Especially in my early days, there were these ultralight rescue devices where people broke their necks on the rescue gear. I saw it myself in Werfenwegen, where people came down on the rescue glider—even with perfect pilot behavior, like avoiding sculling—and still broke their cervical spine and things like that. I'd be happy if my videos brought a bit of awareness to that in the scene.
Podz-Glidz, the Lu-Glidz podcast.
Stories from the cosmos of paragliding.
Today with Alois Rettenbacher. And I'm Lucian Haas.
In 2012, a video appeared on YouTube by a young Austrian man who, in the winter, simply tried out different rescues over the snowy valley of his home mountain, Bischling, and documented his experiences. Round canopy, cross canopy, Rogallo, Becher. Same system.
Alois Rettenbacher, who was 27 at the time and had only held his pilot's license for about two years, wanted to find out which type of rescue system suited him best. Previously, his conversations with other pilots had only yielded a lot of half-knowledge that didn't really help him with his decision. His video "Rescue Problem" attracted quite a bit of attention back then, at least in the German-speaking paragliding scene. It showed many pilots that the topic of "rescue problems" cannot be so easily labeled. Perhaps the topic of "rescue" shouldn't be treated so dismissively, but rather that one should engage with it more deeply. Alois showed, among other things, that canopy types can swing violently, while cross-canopy types can develop unexpectedly strong forward speed, which ended in an unplanned roof landing for him,
Rogallos tend to twist and lean towards a scissor position, etc. Alois produced several more follow-up videos to this first rescue video over the years. And so we can be grateful to him today for sparking a lot of discussion and reflection about emergency gliders in the scene. However, the topic of "rescue" is far from settled. For most paragliders, the saying "out of sight, out of mind" still applies. For many, the rescue glider is a necessary but somehow unpleasant and therefore mentally repressed piece of ballast in the gear. Perhaps this 85th episode of Podz-Glidz will change that a little. In any case, I wish you good entertainment and plenty of new insights. That was the rescue talk with Alois Rettenbacher.
If you enjoy Podz-Glidz, please consider supporting my work as a patron. You can find out how to do this easily and without any obligation on the "Support" page of my blog website, Lu-Glidz.
Alois, how often have you actually come down from a real emergency situation using the rescue parachute? Once. Why?
I was flying a Freestyle 3 from Gradient. And I lost control. I was twisted, and then, for the first and only time, I released the rescuer. And that was a Subair BASE system. I've had that for a while. And that was one of the most beautiful experiences in paragliding that I've actually had. One of the most beautiful? That's unusual. Why? I'd thought a lot about rescuer material beforehand, which rescue gliders have which pros and cons. And I always had in the back of my mind, can I still manage that in an extreme case? And in the past, it was always like that with ski accidents or near-ski accidents, how you get the experience of watching yourself as the body makes certain reactions.
For example, like with active flying, when you're wrestling it in the air and you notice that the body reacts much faster than the thoughts actually make it conscious. And I always played with the thought—I've always had so many thoughts—but what if none of that helps? You've heard in psychology that there are many types of reactions to it, and you can categorize how humans react when they're confronted with stress. There are primarily these theses, which are probably all not completely complete, that there's fight, flight, and freeze.
And this awareness that I don't mean, that I don't identify. If I'm not identified with my skills, I've always had that, and I didn't know how my brain would react when the adrenaline kicks in and when the stress kicks in. I already noticed this in various rescue attempts that the cognitive perception, for example, of what's happening in the outside world, often deviates greatly from what I saw later in the video. And in that sense, the nice thing or the confirmation was that I had thought about what happens to me when I lose control. And in that case, I had this loss of control, I was twisted, and then very quickly this program...
in aviation, in the professional world, I believe it's called running the Standard Operating Procedure. So, the first thing for me was freezing the brakes at about carabiner height, so the glider doesn't just shoot out, and then I already saw I was twisted. The second thing was the control check—how much altitude do I have left, can I still do something? And at that point, I already noticed, this control check, it was like in my perception that I didn't feel so good anymore, but like—this sounds a bit weird now—but like watching yourself do it. And then I realized, no, I can't do anything anymore. Then I have the memory of taking both brakes in one hand to prevent the canopy from shooting forward when you reach for the rescue. That's, for example, a feature I heard about from a safety trainer, that it often happens that people, when they reach for the rescue, let go and then it really takes off.
And then I took both brakes into my left hand, separated, and during the separation process, I was very happy about how quickly and abruptly it all started. In that sense, it was a beautiful experience because it was confirmation of dealing with the emergency situation—not from a negative perception filter, but constructively; if I have a problem, I want to get out of it quickly and constructively. That made a lot of sense, and that's why it was a nice experience.
Probably with the BASE system too, you have few complications afterwards because you see the BASE, the glider flies away, the BASE glider comes out from the back, and then you're not struggling with the glider or anything else anymore; instead, you can say, basically, I have a flight craft over me again. It might descend faster than before, but otherwise, you can steer it to the ground just the same and you're back in control of the situation, not a helpless person.
Exactly. And the image I have in my head is the problem: the glider pulls you out of the rescue. So it's not like with a normal rescue parachute, where you're supposed to throw the rescue chute—in the best case, you still have to think about where and how to throw it. And those are all factors that, in an emergency, when you already have the overload in your brain and that adrenaline rush—you can feel in your body how that changes you. And in that case, I just really like that you detach yourself from the problem, and through that detachment, the solution comes out. I really like that. And yeah, in that case, it was quite a noble experience. So, basically, the problem even helps you with the solution in the end. Exactly.
That's not really the case with normal rescues, I mean not with those base systems, yeah, not quite. With those, you as a pilot have to put in a lot more input. And you've done many, many tests on that yourself. How did you even come up with the idea to say, "I'm going to start this rescue series"? That was already ten years ago. I think you released that first film on the rescue issue in 2012. What drove you to test something like that back then?
In the early days, I asked many pilots whom I respected a lot why they use certain rescue devices. And those were also questions about separation carabiners. And back then, cross canopies didn't really exist yet. There were round canopies and Rogallo. And I got all sorts of different answers that didn't really make sense together. So then I just tried it. And it was within my circle of friends; people filmed along for the analysis. And then we threw them. I then digested those findings, looked at them, and a flight instructor asked me to publish it because she said something like that doesn't exist at all yet. And then I just recorded it and put it on the internet. And yeah, it then had a relatively large reach in the scene, in the German-speaking one.
If
I know that correctly, but back then you hadn't been flying for very long. You weren't an experienced pilot saying, "Watch out, I'm going to deploy the rescue chute now," or anything like that. Instead, you were still relatively at the beginning of your flying career and you still dared to do something like saying, "I'm going to pull a rescue chute over the ground and just land down in the snow." How was that usually, I think, back then?
