Debate over paragliding in Malibu

A small brush fire caused when a paraglider crash-landed in Malibu last month has sparked a debate in the Malibu Times over whether more regulations are needed. Letter-writer Bill Raffin thinks so:

I've seen hang-gliders descending dangerously low across the highway with only a short stretch of beach for landing on when the tide is high. I am not against hang-gliders and I love recreational activity, but I do believe the risk of loss of human life and the potential for collision on or near the busy Pacific Coast Highway are too great to allow this sport to take place in the immediate area.

His letter generated much debate on the Times' site. Others posted comments defending the sport. One poster said: "I support the paragliders they are beautiful to watch. Those so called out of towners bring revenue to the area although I bet most are locals. They are not a danger to you Mr Malibu or your children in your 4000 [pound] car or SUV."

-- Shelby Grad

Photo credit: Veronique de Turenne / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[CW]

Paragliders, not hang gliders. Hang gliders unfold to have a rigid structure, look like flying wings and fly faster. A paraglider suspends the pilot from a canopy and is easier to land and can be transported in a backpack. Both are silent, use no oil, allow multihour soaring sharing thermals with hawks, and harm no one but the occasional uncautious pilot.

[midtoad]

I say b.s. on the original report. How could an unpowered aircraft possibly be responsible for a brush fire? There's no fuel on board!

[Steve Corbin]

Midtoad is mistaken. The fire was started by a PPG (powered paraglider), The wing is the same but the pilot wears a gas powered fan on his back, which is used to inflate the canopy-wing and prevents it from collapsing while performing loops and spins.