I had never been in a real emergency and, as long as my friends could see the bread crumbs moving on the SPOT, I was fine. So how can an EN-D wing, with its long AR and just two line levels be so safe? What about the front collapse problems of just a few years ago? I’m not sure if that means these wings are safer or that the theory of natural selection is working here. I’ve asked some EN-D pilots about how their glider reacts in extreme circumstances and many tell me that they can’t say because they’ve never had a collapse. I’ve never flown an EN-D or comp wing, so I’d be interested to hear your views on safety between these classes. That’s worrying because it invites pilots to step up to a higher level wing based purely on the handful of tests performed to satisfy a catalog of criteria, even though it’s clear that paraglider development in recent years has outpaced the ability for any body to regulate it.
Gliders like Bruce’s UP and the Carrera that I tested recently are making into EN classes a level lower than intended.
I think the EN standards need to be overhauled and I also think we need more public discourse on this subject in general. I’d like to take you up on your safety conversation offer and ping you about your statement: “…the safest wing I’ve ever flown (yes, even more so than EN B’s and C’s.”