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, there was a bit of naivety involved back then, I have to say. Looking back, I wouldn't do that anymore. But I just assumed certain premises that I later realized weren't actually correct. So I thought, there's lots of snow, there's little wind, there's a big meadow. And if I throw the rescue canopy there, I thought—I had so much trust in the system. But I realized afterwards that I was a bit naive. In retrospect. So I wouldn't do it anymore. With non-steerable rescue canopies at such high altitudes. I realized that certain rescue systems have forward travel. And also the sink rate on round canopies that started to oscillate was extremely high. So I actually wanted to throw a smaller rescue canopy, one that would have gone up to 100 kilos at that point.
But I already noticed then that the sink rates in an emergency are so high. And in further research, I found out how these sink rates even come about. What are these 5.5 meters? They are calculated at sea level at a certain temperature. And if you know the background or the physics behind it, you know that in an emergency, it involves much more speed, and therefore much more energy. And the risk of injury can also be high. And as you've seen, with one rescuer, I landed on a roof. So I was lucky there. And I wouldn't recommend doing something like that anymore either. And I wouldn't do it myself anymore. For example, I'd still throw a Rogalo or a BASE system over ground. But I would only test unguided rescuers over water.
And after that, I only did it over water from then on.
You just said you pulled it at a relatively high altitude. How high above the ground were you when you said, "Now I'm going to pull the riser," and then you still have plenty of time to gather foam and everything else that's obviously quite useful for a test like this? But if a thing like that drifts away, you can't really say for sure whether you'll still hit the meadow.
Exactly. That was from a bit of glide angle off the wing, so I'd have to estimate that now. I'd say I threw it maybe 300, 400 meters above the ground.
Then you thought, I'm looking down, oh, I'm landing in the meadow. But then, with this one rescuer—it was either the Independence Evo or the Evo Cross, which is also known, or at least known now, for gliding significantly and thus, in theory, at least on paper, achieving relatively good sink rates. But with that, you ended up landing on your roof.
Yeah, exactly.
Did you actually get into any trouble with the roof owners or anything? No, it was very
funny. We still chuckle about that when we meet up. No, that was very, very amusing. I questioned it critically afterwards. I never meant to offend anyone. In that sense, there's still a big question mark regarding rescue devices that move forward if you're flying in certain areas where there are agro-boxes, for example. Or like Mürren is a good example. Or if you're trying some maneuver for the first time, my mentor taught me: don't do it over power lines, don't do it over inhabited areas, do it where if something happens, you can descend safely. But if you now—I'm just assuming for the sake of argument—have a glide ratio of 1 to 1 and you're 300 meters above ground, then you know that the box down there has to be very large. Then you add a bit of wind to that,
so the canopy is already really huge. And we noticed that subsequently, not just with larger ones, with round canopies, but also with round canopies over the lake, where we pulled across the lake in the middle and almost flew out over the lake in all sorts of directions. And I've also heard stories from safety instructors who said that if something happens during the first maneuvers at high altitude, sometimes people don't land in the water, but it's already happened that they were drifted onto land somewhere. So in that sense, it's interesting. It would be interesting to measure. Above all, it would be interesting because the speed—the 5.5 meters that aren't exceeded by the vertical speed—the horizontal speed also stores energy. And I think you'd have to, I'm no physicist, add it vectorially.
If I'm coming down at 5.5 meters and flying forward at 5.5 meters, that can have a very positive or negative effect depending on the slope of the terrain. And when it comes to this specific aspect in the military, there are limits in both directions. I don't know why that hasn't been figured out, or maybe it has been by now. I would find it very interesting because, ultimately, what matters is how much kinetic energy you hit the ground with.
You could potentially also say, at least a certain small amount of forward motion. And I think in your videos it also came up often that one lands more like gliding backwards. So simply because with a connected glider, such a slight tilt of the gliders—meaning the reserve parachutes—occurs, that you are then pulled more towards the back. And that perhaps a slightly larger forward motion could even facilitate the roll. Because if you come in completely vertically, then you have to be very, well, that somersault the soldiers always do, you have to master that very well in order to catch it accordingly. And if you already have a bit of speed to the side, then you are automatically pulled into a rolling motion, perhaps. That could be seen as an advantage as well.
Have you experienced anything like that? Yes, that's an interesting approach. Regarding this, I know from the Austrian military that there are limits for vertical and horizontal speeds, but that assumes the direction of your gaze is forward. And because that favors the roll. So in that sense, if the body position is correct, I believe this thesis holds true. But in reality, if you aren't separated from the glider and you're hanging at the center of gravity on your shoulders, and the main glider pulls and brakes still outside of the center of gravity, it's a logical conclusion that you actually land more towards the back. But how that specifically affects the risk of accidents, I can't judge that.
What's interesting, as I said, is that the military says the direction of your gaze should be forward.
But what's interesting is, when you imagine it, there's actually always this connected situation. Unless you really have separation carabiners and can get rid of the glider. Then there would actually always be a slight tilt of the rescue glider as well. And even with a rescue glider where, in the state of the main glider being separated, it would actually come down vertically in zero wind, it could still end up gliding a bit and coming in at an angle if it's still connected. So you'd actually always have to assume that even a rescue glider movement that appears to be vertical on paper, or twisted equipment, would ultimately always also slightly
glide. By the slight shearing motion, do you mean the one basically generated by the main wing? Yes, I could imagine that. I could also. I can't really say much about that because I think you'd have to measure it. And it would be interesting, for example, a question I wrote to the TV. And I don't remember if this LTF even still exists. And it says in there, for example, that rescue canopies, if they have a forward motion by design, actually have to be controllable. And I asked once, how is forward motion actually defined? And I never got an answer. There are still just very many open questions there, where it would be interesting to look into it. But someone would have to try that more often, wouldn't they?
Yes, as far as I know, the LTF doesn't even define how forward motion should be measured. So, officially, there is no forward motion, unless the manufacturer says, "My device—like with the Rogallo, where it's clear it has a technically determined forward motion and a structural asymmetry that clearly leads to drift—then it obviously has to be controllable." Otherwise, as a manufacturer, you just say, "No, it's not controllable and is actually built symmetrically." There are certainly some gliders that already have a slight structural asymmetry. You could argue about how that works. But they might have an EN certification where that isn't mentioned. And nowadays, EN and LTF are actually considered equivalent. That gets transferred, and then you say, "Wonderful, you can fly in Germany with an EN-tested rescue canopy just as well as with an LTF-tested one."
And that resolves this issue. And because, I believe, today only the rescuers are actually tested at Air Turquoise in Switzerland—the DAV, no manufacturer lets them test their rescuers at the DAV anymore, they just say everything goes through Air Turquoise. And they basically do all the EN tests, so that's pretty much settled. As far as I know, the situation is really like this: it's always been brought up, how could we maybe do this, but in the end, it hasn't been codified in any standard yet how to measure a certain amount of drift, which is probably quite difficult with wind speeds and all that.
Sure, it's difficult, but I can't imagine that in 2022 we don't have the technical capabilities to measure the true airspeed—that is, the relative speed to the air mass, the surrounding air mass, which might itself be in motion—to measure the speed compared to the air mass, compared to the space around itself, in two directions. I find that hard to imagine. Vertical sink rates are determined via a tow and calculated over time, but I once heard of a Swiss designer who was working on testing prototypes that measure both speeds. But I have no idea how far along they are, because at some point, for me, the topic was actually concluded from both a technical and a legal side.
