Having been in the aviation community for some time and having seen more than a few accidents with these things, it's worth to mention that they are way more dangerous than they appear. The thing to look out for is "collapsing" the wing, which is likely fatal at the kind of low altitudes normally flown. That "wing" always needs a positive loading. Downdrafts at the perimeter of a thermal, orthographic winds, rotors, fronts, convergence lines, other causes of turbulence and vertical drafts - there is a reason why you often see paramotors in the calm of the evening, when you can cut the air like butter. If you like flying, a more safe hobby would be gliding.
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.
> 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.
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.
