bathboy Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Thanks to Dan's post many of you will know the AAIB investigation report to Kev's fatality. It is uncomfortable reading, especially if like me you have a low hang point motor with a similar (same?) method of fixing. To paraphrase the last paragraph: Paramotoring has no single body able to identify and implement, suitable codes of design, manufacture and maintenance. The gliding movement in the UK has in general developed effectively and safely under the single entity of the British Gliding Association and this is an example of 'enlightened self-regulation' in sports aviation. Their outcome Safety Recommendation 2008-052 It is recommended that the CAA should actively develop oversight of the sport of self-propelled hang gliders, including paramotors buy a single organisation. I've slept on this and still can't decide the likely winner. BHPA have a head start, BMAA has gone backwards?, PMC just born... Cheers Paul P.S. If you missed Dan's post, the full AAIB report is http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_r ... 002-09.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frazer1981 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Yeah i read that at the bottom. It will be intresting to see what the general opinion is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outkast Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I noticed that,do either the BMAA or BHPA have any involvement in the design, manufacture or maintainance side of paramotoring? having said that it seems the modification to the original approved design may have been a contributing factor in the accident, so even regulation of the manufacturers may not have prevented this accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Paul from the Yahoo Group: Paramotoring has no single body able to identify and implement, suitable codes of design, manufacture and maintenance. The gliding movement in the UK has in general developed effectively and safely under the single entity of the British Gliding Association and this is an example of 'enlightened self-regulation' in sports aviation. As a newcomer to the sport I was surprised to find that there was no single organsiation responsible to the CAA for the administration of paramotoring. As someone who has looked closely at the slowly developing structure, I now see signs that regulation may be coming our way, I am sure some here would agree. EASA have had their claws into gliding, the BGA that once existed has had its wings clipped by Euro legislation. To the consternation of the gliding world their sport is slowly dying, it has been for a number of years with the average age of club pilots now rising year on year. The costs associated with the sport are now escalating due to 'initiatives' being foisted on the sport. As a newcomer to the sport I was surprised to find that there was no single organsiation responsible to the CAA for running paramotoring. As someone who has looked closely at the slowly developing structure, now see sign that regulation on may be coming our way as many here I am sure agree. Paramotoring needs early, solid representation and skilled, wise and unbiased administration to hold its own imho. The BHPA are the obvious choice, but could they fill the bill? Before anyone launches into a monologue about the PMC let me first say that to my knowledge there is NO desire to fill this role within the organisation. We have neither the expertise, the individuals with the time and skills to even give it passing thought. On that I am sure you might all agree. But for the BHPA to assume that mantle it will take a major effort from a talented communicator to convince the whole UK PPG world that they would have the best interests of ALL of a new conglomerate's members in mind. Can anyone enlighten me ~ contribute something to the debate? Does anyone really care about the issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_b Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Do not modify your machine. Preflight check your machine every time and if it does not look or feel right do not fly until it is fixed. Always fly with a reserve. Other than this and a sensible attitude to this sport I do not believe that any other form of regulation will make the sport safer.( please see exception below) If any organisation is responsible how will they regulate it I have not heard of fatalities due to machine failure or than this one. Please inform me if I am wrong. Most accidents are down to pilot error so if anything perhaps compulsory training should be implemented. Pete b Fly within your limits and at a safe height, carry a reserve and make sure it works and you know how to deploy it correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outkast Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Thats sound advice Pete, but there are a lot of secondhand machines out there and quite often a newbie coming into the sport may not know if he is looking at a factory spec machine or one that has been modifiend in some way. Theres also another issue that needs to be addressed, insurance, I raised this point in the fuel tank size thread some time ago, any modification to a machine may be seen as a "get out clause" by any insurance company that may be looking to have to pay out. Norm, you may be able to help us out on this one, the insurance that the PMC are looking to provide, will it cover only machines in original factory spec or will it cover modified machines too, will you have to declare any mods when taking out cover? Just looking to clarify matters. Dave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Dave, The technicalities and insurance nuances are not in my sphere of expertise. I can give a general opinion based on my experience in other fields which may have some validity but look to others with PPG expertise for the answers. I believe that each PPG type should be subjected to load testing schedules based on its likely encounters. If the aerodynamics wizzards and engineers calculate that the maximum sustained loading likely is 8g and a shock peak is 12g, then those are the figures that should form the baseline for testing of motor units [example figures only]. Flying machines that have been continually overstressed are prone to failure at loads well below (perhaps undefined) design maximums. A machine may fail in these circumstances in a phase of flight that is quite normal, in the case of a paramotor perhaps down low where a reserve is likely to be ineffective. Overstress and metal fatigue produce these failures out of the blue. have there been any - yes. Will there be others, probably. Stress and fatigue are the reasons that many aircraft components are 'lifed' - given an in service life that when expired makes the part fit only for the training room or the trash can. Do we have any lifed components in paramotoring? I suspect many pilots exert their own regime on their carabiners? Construction standards really ought to be specified - lock nuts, locking wire and tested and certified critical parts that carry the main loading. How many people pass comment about the design and suitability of various paragliding caribiners? THAT device is a major load bearing component and there doesn't even seem to be an airworthiness requirement to use certificated components for them in paragliding. They occasionally fail - would they if they were more heavily documented and regulated? If motors are not designed to a recognised and accepted standard how can you compare one to the other and know that the product you are purchasing is sound. It may not be a recognised brand you purchase - it could be an import from Korea. If that import has passed certification you know that it is fit for purpose, how will you know otherwise? Are we worrying a little too much about cost and too little about safety? This is not a qualified PPG expert view, I text above forms questions. I am also not an engineer. See what Paramotor Magazine has to say about DULV certification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Just to add a little about Carabiners, l use alluminium ones up to about a year ago until l was advised to use stainless steel ones, but all metal conponents have a life and for approx £20 a pair its worth changing them periodically. Also 100% agree with what Pete mentioned. As for SIV type flying or pushing the limits on "G" forces in my opinion is a no no with PPG personally, with PG its fine as its been well tested but time will tell. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tj Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Hi guys, I stumbled on this whilst 'passing through' the safety section (I have a healthy interest in safety matters!) and thought it would be a timely reminder whilst people are doing routine maintenance while the weathers cr4p. Are your parts stressed? Have you looked at them recently? It's worth checking/replacing them now while you can't fly so that as soon as 'that day' arrives (soon lets hope!) you can just bung the kit in the motor and get flying knowing everything's hunky dory. Take care all Tj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.