I'm always wrongly cited as an expert. I've simply tried things as an amateur and asked amateurish questions, but that resonated with a relatively large number of paragliders. But basically, I'm a complete layman. Nevertheless, I find the questions that emerged from the self-tests interesting.
Back then, in 2012 and also in 2016 when your second video came out, where I believe you tested seven or eight gliders, so rescuers, one after another, over the Ossiacher See and over water. With that, you really sparked some discussions in the scene and also among the experts. And ultimately, especially the discussion around very small rescuers that drift a lot or develop this strong shear position and things like that. A lot of discussion arose in the scene after that. And where the development was heading—that rescuers were getting smaller because they were getting lighter and so on—people suddenly realized, well, maybe you do need more surface area, because otherwise you're really buying yourself disadvantages by hitting the ground much, much harder.
Did you actually get any feedback back then in your conversations with the experts and others, where you'd say, I spoke with Dani Loritz once or with a Swiss designer and so on? Dani Loritz is Swiss too.
I'm Swiss, yes.
Did you get any feedback like, "Ah, we really have to take this guy seriously, he's coming to us with questions we don't normally get, but these are really questions we should be addressing"?
Those were more like pilots who approached me and said that based on the questions or the video material, they changed their equipment. That was especially in my early days with those ultralight rescuers you just mentioned, where people broke their vertebrae on the rescue gear. I've seen it myself in Werfenwegen, where people came down from the rescue glider even with perfect pilot behavior—preventing sculling, avoiding it—and still broke their cervical spine and things like that. So I believe that, I'd be happy if my videos brought a bit of awareness to the scene there.
From all the insights you've gained, is there anything you'd say as three "common sense" points that should definitely be passed on to pilots when buying a rescue canopy—things you'd say, "make sure you pay attention to these"?
I believe primarily the size of the rescue device. I think there are two, so I've differentiated between two significant differences in how you can evaluate a rescue glider. One is the safety-relevant aspects: the opening time, how likely the rescue is to foul, how pendulum-stable it is, is it waterproof—meaning, if it has been wetted once, does it still function the same? There are also things like the main line shrinking differently than the outer lines and other aspects. And then there are the relevant sales arguments: weight and price. And I would say, regarding size, bigger is definitely better than smaller. And the second thing, there are many basic insights. If you decide on a Rogallo, for example, I'm in favor of having separation carabiners for the risers and the speed system.
That's very important to me because otherwise you have potential disadvantages; this system has many advantages, but also disadvantages. No system is perfect; everything has pros and cons. And dealing with all these physical properties and the associated possibilities, like being able to separate, has its pros and cons. That's very important. And even more important, and most importantly, is dealing with the pilot's behavior. So, dealing with this chair flying, Standard Operating Procedures, as they say in aviation. What do I do when? When the rescue parachute is open, even then, what comes next? How important it is to prevent chair settings,
what do you do if you have a parachute malfunction? Do you have a second parachute with you? And I've seen so many parachute deployments live with us, which by the way, most of them certainly don't show up in any statistics. That's why I don't trust those statistics, because I'm sure that out of ten parachute deployments that happen with us, nine don't end up in any statistic anywhere. For example, there was one time where someone flew with a battery belt, threw out their first parachute, had a malfunction, and couldn't strike upwards due to the pressure. And they just waited until the parachute opened. And they didn't think about throwing the second one after a certain amount of time. And those are the main indicators. Courage for personal responsibility, thinking about what the advantages and disadvantages of each rescue system are, and most importantly, how do I behave in the situation?
I believe that's the most important thing. The best rescuer is useless if it's not thrown.
Anyway. In all your tests, did you actually ever try what it's like to have two rescuers at once—not at the same time, but like saying, I'm pulling my main rescuer, which is hung from the shoulders, and then I basically increase the surface area by maybe pulling a front rescuer too and saying, wonderful, in addition to the 32 square meters of the main rescuer, I have another small front rescuer that maybe has another 24 square meters. And then in the end, I only reach two meters per second at the bottom. Or maybe the two interfere with each other so much that it's maybe harder or something. Have you ever tested something like that?
I asked myself the exact same questions, but I never tested them because I simply didn't have the time. There are still many things that interest me. Tandem canopies, then front containers.
Testing a tandem rescue canopy as a tandem, or flying it solo to see what it's like to come down with such a large surface area?
In tandem. So, already in a two-person team. To try out what that's like. Can you even get the main glider into the scissors position then, do you have the power for it? Because
that's a huge piece of fabric and then you have to reach up, and then it hangs—I mean, the whole spreader is pulled differently when the rescuer pulls on it.
Yeah, good question. Then you can try with soft spreaders or with the classic spreaders. So your suggestion is absolutely interesting; we can still try that with so many different combinations. Do you have two cross canopies, do you have a Rogallo and a round canopy, or a Rogallo or those triangular shapes that exist? Well, there are still countless attempts that would be worth looking into. There are people who say, I always just throw in two as a rule, but what that's like in reality—all very good questions that I don't have the answers to.
When did you fly your last rescue test?
I do that regularly with the BASE system, but I think in the winter.
Just for fun, you pull it and... Yeah,
So I just want to do it two or three times a year, and that's always a big challenge because it's such an ordeal, this freefall. With a Rogallo, if I were to throw it, I wouldn't have that much tension, but doing it with the Base system is just that hurdle of letting go. It took me a very long time to even cope with the thought of having a component in the harness, another potential source of error if something happens. So for the first few months, I didn't touch it at all. I got this Base system from Thermik magazine back when it was still new, and I didn't dare for a long time. We first had to look at it closely, how does it actually work, do I have a source of error there? Just to stay in practice, and it's also a kind of mindfulness exercise, because it's always such a great feeling to fly out and you think to yourself, am I really doing this now?
Why do I do that? But I think, to have trust in the gear and trust in the way it functions, I find that incredibly important because it simply brings a certain routine, which then potentially leads to, in an emergency, if I have an opening—for example, if the BASE glider is open—then I might still be able to go into a backfly or quickly dodge somewhere, or simply get to maneuvering much faster. For example, during my first Rogallo test, it took me forever to separate and even get to controlling it. And subsequently, once you have that schema down, now I do this, and then when the glider is open, it all goes much faster because it becomes muscle memory.
At what altitude do you deploy your Base system? Because you mentioned earlier that during the first rescue tests, you were basically too high. Does that not matter with the Base system because you say it's controllable, or do you also do that relatively low so that your glider, which then separates automatically, can still land somewhere on the next meadow—I mean, your main glider? Exactly.
So I'm not quite as high, because the deployment altitude is very low with the BASE system, and I have a lot of confidence in that. If you look at how many BASE openings occur, and especially with these tailgates that are installed, there are almost no more sources of interference. So I just have a lot of confidence in it, and I just make sure the wind is still, that there are no other paragliders in the air, and then I pick a meadow and go back up to 200-300 meters.
