted to try flying Austria one day.

"You can't."

"What do you mean?"

"HPAC paraglider ratings are not recognized in Austria, IPPI card or not."

"Huh?"

"It appears our licensing system wasn't judged to be up to par. The Brits, Swedes, Germans all ok. Us, not so much."

A discussion followed suit on how best to bring this to the attention of HPAC and see if there is a way to address. The rating system went through a recent overhaul and surely would match up against the best Europe has to offer (at least thats what we were lead to believe).

Then a few days later, a posting by one of the HPAC SIs (a Senior Instructor - the folk who set the standards for our ratings):

I think the Austrians are onto something.

Divide 'EN', Conquer

Limitations

One of the lessons I learned while on my paragliding pilgrimage last summer was that the statement, "I fly an EN-B wing because it is safe." frequently heralds the presence of a pilot who is courting a tree landing. This is in part because the pilot places too much emphasis on the rating of the wing, not realizing the limitations of the current rating system.

The rating system evaluates the characteristics of wings, with the majority of attention given to departure from normal flight. Collapses, spins, stalls are all evaluated by a test pilot and the results recorded. The most benign of behaviours are awarded an 'A', while increasingly energetic ones can see awards of up to 'D' or 'F' (failure). The key points to take away from these tests are:

1. To minimize atmospheric variations across different tests, the tests are done in calm air over a lake. This in no way reflects the conditions in which we may find ourselves (thermic, gusting, lee, etc).
2. Collapses are human initiated by pulling on lines. Collapses in real life are initiated by the air at the wing. 
3. The tests are human performed and the results are human judged. While the testers try to remain as objective as possible, subtle variations in pilot behaviour and observation can unknowingly influence the results. The test pilots do their best, but they are human.
4. The most important (in my mind and the reason for this blog post), these tests try to measure the outcome of a departure from normal flight. There is no real comprehensive measurement of behaviour prior to departure.

Simply put, there are limitations to what the current wing rating system can accomplish. Once we have an understanding of these limitations, we can determine how best to use the system as is and improve upon it for our own needs.

The dividing line

The wing rating system looks almost exclusively at the behaviour of the wing as it departs normal flight. What is normal flight? Normal flight is a loaded, inflated wing directly overhead and under the control of the pilot. Anything that violates these criteria can be considered a departure.

A collapse is one example.

A stall is another.

A spiral may or may not be - the wing is inflated, loaded, and overhead - but is it under the control of the pilot? What may be a welcome experience for the acro pilot may be completely overwhelming for the inexperienced (highlighting the need for continuing education after attainment of first license, see 'Right Pilot'). So, it depends.

So while the rating system deals reasonably well with what happens during and after the dividing line, before it is a different story. The characteristics of the wing before it departs normal flight plays a significant role in how often it will. If the wing is too demanding for the pilot given the conditions, departures could be frequent and overwhelming, even if recovery is quick and without incident.  The rating system may include pilot notes pertaining to the wing, but given that the test is performed in calm air over a lake, it is unlikely to include much commentary on the handing of the wing in thermic conditions. It is this behaviour that needs a standardized, simple to understand method of reporting, much akin to the wing rating system already in place.

Suitability

To cut to the chase, I would suggest splitting Suitability from Passive Safety.

Suitability would be derived from manufacturer data, but we cannot use the data outright
.
Why?

The current situation of manufacturer ratings is hit and miss, some indicate the type of pilot, some indicate if the wing is not suitable for students, others indicate the number of air hours.

 If we could standardize the manufacturer suitability data, we can make something approaching an apples to apples comparison.  What we need is the target pilot and the air hours per season to remain current on the wing.

So, a wing could come with a pair of standardized ratings -> One from the testing facility for passive safety (the wing rating as it currently stands) and a second from the manufacturer, clearly indicating the target pilot and air hours recommended per year to fly the wing.

Perhaps: (target pilot)-(hours/year) + (passive safety). For example:

School-10 EN A, Leisure-30 LTF B, Advanced-80 EN B, Advanced-100 EN C, etc, etc.

The School-10 EN A would be suitable for a pilot under instruction, a solo pilot pilot flying over 10 hours per year, and has a passive safety rating of EN A.

The Leisure-30 LTF B would be suited for a solo pilot flying over 30 hours per year and does not want the workload of the traditional sport wings. A possible second wing candidate.

The Advanced-80 EN B is meant for an experienced XC pilot who flies often and can manage a demanding wing but may not want to post departure behaviour of EN C.

The Advanced-100 EN C. If you are considering this, I can only hope you know what you are doing by this point.

The point of all of this?

Ultimately, the point of this proposed combined rating system is to divorce us from the idea that passive safety and suitability are one in the same. When we realize that a wing rating does not always reflect the workload we may face in the air under that wing, we begin to see the limitations of the current system. From there we can research further, hopefully finding the right wing to then combine with right conditions and pilot.

Happy Hunting.

Those of you about to fly, we salute you.

On the threshold of your flying career, a school selected and dreams of joining your winged brethren.

Counting down the days till the commencement of training, you have likely scoured the internet in search of information. Inevitably that search will come across video of flights with less than ideal outcomes. These outcomes are entirely preventable, as the adage goes - 'launching is optional, landing is mandatory' (and in these cases, the landing was not voluntary).  To minimize the risk of such a 'negative flying experience', a combination of right conditions, right wing, and right pilot are essential. It behoves the fledgling pilot to learn to identify each element of this combintation early on if they wish to enjoy both a safe and productive flying career.

Right conditions.

