Formal investigation report....August 29th 2009

[garyfreefly]

Paramotor accident report by the BHPA .......

29th August 2009 taken from Skywings (safety matters)

http://www.bhpa.co.uk/members/safety/inquiry/index.php

[norman]

Download it from here please guys.

BHPA Accident Report - Cheriton, Hampshire, on 29th August 2009.

Looking forward to the day when the BHPA publish accident reports (on behalf of the AAIB) for the industry on the open face of their website and not behind a members area. The reasoning should be fairly obvious.

[Guest]

Ahhhh...

Humm,

I was actually just going to comment on how good the page was Its taken them about 10 years too long BUT it's there.

If I were to comment,

Importing the historic data would add huge value to the pages visitors.

SW

[norman]

When I last checked the accident reports were behind the members area. That was this morning but if a page has been created with links through then my remark is out of line.

PS; Just had a look and there is nothing on the front face of the site nor anywhere else that a quick page through detected. Could you post a link Simon?

[Guest]

Well, its quite strange....

It is filed under, members, safety.

So

since most websites will hit you with a log in request when you click 'members' I doubt many non members would bother to click it.

I think it should be linked directly from the home page or main left hand menu on the 'top tier' rather than hidden away in a members area (that you don't log into)

Assuming this is 'public information' paid for by the tax payer, we could also publish the information on this site

SW

[paramotormike]

I'm not sure, But I think the only money the BHPA get is from its members.

I could be wrong on this.

If this is true, it means the AAIB can ask the BHPA to help with any PG/PPG accidents even if the accident is to a non BHPA member.

Any one confirm this?

Cheers

Mikey

[alan_k]

What can be learnt from this unfortunate tragedy though

I think the crux is 'Timely, smooth, instinctive, minimal inputs are the key', to quote from the analysis.

This of course means adjustments to the throttle/power setting as well as brake control.

Alan

[paramotormike]

Another forum out there has been chewing this over for hours and hours.

Many people are saying what could we learn from this tragedy?

Its seems this guy took a collapse at about 100ft in rough air and never recovered. Some say if he had a reflex and came in fast with trims out he would not have got the collapse. Who knows?

I guess be very carefull in what type of weather condtions you are up in the sky.

Cheers

Mikey

[tommcb6016]

also it seems rotor from trees may have played a part in this very sad accident

[outkast]

as above, I think this shows that picking a flying sites needs proper thought, you need to really think about all possibilities, wind direction, terrain, obsructions and the chance of rotor from them and the surrounding area to your field.

[alan_k]

Well put Dave, you have to think of the air as a fluid medium all around your position, with emphasis on anything that disturbs the flow.

Cheers,

Alan

[bathboy]

On hearing about another fatality, I was gutted. It made me think long and hard why I do this sport.

Eventually, I successfully argued with myself that my 'type' of flying was still safe enough. Hadn’t the two other fatalities been related to maneuvers that I don't do?

After reading the accident report, I wanted to think:

• that I would not have flown there and then.

• if I had flown, my reflex wing would not have collapsed.

• if it did collapse, my pilot skills could help save me.

But after a lot of thinking, the truth for me is:

• I’ve waited a day in an ‘unknown’ field and flown late as the 'wind' improved. But I did not know that it had improved enough

• I fly the Paramania Action and Dudek ReAction. Arguably, the same paramotor wing, and the most 'proven' design wing (since 2001 x popularity) not to collapse, when in full reflex. [i'm NOT dissing other wings! hopefully after the years of real world use they will 'prove' to be as good or better]

• I do not have proven pilot skills. I’ve not completed a SIV course. I've never flown ‘actively’. I do not have the pilot skills

So in 2010, my priority is to change the first and the third, so I don’t have to rely on the second.

Cheers

Paul

[learner_driver]

What can be learnt from this unfortunate tragedy though

I think the crux is 'Timely, smooth, instinctive, minimal inputs are the key', to quote from the analysis.

This of course means adjustments to the throttle/power setting as well as brake control.

Alan

Hi Alan,

just as a point of note, always match the aggression of the the wings move., therefore not smooth and minimal.

Remember when active flying you are only trying to to correct the pitch move, until the wing is back above your head.

in a sharp move forward of the wing in pitch to 40 degrees, that is a huge move and needs a large 1 sec or so big brake input( hips), the moment you feel it begin.

the wing will then stop going forward, and you have checked the dive.

for more info perhaps read paraglingforum.com.

before you ask.

there is no risk of a stall, as you pull the brakes so hard, so briefly, you are just undoing the surge, to leave the surge unchecked, will often result in collapse.

I hope this helps

Kind Regards

Simon

[Farmer_Dave]

Good thinking Paul !