But Base-System means Agro-harness.
Yes, exactly.
If you're doing normal cross-country flying, you probably don't do that with your Agro harness. No, there
I have one where the wave goes, yes, I have two, and I have a timer in there and additionally a separation carabiner and Quick-Head in there, those are these separation systems for speed. So that's my normal gear, the one I prefer to fly with.
And do you have a second rescuer, like in the front of the cockpit? No, there
I don't have one.
If you could have any wish, would you actually wish for base rescue systems for those cross-country flight devices too? Like lying harnesses with an integrated base system?
Yes, that would be interesting.
And why do you think no manufacturer has brought that to market yet?
I don't know. We just had a manufacturer two weeks ago, a new one, that had a base system and there was a false deployment. A seam wasn't sewn properly and during the cranking, the pilot detached from a riser. I think base systems in general are a major source of error. It's a three-ring system, usually in the harnesses that are installed, where there have already been certain compatibility issues in the past with some manufacturers. And I can imagine that cross-country pilots, in contrast to agro pilots, are a bit differently tuned when it comes to rescues. And I think this psychological...
that huge hurdle of just flying with a harness like that, where you have this possibility of separating, and that's also a potential source of error.
I could imagine that's the reason. Maybe another reason is that the harnesses would become incredibly expensive. Even more expensive than they already are. And then, how do you release them? I once had the idea that it would be cool to have a system that could be installed compatibly into any harness, where instead of the main carabiners you have special carabiners, and the glider is inside the front container at the front. Possibly even single-skin, or there are very light ones too. Then you have your front container, which would inevitably be heavier than a normal front container, where you detach from your glider and over a static line that would be pulled. Then there's the question again: are you putting a risk of injury to the face? Maybe a question would be, what about the root at the back? So it would certainly be a very complicated harness, but as a basic concept,
if you could actually implement that,
if you are reliable against the sources of error that you always have, when you have technical possibilities, then I would like to have a harness like that.
But to have come up with the idea of maybe constructing something like that yourself, I find that so interesting—you're getting yourself involved, just like you've been getting into those rescue videos, but you're not quite there yet.
Yeah, I asked a designer in Switzerland, and he said they supposedly did it for a few test pilots, but they would never do it if someone just came along and said, "Let's make something like that." Those wouldn't be experience stories, and otherwise, I've also heard of another designer who supposedly made something like that, but I haven't heard anything more about it, and I don't see myself as being called to invent something like that, because there are smarter people, or there would have to be some kind of rigger who also has a lot of experience, a harness builder who maybe has experience with what's wrong with the jump; that would certainly be a very interesting thing. The legal side is another matter entirely, because I believe that was actually approved for the parachute below, for the standard parachute, and a real expert once explained to me that it's also very legally questionable to separate, so these base systems, that it's actually not allowed by definition.
So, in the airspace, you're not actually allowed to drop anything? Probably not. I mean, you're separating from your aircraft—at least from one of them—and then you continue flying with the other one.
But a glider also has an emergency exit.
Because actually, it's about doing the best possible thing when it comes to safety. And I believe that if you're really in a dangerous situation, the primary thing is getting out of it, and not what the legal situation is. The legal situation should follow the safety aspect and not be prevented by the safety aspect because of how the legal situation is.
One of the difficulties with a rescue throw, or generally with the whole rescue issue, is also getting the rescuer out in the first place. I mean, you've probably always worked with a standard harness where you did all your tests and where it probably just worked well for you. Do you still have any tips from that, or did you go through a learning curve on how to best pull and throw a rescuer out of their harness? We
we've tried it. There are these theories about targeted throwing and all those aspects. Personally, I don't buy into any of that. But that doesn't mean I know better. Because I believe that as soon as this shock situation occurs, I don't trust myself to verify, for example, right now—this is very difficult—what the situation looks like. In a normal case, if there's no collision, I've memorized my rescue grip and I want to throw it over the horizon in one go with as much energy as possible. It's targeted throwing. I've tried it and we've tried it.
and usually you have the rescue handle and then you have this connecting line to the rescue device. And if that's swirling around like that, trying to get some kind of whip effect on it, I find that incredibly difficult. So personally, I've come to the conclusion that if I throw my standard Rogalo in the prone harness, I reach down and throw it over the horizon in one go with all my energy. The other things, like targeted leg throws or something, I would have had to see someone do that first, but I can't imagine that it works.
I mean, a targeted leg throw is, at the end of the day, even in theory, only really useful during rotation movements similar to a "satt" where you say, okay, there's my glider, and I should actually throw my rescuer as far as possible in the exact opposite direction, so that it doesn't just hang stupidly down there and can't open at all because there's no pull on it.
That would be a cool challenge for young pilots or for pilots who are interested in that sort of thing,
for example, one from Paul Taggert, who threw a rescuer into the lines as a conscious act, and that would be really cool to try over the sea with a life jacket and a boat. To initiate it and then try it out once. Try the different constellations with longer, shorter lines, a leg throw, or whether the energy of a targeted throw with one pull is sufficient, because the pivot point is then between the glider and the pilot, so that the energy is enough to throw it over, and that the probability of having a rescuer fall is low. Or is that not even possible? Those would all be things we should try out, make videos of, and put on the internet, because I believe we can all learn from each other.
There are systems, at least in development, where you could say, simplified, I just have to press a button or pull a small handle and then there's a CO2 cartridge in my rescue compartment, similar to airbag systems, but without the explosive thing, just the gas that expands it and
then it will be
the rescuer just shot out of the rescue compartment with a lot of momentum. Would you find something like that interesting?
Sure, that's also interesting. The question I ask myself is, all of this already exists. With office equipment, with compressors and air-water mixtures. Can you still transport that in the cabin? Can you transport it in the car? How many accidents are there then because you're sitting in the car and the thing goes off? Does one person pull it out alone or what? It pulls somewhere and those are all questions like, what does it provide and what is the risk of injury? Just like tear gas canisters, they provide something, but I also have the risk of misuse. If I'm lying in the snow in winter, for example, and I have a light layer of ice on top, it could be that if you don't lock these red clips, you might get an accidental opening. I've actually seen that myself once. There was one guy who lost both shortly after starting, but that was at a height of 1 meter.
He got lucky. The question with all these things is which features—which positive features—a system brings, and what the potential downsides are for consideration. I think it's interesting in every direction, technically.
Even if you're not the absolute—or what does absolute mean—not the expert, but I'm the layman who has read up a lot and tried a lot of things. Maybe we can briefly go through the typical rescue systems and you can give me your assessment as a layman, not speaking for everyone. Where you say, yeah, I already have an opinion on that. Just the various designs we have. Let's start with the very conventional one, the round canopy. What would you say about that? Is it still sensible to buy a round canopy today? Or would you always say, no, that
is actually outdated? I've seen so many round canopies that swing or don't swing, sometimes they swing and sometimes they don't. So, personally, I wouldn't take one. But that doesn't mean there probably aren't some really good designs out there, but I can't start with those, or maybe what did I decide on? So, I consciously decided on Rogallo, for the Bass system, and for the front rescuer and the secondary rescuer in the Bass system, I have these triangular shapes from Dani Lorenz. X2 and the steerable one, I think it's called Triangle.