If the weather can be compared to a toddler with a penchant for stomping, we are the ants that scurry amongst its feet. We have no influence on its mood or behavior, all we can do is to know when it is best to remain below ground.

Learning to know when the toddler is likely to be let loose upon the yard is a critical part of our early training. In essence, become a personal weather channel. Failure to do so (or to heed signs that are staring us in the face) could result in a similar experience:

The outcome for this individual could have been much, much worse (competition or not, there was no excuse to fly in those conditions - a complete failure in judgement by an experienced pilot). Knowing when we can fly is important but knowing when we shouldn't is paramount. If there is one reoccuring contributor in paragliding incidents, the conditions would be it.

Right wing.

While we may not have control over the weather every day, we do have control of the wing we use every flight.

Finding a wing that fits our flying style takes time and may not happen with our first wing. But we can ensure we start with a wing that is suitable for our experience level. Wings are certified with EN and/or LTF ratings between A and D. A wing with an A rating is typically well suited for a students first flight, while a D wing is meant for only the most experienced and skilled of pilots. Many pilots at the beginning of their career assume that two wings which share a rating are equally safe to fly. While this may have held some validity five or six years ago, wing development has progressed to the point that not all wings of a class flock together.

Thermik magazine of Germany has subdivided each EN/LTF class based on behavior and suitability (relying in part on manufacturer recommendation), coupled with current examples:

A – Beginner
A1: Especially suited for schooling and first flights
A2: Beginner wings that offer good handling, high safety and flying pleasure for a long time 

B – Intermediate
B1: Classic basic intermediate wings with high safety, good handling and sufficient performance. Wings for a lifetime!
B2: All-round-intermediate wings in the middle of their class
B3: Since several years very big XC-flights are being flown with these wings. Top pilots feel completely at ease under these wings whereas some of them may be too demanding for average pilots. 

C – Sports Class
C1: Good-natured sports class wings with high safety margin for their class, but having handling characteristics similar to high performance wings.
C2: “True” sports class wings with safety comparable to most former DHV-2 wings.
C3: Demanding sports class wings for Top XC-pilots with a high level of piloting. Comparable to good-natured high-performance wings from a few years back (DHV 2-3)
C4: These wings bridge the gap to the EN-D class. Piloting demands are comparable to those of high-performance wings. 

D – High Performance
D1: These wings are high-performance, but still have manageable flying characteristics for very experienced pilots.
D2: Demanding high-performance wings that require extremely experienced pilots.
D3: Certified 2-liners and extremely demanding high-performance wings.

A pilot having completed their first half dozen flights is likely looking to progress to an A2 (or if particularly talented, a B1). Migration to B2 should only be done with significant consideration and dialog with an instructor. A B3 shouldn't even be in the picture prior to the completion of a SIV course and accumulation of moderate XC experience - they are not suitable for new pilots and manufacturers make this abundantly clear in the user manual with statements like "not suitable for training" (or a definitive absence of "suitable for training" that may be found with their A and B1 offerings). A B3 frequently makes a great second wing, but not a good first one.

Right pilot.

Train. Train. Train.

Training is an investment in ourselves. The most fundamental form of training is ground handling (aka kiting). By making ground handling payments into our training investment, we begin to build the muscle memory that will form our pilotage skill base. It is quite evident on launch which students have been investing in themselves (including time on the training hill), their launches are smooth and aggressive. On the opposite end of the spectrum we see chaotic, apprehensive launch attempts that frequently become cringe worthy - the end result for those who do not place much value on ground handling.

Even upon award of our first license, the training must not end. Find a coach to further work on launching, landing, and, especially, thermalling. Just because we went around in circles a few times in lift, we are certainly no masters of climb. Thermalling is an art form that takes years to refine to an acceptable efficiency. A coach can cut out a lot of trial and error (especially the all too common error of blaming and seeking to replace the wing). Dedicated thermalling courses overseas are an option as well, if money and time are no barrier.

Going even further, if your former instructor (and current coach) agree - a combination of reserve clinic  and SIV should be a goal prior to completion of the first season post license. A desire to understand how to deploy the reserve and the characteristics of a wing when it departs normal flight are the hallmarks of a safety conscious pilot.

A very busy first season no doubt, but a very sound investment - one that will pay out a dividend of right conditions, right wing, and right pilot.

Reminiscent. First flight.

A query on paragliding forum: do you recall your first 'solo'* flight?

...

License in hand, having only been issued two weeks prior after a weekend of SIV flights.

A beautiful Saturday afternoon in early fall. Fall days are tame days, forgiving and gentle - a near guaranteed sled run punctuated with the rare bump.

The launch has been basking in the sun for several hours, streamers lightly fluttering up slope. Easy launching conditions, no risk of being plucked.

The streamers continue to flow upslope...
... and then down slope
... then from the left ... and right.

A near metronome quality.

Arched eyebrow and slight tilt of head, I turn to one of my compatriots who had been signed off a month earlier, "That is odd."

"It's fine.", comes a quick, reassuring reply.

The observation of this being a blind leading the blind scenario - absent.

Half an hour later - kitted, connected, and laid out.

A text book reverse pull up, a glance left at the congregation of whuffos, and we (me/myself/I) are off.

Aforementioned compatriot quickly gives chase and what followed for both of us was aptly described by him upon landing:

A guided origami tour of the mountain.

experience++;

* Solo as in first flight post sign off when the teacher is not present. Not to be confused to solo where one is standing on launch alone with an empty sky and lz - the sense of being truly on ones own.