[addaon]

I... disagree with much of this.

Collapses of a paraglider are a normal operation and a normal occurrence, and can be recovered with much less than 50 ft of altitude loss. With a wing designed for fast recovery (rather than maximum performance), think closer to five feet under normal conditions.

I also fly sailplanes (and, for that matter, powered planes) and I find it hard to compare the safety directly. Paragliding definitely has a higher incident rate; but the incidents happen at so much lower energy due to the speed that you're dominantly concerned about things like twisted ankles. I will say that I feel much safer paragliding than downhill skiing due to the lower kinetic energy and higher allowable reaction time.

[rdtsc]

> and can be recovered with much less than 50 ft of altitude loss.

What if a gust of wind blows when you’re closer to the ground. Falling 50ft with a large engine strapped to one’s back sounds like would lead to more than a twisted ankle.

[addaon]

I mostly fly unpowered, so engine weight is something I don't have as much experience with. Terminal velocity with 300 ft^2 of fabric above you, even if it isn't a functional wing, is pretty low; but yes, a collapse near the ground below recovery height and below reserve parachute height is a worst-case scenario. In general, flying below reserve height for any length of time isn't a great idea.