And do you have those built into the various harnesses? Or is that what you would use?
Exactly. Based on the experience I've personally had—which doesn't mean that having more experience would change it, but based on my current level of knowledge—I chose these systems. So
firstly, no round canopy, but some kind of square canopy then. And there would be the classic cross canopies or then the possible triangular canopies, either in a classic design so that you can go straight down, or the triangular canopy, which would be the Rogallo system, where you have a built-in forward motion that you can also control.
So I don't have these cross canopies at all, or not at all anymore,
because I just don't really like it. And I tried out this X2, this triangular shape from Dani Loritz, and I tried to measure with my own means whether it has forward speed or not. And I didn't do anything else; I hung a piece of light barrier tape somewhere on the riser and then watched how I came down. If it goes steeply upwards, similar to a smoke trail, then on the map it says I'm going vertically down, and if it's at 45 degrees to the lines, then I have forward speed. And I had good confidence that the pendulum was stable and that I didn't have forward speed. And for this reason, I chose that one, and even then there's this upgrade where the risers are different, where you can generate a slight forward speed of about 10-12 km/h if you still have the time to activate it.
And I simply chose it for the reason that, based on my logic—which might be flawed or incomplete—the potential for shear positions isn't that great. So, if the canopy really doesn't have any forward speed by design. That's, for example, a disadvantage I see with the Rogalo system, which I fly in the streckengurt harness, and for this reason, I advocate for—or have made the decision for myself—that I only fly this Rogalo system if I can disconnect from the main glider using separation carabiners connected to the speed system. Because I've simply already seen cases in reality where retrieving or deforming the glider was no longer possible. There was just such a long twist on it. And then you couldn't do anything anymore.
You just said that cross canopies aren't really your thing. That's a feeling-oriented, emotional story. But why did it stick with you that cross canopies aren't so appealing? Is it because you landed on your roof with a cross canopy and that left you with a bad memory?
Maybe so. It's really hard to say. They naturally have lower sink rates and usually everything turns out very well anyway. But I just want to be able to control the forward speed. And now, if I'm going over a large field, for example, and I do some kind of 0850 maneuver where I could go wrong somewhere, I just want to know in advance that I'll also arrive down there and won't be flying around somewhere with the glide ratio—which nobody knows how much they have because it's not measured. So it's probably more of an emotional story for me. Of course, they are great gliders. They are absolutely pendulum stable. Because of the pendulum effect—those old round canopies that existed, if I remember how cruel the feeling was when you'd pendulum down like that. That was such a bad feeling and there was so much speed associated with it.
And when you try those shears over water, where I deliberately provoked them, and seven meters—that sounds like so little, but it's so fast. And when you... you always go from, I'm doing this over the lake, but in reality, you're going down somewhere on a ski slope where maybe there's still a snow cannon or something. And you definitely don't want to land on the snow cannon. Exactly. Yes, so it's more of a feeling thing. I just have the feeling that with the Rogalo I don't sink much either. But I can still steer it. And then, if I weigh up the flight characteristics, the physical ones of a Rogalo and a cross canopy, where I'm saying, there might be flight situations or characteristics that are perhaps similar. Maybe the Rogalo glides a bit more. But I still have the features and the option to steer it.
And I get to about 3.5 to 4 meters at our temperatures and altitude. I just feel like I have more options there. But I also have a big disadvantage, and that's the potential for a shear position. That's something I have to prevent very quickly. And I might not be able to anymore because I don't have the time or the altitude. That means every system has its pros and cons. And you can't just choose whether you need the rescuer at 1,000 meters above ground or 100 meters above ground. That means my Rogalo system can become a disadvantage if it's too close and I simply don't have enough time left to prevent the shear position and separate. That means the factor of luck always remains; I think you always need that with rescue systems anyway.
And then the question arises: wouldn't a rescue system that doesn't have these disadvantages be more sensible? And everyone has to weigh those questions for themselves. I haven't found a rational path either. For me, it's more of a gut feeling decision as to why I chose what I have.
Well, this whole rescue topic—I mean, it's occupied your mind a lot. But for many pilots, it's more of a secondary issue. They might go to flight school, and then the school sells them equipment, saying, "Look, here you have the full kit, and we'll put the rescue pack in for you," and then the students—or finished pilots—hope they'll never have to throw it out themselves, but instead, they might take it to someone to pack, maybe do a packing course, and learn how to do it themselves, and maybe even pack it. But that's the only time I assume I'll actually see the rescue pack, otherwise, I don't want to see it at all. But many people also block that out, and what you're saying, the Standard Operating Procedures—meaning, being conscious of what I actually want to do? I get the impression that many people don't give it much thought.
How could you achieve that among pilots, so that much more is talked about, or practiced, and even mentally trained in that direction?
You could, for example, change the training so that for the cross-country license—or depending on which country you're in. We call it something else here, you have A-B licenses or it's called something else where you are. You could introduce it, for example, so that a mandatory SIV training is included with rescue throws during the training. That could be done at the legal level. Or you can appeal to personal responsibility. Basically, these are all competent, adult people who are flying. And if they don't want to think about such things, then that's their problem anyway. The training in general, compared to, for example, Falschem, I would say it's very meager. I was once at a Falschem jump site and saw someone being checked who hadn't jumped for a long time.
They were shown images and he had to immediately show what his standard operating procedures look like. That surprised me very much, or rather, impressed me very positively. And I'd be interested, for example, in asking people at the launch site, "Can I take a look at your harness and check if the reserve actually comes out?" I was once there live in Switzerland, for example, where someone crashed and tried in vain to deploy both reserves. Both splints were still metallic, so rusted that the rust had bonded the splint to the loop that it was technically no longer possible to deploy the reserves. And everyone knows those stories about reserve packers where zip ties are inside, Allen keys are still inside, reserves are inside wrapped in plastic. So you called it half-hearted, and that's absolutely right.
I also know the example of a pilot who arrived at the SIV training; there, it had to be pulled out, yes, once there, so not pulled out in the air, but still during the preparation, to see that there's a rescuer inside and it comes out and so on, and then they pack it back in. And then he wanted to pull it and couldn't get it out, couldn't get it out, and then they looked and saw he had put a very small safety pin in there, based on the assumption that he could just easily pull it out because it's so small and fragile, because he said, yes, it has happened to me more often that the rescuer compartment opened on its own, that always bothered him because then he couldn't assemble it exactly right himself, and then everyone just put their hands over their heads and slammed them together. Did you ever try it at all after you did it, to see if it comes out or not? He didn't, no, it only really became apparent during the SIV training.
But if he had encountered that in the air, in an emergency situation, it would have been fatal, and it probably would have ended badly for the poor guy.