DG

[alan_k]

Good thinking Paul !

DG

Second that.

...just as a point of note, always match the aggression of the the wings move., therefore not smooth and minimal.

Simon

The good thing about this forum is that there are pilots with different backgrounds and I welcome your comments. Ï can fully understand the necessity of large control inputs for 'aggressive wing movements'.

I am assuming (please correct me if wrongly) that the author of the report is recommending 'Timely, smooth, instinctive, minimal inputs are the key' as a way of preventing the wing attaining such large moves from overhead. With sudden turbulence the requirement changes from this

Coming directly to PPG without prior PG experience I only fly when conditions are benign but I'm always open to expanding my knowledge.

Cheers Simon,

Alan

[learner_driver]

Good thinking Paul !

DG

Second that.

...just as a point of note, always match the aggression of the the wings move., therefore not smooth and minimal.

Simon

I am assuming (please correct me if wrongly) that the author of the report is recommending 'Timely, smooth, instinctive, minimal inputs are the key' as a way of preventing the wing attaining such large moves from overhead. With sudden turbulence the requirement changes from this

Cheers Simon,

Alan

Hi Alan,

I should point out that this is with the trimmers pulled in only. So one is flying like a para glider.

Active piloting in gentle to moderate conditions requires usually smallish input.

The key however is to match your wing. if it moves a little from above your head you match it with small inputs.

If the wing moves violently, you must respond the same, but only for a brief moment.

it is scary at first, but after a while XC pilots get used to it and usually have plenty of height, as they are thermalling, but it can happen low level on the ridge.

All I am saying is that you need to match the speed of the wing movement , with your control input.

On reflex it is a different story, let the wing do the work.

cheers Simon

[Farmer_Dave]

Good thinking also Simon.

As you point out there are 2 good places to practice wing "management". High up in hairy thermals. Like you say, scary at first. Best place to start is with the groundhandling. Advance that to facing the wind with your eyes closed and it will become an instinctive feel and automatic response.

As for letting full reflex take care of turbulence, I might be finding out more soon I guess I can close the trimmers and still enjoy the thermals

DG

[norman]

Something I find interesting is comparing required handling techniques between a wing designed for paragliding wing and one for PPG, a Reflex wing. The pilot concerned was reported as flying a paragliding wing; 'active flying' would therefore seem to be appropriate as I believe was commented upon in the Accident Report.

Reflex wing designs (according to my training and the owners manual for my wing) do not require (and in fact discourage) continual active flying techniques as per a previous comment.

Common sense would seem to point toward a 'halfway house' but I have insufficient experience of large wing displacements with my wing to comment. I know what I would do, whether others would judge that to be correct is another matter. Hell, why fly in weather that will produce them in the first place?

BHPA Accident Reporting for UK PPG

I think it would be a good idea for the BHPA to publish its findings in a place that is well marked and universally accessible to PPG pilots. An open link on the front page of its website would do the job extremely well.

I appreciate also that it is not for me or any non BHPA member to tell the BHPA how to administer itself, in this respect that is a job for the AAIB if indeed they want the whole industry to be aware of their findings...

In all other spheres of aviation Air/Flight Safety is a non commercial, non-partisan area. To take on a responsibility for PPG accident reporting on behalf of the AAIB implies a duty beyond its own membership. The results of any investigation could have far reaching consequences. Is it the AAIBs responsibility to promulgate findings or the BHPA's, interesting question?

[Farmer_Dave]

Norman

I agree entirely. As a BHPA member, I would wish that my subscription helped to put this information up for ALL the people in the sport, wether members or not. I would think the benefits to the sport are obvious. Has this point been raised on Eds forum ? It's members are largely BHPA I believe. I know Ed is involved as he asked if anyone wanted him to raise any safety issues re. equipment. And I did.

Dave

[learner_driver]

Something I find interesting is comparing required handling techniques between a wing designed for paragliding wing and one for PPG, a Reflex wing. The pilot concerned was reported as flying a paragliding wing; 'active flying' would therefore seem to be appropriate as I believe was commented upon in the Accident Report.

Reflex wing designs (according to my training and the owners manual for my wing) do not require (and in fact discourage) continual active flying techniques as per a previous comment.

Hi Norman -

Even on a reflex wing, if you have the trimmers in (most people do for take off and landing).

you are piloting a wing sharing the same characteristics as a standard PG wing.

The centre of pressure is back near a DHV1 wing or CEN LTF 1. when the trimmers are in.

The centre of pressure moves forward and active piloting is no longer recommended when the trimmers are out and the reflex area of the rear wing is in operation.