Someone listening to this might come to the conclusion, "I'm going to go over the water as part of an SIV training," or "I'll ask at an existing SIV training, 'Hey, I'd like to go down with a rescuer once,'" because it builds a lot of sympathy. So, this is our friend, you don't need to be afraid of him, because then you don't even have to think about it. And this is our potential life-saver, so you should think about that because you first mentioned what the main arguments are. Are 200 grams really a deciding factor for me? Do I really need a rescuer that weighs 910 grams instead of 1100 grams? That's 0.2 liters, which you might be able to take off, or take in less water, or if you know what it feels like on a small rescuer, even getting down over the water, and you've experienced that once during SIV training, then you swap. I've heard very often from friends who did that, "I swapped my rescuer immediately."
So just try it out once, get a feel for our potential lifesaver, and that simply builds trust. And do it under the safest possible conditions—life jacket, lake, on the radio, with a boat—not much could happen, just give it a try.
One thing that I think is also described in your first video, but which pilots generally don't talk about much, is something like, I'd say, keeping your eyes open when buying a rescue device, specifically regarding the suspension of the rescuer. How do you hang in the harness when you're hanging on the rescuer? It's the shoulder suspension, but when you're hanging in the harness, it pulls the harness up really high at the back, and sometimes you hang in a very, very uncomfortable position, or in some cases, you're actually caught in a certain way in the harness. Sometimes, I think you've experienced this too, you can't lift your head properly because the harness might be pressing against the helmet at the back, or you have a helmet with a spoiler on the back because people say it's aerodynamic, but during a rescue throw, if it pulls up at the back, it pushes the helmet down so much that you can't see anything anymore because it's basically pushed in front of your eyes—so I've heard stories like that before.
When you were buying your harnesses, did you pay attention to something like that beforehand, like saying, "Look, I'm buying your harness, but I want to put a simulator in here, pull on the rescue line at the back, and I want to see how I hang in there"?
So, I've always done the compatibility check, for example, I've received the rescue handles now, and I've tried them out in practice, and there are already huge differences. The one where the shaft is great, the Advance Lightness one I have in my head was great, because of these factors—even if you already know, for example, when these seat belts cut in and it hurts between your legs, it simply prevents you from making further reactions because you primarily feel the pain or the helmet is pressing on you, just as you described it, it's distracting. So that would also be—I once wrote to a harness manufacturer that I think it's absolutely great, that was the Advance one, that the harness is so comfortable during a rescue and because it really makes sense, and then I realized, I don't know if it's a conscious choice, if they deliberately implement that into the design, but I think it's incredibly important, these clips that are there, they've sometimes worked for me like that, so that
...puts you into additional fear and stress, which you don't need at all. So, I think these are things that are very easy to fix. There was also that Englishman who did those nice tests with the rescue handles—I think it's incredibly great when people do stuff like that and when designers then adopt it. For example, what was the statement that the rescue handle actually stays on every harness?
He should sit as low on the hip as possible, because you automatically grab the hip, like reaching for a revolver, a Colt, or whatever—I don't know if that's hardwired into humans, but you say, okay, I'll fit there, and he should sit there if possible, not much further forward on the leg, because you don't automatically reach there; you'll naturally search for the hip first, and then you've already lost five seconds, which in a rescue throw very close to a slope or something like that can often be decisive, or just create additional stress, which might then be missing when it comes to exerting the necessary force. You just mentioned the clips, just so people can imagine it, it's about these—like on a backpack—chest buckles you have in the front so the shoulder straps don't slide down, and maybe as a tip for people who have a harness, where you can adjust them in terms of height—on some, especially Woody Valley, I think they're even relatively sewn shut now, deliberately for the reason that you can't push them up that far, so that during a rescue throw it doesn't really slide up under your chin and actually work, as you yourself said, but that you yourself pay attention to reaching as low as possible on your harness, I mean, attaching it or
to push it up, so that when you're hanging at the back on these rescue lines, it doesn't actually pull up that high, right up under your neck.
And for that, that's one thing, I'm always surprised—there are so many clubs that do what's called rescue training, and they always do rescue training where they just throw the rescuer out. But I haven't experienced any rescue training, or seen it done in any clubs, where rescue training includes, "Hey, look, we're going to hang you on your rescue lines in your harness just to let you feel what it's like to be hanging on the rescuer." Just from the hanging situation, so that you can notice something like, "Oh, my chest strap is probably way too high," or "Ah, this is cutting into my legs or between my legs, so this harness is pretty poorly designed in that spot, maybe a different one would be better." So, I'm missing that opportunity for the pilot to gain some insight through their own physical sensation.
Do you guys do anything like that over here?
I mean, I need it, but I've done it with friends too, but how great would it be if people who have heard this smart idea actually put it into practice and do it once during the rescue training. Because usually, they wait in line until it's their turn, and then you could set up a second structure where exactly that is tried out. So, I think that's a very clever idea.
Yeah, there are many rescue trainings, at least in our area, they always take place in gymnasiums. And in most gymnasiums, if they also do gymnastics, there are, for example, pommel horses or something like that. And if you set up the pommel horse, you can basically throw the rescue line over the back, then have two people pull the person in front up from behind, and the person in front just hangs there; they only have to hang five centimeters above the ground, just so they can first feel and see how the harness pulls up against the body. However, I think I've only seen someone try that once, and it wasn't even an official rescue training. But I haven't seen it being done regularly like that. In the videos you've made, you also made a video, I think it's even two and a half hours long or something, where you interviewed a whole series of experts—safety, safety trainers, but also rescue construction experts, like Dani Loritz,
and, ah, what's his name again from High Adventure?
U.S. Hari.
Exactly, I've actually had U.S. Hari on my podcast too; there's a podcast called Der Rettertester where I had U.S. Hari on, and he talked a lot about his development as a rescuer. From those conversations with the experts you had there, did you get the impression that they even contradict each other in some ways? Like, are there perhaps different philosophies or ideas about what the ideal rescuer would be or the ideal form of a rescue operation?
I was once part of a panel discussion and noticed that it gets very personal, and there are very many
disagreements, which aren't really argued out in an argumentative way, but rather based on opinions or sympathies. I don't think anything specific comes to mind right now. I probably learned more from it and generated even more questions. But nothing striking or big stands out to me where I'd say, the
contradict each other. And in that 2016 video, where I think you tested seven different rescues over your lake, Lake Ossiacher See—you did that with Nico from the Salzburg flight school, I believe—at the end you announced that you wanted to make another video, a different format, and you called it Race to the Ground. But I don't think I've ever seen that video. Did I miss something? Did you do it, and what was it about?
We did do that, yeah. We had three rescue units of the same design. Those were the Companion and the SQR, and we made sure we all weighed the same and tried to determine the sink rate, perfect pilot behavior, so the sculling position, separating the glider and the main glider, and deliberately provoked sculling positions, and we wanted to see how different that was. It went a bit sideways because we lost a buoy from one of the pilots. I took off with an old glider and I didn't think I'd even get across the lake properly. So, you could already derive a few things, generate more data. And we pre-measured how the sink rate varies for the two. So I think I provoked the sculling position.
and Nico, I think,
deformed the main canopy over the brakes as well as possible. And we looked at how the sink rates vary. I don't know them by heart anymore, though.
Is that online? I couldn't find it myself. I think so, yeah. Yeah, then you might have to look a bit harder. If I find it or you find it, I'll definitely add the link to the show notes for that episode. I
I think I have a list, a playlist, where they're all listed. From the first to the last test. Okay. I have to check that again. One more thing occurred to me that would be very important. Yeah, great. I've probably forgotten a few. Specifically, a knife. I would definitely carry one. You don't have to think of James Bond scenarios right away. But I've heard stories of people who lost their legs. They had a line around their thigh during a tree line and weren't able to get it off. And they lost their leg because of that. Because the blood was cut off for half an hour or an hour or something like that. And that's something so stupid. And a small line cutter knife, I think that would always make sense.
There are more and more harness manufacturers nowadays who are moving towards automatically including a small knife from the start, or having it attached to the cockpit or something like that. Those are definitely absolutely sensible solutions. Now, I also just remembered something I wanted to ask. Because you said, yeah, I tried to provoke the scissors position or the other person did it with the brakes. Out of all the tests you've done and also the tips you've received and certainly tried out again, what would you most likely recommend to the pilot today? What's the best way to deactivate your glider—meaning your main glider—so that it interferes as little as possible with the rescue glider?
Personally, with the Rogalo, the question of how to separate them doesn't really arise. If it happens in a controlled way, I would let the glider out just before landing, because due to the lack of braking action from the main glider, you have less sink. That's with the Rogalo. Now, if it's a glider where you can constructively pull after a B-stall and that's possible, I've found that to be the most appealing way, because it can be done with one hand and you still have your second hand free. Of course, that's only theory if it's possible. There are gliders where that's no longer possible at all. If B-gliders are now two-liners, then I believe it can only be done via the brakes anyway. And I personally didn't find the "reinholen" very appealing. I only did it once and it just cut it off because...
when you're moving through the airspace at that speed, you have to pull in those 22, 25 square meters.
That's a really long streamer hanging there and you're trying to reel it in, and that's the
...real power you probably need. And that doesn't really work like that, I don't really like it either. So, what I like best, for example with my Delta that I fly, is that it works great with the Pestol. And with the M7, I have the Rogalo in there with the separation carabiner anyway; there, I would separate, but still hold the brakes in one hand, for example, or hold the Rogalo and then try to let go in a controlled way. And with the last two or three Rogalos I threw, that always worked well. I tried landing in a connected state once, that worked well too. That of course assumes perfect laboratory conditions again.
Have you ever tried one-sided separation, where it just kind of flops down like a flag? Yes,
already. But it also just stopped in front of me and I immediately detached the second side. I can't say anything about that. What I think is still a bit of a danger if you detach it unilaterally are the counterpieces of the quick links. I've also seen live that if they... they'll hit you in the face in the worst case, probably, right? Or they get stuck in the Rogalo. I have videos where people threw them and didn't throw them away in a controlled manner. This cargo with the metal parts is a huge source of error, that they get caught up in the Rogalo at the top by the lines. If that happens asymmetrically, you get a spin on it, so it rotates and all controllability is gone. So that has to work in a controlled way too. Those are all the aspects you should master when you have technical features like quick links.
...which can be a huge advantage in an emergency, but of course, it also comes with its own disadvantages.
Let's put the "savior" topic aside for now. We're already quite far into the recording. So, a completely different topic, just to talk about something nice. I saw that you also have a special, different project. It's called Grenzenlos Fliegen, which you co-initiated. What is it about?
Grenzenlos Fliegen is a project where we give people who have a hard time in life the gift of being able to fly. So, actually flying. These are children and adults. There are mental and physical disabilities. From paraplegics to people who are already in palliative care, who might still have a wish or want to go flying. And the basic idea came from a friend of mine. The basic idea is simply that we are so aware of how privileged we are to be able to paraglide. That is one of humanity's oldest dreams. So many factors have to align for you to be able to do that. You have to be able to afford it. You have to be healthy. In other countries, that's not possible at all. That means, just the factors that affect us, that make this possible for us at all, we are very privileged from a global perspective.
In our Western world, in Central Europe, basic needs on a material level are really very well covered. If you have a problem now, if you're confronted with a serious illness, medicine can't do everything, but it can do a lot here. We wanted to give these people something with this Grenzenlos Fliegen project that you can't buy with money. Joy of life and gratitude. There were some incredibly beautiful moments where there was also incredibly beautiful feedback. Like, when people say over and over again, "whenever I'm feeling down, I watch that and I'm reminded of that beautiful moment." So, that is the attempt to share our joy of life, our awareness, with people who don't have the prerequisites.
Is it still running, or did you do it for a while? And did it just fizzle out, or are you still doing it now?
It's still running, but we stopped putting the videos online because we were always using people's favorite music, which is already a good starting point. If you have memories wrapped up in your favorite music, we put those online and then there were problems with licenses and stuff like that. Now they just get the videos as they are, and the whole thing is actually based on volunteers, so nobody earns anything for it. It happens free of charge, and we've actually hit our capacity limits by now.
How do people find you? Do they find you online and say, "Hey, I'm going to give you a call, I have a disabled person or someone with cancer or something else"? Like, they'd like to fly, or how do you guys connect?
There's a website called grenzenlosfliegen.net and yeah, people might hear about that and, well, it's settled into a routine where people, yeah, people get in touch by phone or on the internet, write us an email, and then we see if it's possible. Of course, we've started certain
sorting through that, for example, cross-sections and paralysis, or a certain weight range—it just gets very complicated to start with. You then need experienced launch assistants, and that makes it very difficult. So, we do what is possible, and what isn't possible, we unfortunately can't do. And if there are too many requests, then we can't do it either. But we try our best.
Do you have any of the most beautiful moments that you've taken away from that for yourself?
The awareness of how positive people are, in places where you actually wonder why they still want to live or why they endure it—I mean, sometimes you see fates where you ask yourself, how can they just, how can they possibly bear that? And then you start thinking a bit, are my problems really relevant? And this courage to live from these people, being able to see and experience that, it's beautiful.
After flights like that, when you fly yourself again—when you fly alone—do you fly differently? Do you maybe perceive it differently then, and where you really say, this is a privilege I have, that in that moment you also say, wow, now I'm really taken back to saying that what I have here is truly a privilege. Right, yeah.
And most of the flights, I have to say right away, I don't do at all—I do very few flights. Most of the flights are done by my mentor, Chris. He also has the most experience; he's been flying forever, and there are hardly any pilots with more flight experience than him. Chris what? Chris Reiniger, he does most of the flights. So I'm actually only... at the beginning, I did some administrative stuff, helped with starts, or I did a few flights myself, but due to time constraints—that takes so much time, and he really takes the time, it can take hours sometimes. Like, if the start wind doesn't fit, it might have fit, but everything has to be right. So in that sense, I'm there—it's actually his project, and I'm allowed to be part of it.