PS we fly the same wing I think ? mine is the Cabrio Synth. In the manual

it is ambiguous and states. When you pull the brakes, the synth cabrio profile actually loses its self stabilizing character.

what it does not say is that it is referring to trims out flight. It mentions that, that is the status quo in the preceding paragraph.

but still is confusing

I hope this helps.

Kind Regards

Simon

[alanhinsaudi]

In all other spheres of aviation Air/Flight Safety is a non commercial, non-partisan area. To take on a responsibility for PPG accident reporting on behalf of the AAIB implies a duty beyond its own membership. The results of any investigation could have far reaching consequences. Is it the AAIBs responsibility to promulgate findings or the BHPA's, interesting question?

Norman, you took the words out of my mouth. The ethical principle of the AAIB, a publicly funded organisation, given delegated authority to a private organisation to investigate serious air accidents is questionable. Any involvement of the BHPA should have been under the umbrella of an AAIB investigation. The report would have been written, vetted and published by the AAIB in to the public domain.

I would like to give my condolences to the family and friends of the Pilot. It is always the case in fatal Air accident investigations the events are talked about with seeming disregard to the feeling of the loved ones and friends of the deceased. I can assure you that this is only so that lessons can be learned and safety improvements made to ensure similar accidents do not happen again.

The report, apart from being BHPA self-indulgent, is factual in nature and does identify a number of causal factors for the accident but not the root cause. It does not explore or determine if the failure of the pilot to understand the local weather conditions and his failure to dampen the surge caused by the self induced sudden loss of power were due to training failures or to degradation of knowledge and skill over time due to his low accumulation of flying hours since completing his training or a combination of both. I think this is an opportunity lost as it is in this area where a number of safety recommendations could have been made.

Although not relevant to the investigation, I am disappointed that the report has been written with a BHPA bias as there are number of areas where reference to the BHPA was superfluous and indulgent. Any organisation that has responsibilities for air accident investigations should not be parochial when it comes to such serious matters.

Alan

[Guest]

All,

Over 2 months ago I contacted the AAIB and asked them if I could be in the distribution list for safety reports. And they said nothing more than. (Its on the BHPA website so look there.

I offered to put a tab on the top of the page saying AAIB Accident reports, which would put it at the top of google in a week.

They said, no.

I wonder if the BHPA would be happy to supply the information as it comes out so we could put it on the site.?

Dave, as a BHPA member would you be happy to ask?

I can see NO reason why the information should not be spread as far and wide as possible. If they have one I would love to know what it is.

If they say yes, then I will ensure that inside of 1 week, the reports are displayed from our main page.

If they say no, maybe a quick list of names a 'petition', to get the information more public would work?

If not, we can copy the information (WHICH IS PUBLIC INFORMATION) The AAIB is finded 100% by the tax payer, they are there FOR us, and to serve every single tax payer on here.

I have spoken aslo to the Department of Transport complaints department about the lack of access to the information, they also said thay can see no reason why the AAIB or the BHPA would say no to being added to a distribution list. (they are expecting me to open a formal complaint which they will help with) (DTI controls the AAIB)

In a nut shell,

I OFFERED to get this information out to a wider group and the AAIB flat said NO.

SW

[Farmer_Dave]

Sure Simon

I'll have a quiet word, see what I can find out

Dave

[Guest]

[norman]

Hi Alan,

I take your point onboard completely.

But let's be 'non-partisan' in the name of Flight Safety and pass the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps a little lobbying on each report is inevitable. If the investigator sees an area that is well covered by the BHPA that he genuinely believes might have contributed towards saving a life, might he see it as his duty to point that out? Accident Reports make a great vehicle on which to ensure that your message reaches the widest audience? Let's have them in front of everyone who flies or is in some way connected to PPG, then we can be sure that nothing gets missed.

Paragliding Vs PPG wings

Even on a reflex wing, if you have the trimmers in (most people do for take off and landing). You are piloting a wing sharing the same characteristics as a standard PG wing.

The centre of pressure is back near a DHV1 wing or CEN LTF 1. when the trimmers are in. The centre of pressure moves forward and active piloting is no longer recommended when the trimmers are out and the reflex area of the rear wing is in operation.

I think we are on the same page Simon. I had a small debate with someone recently about preparation for a forced landing after engine failure. I suggested that part of the routine ought to be to consider the trimmer setting during the descent to ensure they suited the prevailing conditions.

My offering was that we might consider doing this every time during a pre-landing check so that we configure for the best outcome every time, conditions can and do change from takeoff to landing after all.

If the pilot has that 'trigger point' to consider the issue, he will cross it during every flight and use it.

I suppose my assumption was the pilot at Cheriton flying a Reflex wing he would have had a measure of Reflex set for the conditions as it was (allegedly) as rough as old boots..

Believable or bullsh1t, what do you think?