Now you live here at Bischling, right next to the railway, you can go straight up, anytime, so to speak, basically go flying. Do you also see that as a huge privilege?
Incredible, yes.
What is the best thing about Bischling for you?
For me, the best thing about the Bischling is that my playground is the same in summer as it is in winter. Paragliding, skiing, cycling, the compactness of the infrastructure, the protection from the wind. When I compare it to other flying sites where you have to drive up somewhere, you still have your car at the top, and then there's that simplicity.
The soaring, the distance potential, the Tennegebirge, the small, beautiful routes, the view, the panorama. I believe that in its compactness, the Bischling is the best flying area, or one of the best in the world.
Now you live here, so you grew up here too, but you only started flying 12 years ago. Today you're 37, so you were 25 back then. Why, even though you probably saw paragliders as a child or during your youth, did you only get into it so much later, or relatively late?
I was always abroad at the time, or traveling abroad a lot, so I didn't really have the opportunity. And I always wanted to do soaring. As a child, I already did glider construction, so model building. I was always fascinated by how an airplane flies. A glider would still be the ultimate discipline of flying for me.
I find that simply beautiful. The shape and the aesthetics, and the performance, it's so impressive. And then at 16, I went to the gliding field. I wanted to start flying. And I immediately picked up on the radio communication what kind of orthodox...
structure is. And then I said, I'll just stick to model flying. I'll leave that. And for me, paragliding was never an option because simply controlling it over all axes, that just fascinated me so much. So when you have a model plane on the slope, when you soar and play and do stuff, it's just so elegant. And I always felt that with a paraglider, you can basically only brake left and right. And I never really liked that.
But you've probably also constantly seen agro-pilots here who can even fly maneuvers that you can't even fly with a glider in that form. Yeah, that's true, yeah.
But at that time, my priorities were just different; it was more important for me to be abroad. And it was more important for me to get away from Austria for a while. So in that sense, it fit perfectly. I'm glad I started then. And what
what does flying give you today?
Flying is simply beautiful on every level. And so many levels come into play. The mindfulness, the confrontation with oneself,
the euphoria, the respect, the humility. If you fly around somewhere, for example, like in Switzerland in the spring, at around 3,000 meters, you still feel so tiny because the mountains are so big. Or you fly over the Tennengebirge once and it's just so
massive. And the shift in perspective. You see the structures in one place, and when you're on the ground, you know: that's the political structure, that's how the systems work, that's how corruption works, that's how the cliques work. When you see that from above, it's just such a shift in perspective, which I find incredibly fascinating. And yes, it's like a school of life. For example, combined with the rescue tests. So, an episode that I might put into a question now, or where I ask you specifically, or maybe a listener if they know the answer to it. I did a test once with a BASE system, and first I did a T-bag where I detached, and then I flew the maneuvers I'm able to fly. And then, in a dynamic situation during a maneuver, I detached the BASE system.
And that was all now a change in the laboratory conditions, where I had deployed rescue gliders before. That means there was already a certain amount of tension. First, flying out the lower part, releasing it, flying the maneuvers, then releasing it again in the dynamics, and then something completely fascinating happened to me. I noticed during the separation process that something was separating asymmetrically. I thought the three-ring system had released on the right but not on the left. And I immediately thought to myself, I'm going to grab the riser with my left hand and shake it out, because something got jammed there. I did that too, and I was very proud, I really have to say, that I still had the mental capacity to do that in this situation.
And looking back at the video, I noticed the situation was completely different. Actually, out of fear—so that was a fearful stance—I held onto the riser, which maybe delayed the release time by about 0.2 seconds, so minimally. But in that short time, my cognitive perception was: I have a problem, the three-ring system hasn't released, the solution is I grab the riser now and shake it loose. And I was under the impression that I had done that. In reality, I held on subconsciously because probably some substances were already circulating in my body, so my brain wasn't functioning properly anymore. And the fact that my cognitive perception or my consciousness tricked me like that in that moment, it makes me ask myself questions like, who am I actually?
And what happens to me? And how often has it perhaps already happened that I believed I had handled a situation well, when in reality, it just happened to me. And I find these phenomena of the psyche so interesting, and then you can research how that works. That would actually be my next project, what's still pending. I met a military pilot who is also a paraglider and a psychologist, who have put a lot of thought into these "human factors" in military aviation, I believe they call them, and I find that simply fascinating. And those are the gifts you get from paragliding. If you are truly, if you are consciously in the now—and I think you can have that while fishing, or cycling, or whatever sport—but paragliding in that sense, those are the gifts.
You learn so much, also about yourself, and that you maybe don't take yourself so seriously, because the identification with who you are—simply based on the fact that perception is influenced by external factors, that the psyche lies to you—what does that say, for example, about interpersonal interaction? We sit there, we have a conversation, we
live in that
universe, and you live in yours. So these are all such fascinating factors.
But that also requires
...a lot of self-reflection beforehand. Or at least some reflection first; you used this video to reflect on the situation at all, just to notice, okay, I reacted differently than I actually thought I would, or my motivation was different from what I thought I was actually doing in that moment.
And this form of self-reflection, do you think many paragliders have that? I have no idea.
I'd stop saying "I have no idea" here. People, just think for yourselves about how much you reflect on the things you do up there, or don't do, or think you did, and what you might be able to learn from that. Alois, thanks for the talk.
Thank you for the interview, thanks.
If you enjoyed the rescue talk with Alois Rettenbacher, then please recommend the podcast to your flying friends. I think it makes sense for the entire paraglider community to engage more deeply with this topic. In the show notes on the Gleitschirm-Blog Lu-Glidz, I've put together some helpful links. These include Alois's videos on the rescue issue, but also a whole series of posts from the Lu-Glidz archive. Under the heading "Rescue Knowledge," it summarizes what you should know about the design, recommended size, sink rates, opening time, durability, etc., of emergency gliders. You can find Lu-Glidz online at www.Lu-Glidz.blogspot.com. Lu-Glidz writes Lu-Glidz.
By the way, Lu-Glidz and Podz-Glidz are completely ad-free and have no paywall. In order for me to continue running both offerings so professionally and independently, I rely on your help. Research, editing, recording, cutting, hosting, and much more all need to be financed somehow. I would be very happy if you would make a contribution as a supporter. You can choose the amount of your contribution completely freely. Give as much as you think is right, or what such an offer is worth to you. It can be a one-time payment or a recurring standing order. For everyone who is unsure what amount might be appropriate, I have a completely non-binding suggestion. How about 1 Euro per podcast episode and 2 Euros per reading month on Lu-Glidz?
Even added together, that's still cheaper than the subscription fees of a classic magazine. Of course, you're welcome to listen to a few episodes first and read Lu-Glidz over the months before making a lump-sum contribution later. Payments are very easy via PayPal or bank transfer. You can find all the necessary details on my blog Lu-Glidz, specifically on the Support page. Until next time! Ciao!