Paramotor, None, 11 June 2007

114 © Crown copyright 2008 ACCIDENT Aircraft Type: Paramotor (comprising a ‘Revolution’ wing and ‘PAP1400AS’ paramotor unit), no registration No & Type of Engines: 1 ‘SNAP100’ two-stroke piston engine Year of Manufacture: Wing manufactured in 2006 Date & Time (UTC): 11 June 2007 at 1920 hrs Location: Chavenage Green Airstrip, near Tetbury, Gloucestershire Type of Flight: Private Persons on Board: Crew - 1 Passengers - None Injuries: Crew - 1 (Fatal) Passengers - N/A Nature of Damage: Paramotor unit extensively damaged Commander’s Licence: N/A - licence not required Commander’s Age: 24 years Commander’s Flying Experience: In excess of 350 hrs hours paramotor Last 90 days - Not known Last 28 days - Not known Information Source: AAIB Field Investigation, with assistance from the BHPA and the BMAA Synopsis The pilot of a paramotor aircraft was attempting a manoeuvre at a low height above the ground when the right-hand side of the wing ‘collapsed’, causing the aircraft to enter a sudden right-hand spiral dive. There was insufficient height for recovery and the aircraft struck the ground with a high vertical speed, causing fatal injuries to the pilot. Contributory factors were the pilot’s handling of the aircraft, combined with the low height at which the manoeuvre was attempted. History of the flight The pilot had been competing in the UK Paramotor National Championships, an annual event held over four days where the competitors perform a number of set tasks on which they are judged. The pilot had completed the final task of the day, on the penultimate day of the event, and was participating in some ‘free flying’ with approximately five others; this had been approved by the event organisers. These other flyers included the current paramotor world champion and the UK champion. Having flown for several minutes practising various aerobatic manoeuvres, some of which were flown at very low level, the pilot climbed the paramotor to a AAIB Bulletin: 6/2008 None EW/C2007/06/04 115 © Crown copyright 2008 height of approximately 150 ft agl before entering another manoeuvre. Soon after initiating this manoeuvre the right-hand side of the wing collapsed, causing the aircraft to enter a sudden right-hand spiral dive. There was insufficient height for recovery and the aircraft struck the ground with a high vertical speed causing fatal injuries to the pilot. Weather The Met Office provided an aftercast for the time of the accident. It stated that the visibility was 7 to 11 km and there was scattered cumulus cloud between 2,500 ft and 2,800 ft agl. The surface wind was variable at 3 kt and the wind at 500 ft agl was variable at 5 kt. Pilot’s experience The pilot had been flying paramotors since April 2004 and had performed at numerous international events promoting the sport of paramotoring for the wing manufacturer. He was a member of the BMAA and held a BMAA FLM rating, as well as an FAI International Sporting Licence. He was described by those that knew him as a very capable pilot, who enjoyed performing aerobatic manoeuvres. He had had two previous accidents; in one he broke his right heel and in the other his right thigh bone. The causes of these accidents are not known. The pilot held a Display Authorisation issued by the CAA and was familiar with this model and size of wing, having flown it on a number of occasions, and had reportedly chosen it because of its ‘sportier’ handling characteristics. He had also flown it previously on the day of the accident and had not reported any problems. Video evidence Several spectator videos of the accident were provided to the AAIB, one of which was analysed in detail. The footage was recorded by a spectator on the ground in front of, and to the right of, the flight path of the aircraft. Examination of the video recording in slow motion showed that the aircraft was in a wings-level attitude, at a low height above the ground, immediately prior to the accident manoeuvre. The pilot was in a seated position, with his arms extended low down on either side of his torso. The wing was symmetrically inflated and the pilot appeared to be in full control of the aircraft. The sound of the engine was consistent with a high engine power setting. In commencing the manoeuvre, the pilot reached above his head and grasped either the wing risers or the ‘A’ lines, causing the paramotor unit to tilt backwards momentarily. In one rapid, continuous motion, whilst apparently holding onto the risers or ‘A’ lines, he rotated forwards and extended his legs with his feet together. Concurrently, the engine sound decreased in volume. The wing and paramotor unit then began to pitch ‘nose-down’ and the pilot’s body then turned to the right, with his weight biased to the right. The leading edge of right-hand side of the wing then deflected downwards, producing a visible kink in the leading edge at the mid-span location. The right-hand side of the wing rapidly collapsed from the tip inwards, causing the aircraft to enter a tight, descending right-hand spiral. Although the wing quickly re-inflated, there was insufficient height available for recovery and the aircraft struck the ground at high speed, in a steep ‘nose-down’ attitude. Initiation of the manoeuvre to ground impact took approximately 5 seconds. A copy of the video footage was provided to the National Imagery Exploitation Centre for analysis. Estimates from this analysis placed the aircraft at a height of between 40 and 50 metres (130 - 165 ft) agl at the start of the manoeuvre. AAIB Bulletin: 6/2008 None EW/C2007/06/04 116 © Crown copyright 2008 AAIB Bulletin: 6/2008 None EW/C2007/06/04 Other video footage obtained showed the pilot confidently performing various aerobatic manoeuvres in this aircraft shortly before the accident. The aircraft appeared to be performing satisfactorily with no evidence of control difficulties. Medical examination A post-mortem was carried out by a Home Office pathologist. It showed that the forces in the impact were such that the accident was not survivable. Toxicological analysis of the pilot’s blood revealed the presence of a small amount of alcohol in his blood. This is believed to have been produced post-mortem. Had it been as a result of alcohol being consumed it is believed that as the concentration was so low it would be unlikely to have had a detrimental effect on the pilot’s flying ability. The presence of paracetamol was also found at a concentration consistent with therapeutic use. There was no evidence of natural disease which could have contributed to the crash. Aircraft description General The aircraft was a foot-launched, powered paraglider, comprising a non-rigid fabric ‘Paramania Revolution’ parafoil, red and white in colour, attached to a ‘PAP1400AS’ paramotor unit (Figure 1). The paramotor unit is worn in a similar manner to a backpack and consists of a stainless steel metal chassis, to which are attached the engine and the pilot’s seat and harness assembly. The pilot must stand to launch and land the aircraft, but may adopt a seated position in flight. The aircraft did not bear any registration mark (it is not required). However, it was identified with the number ‘20’ in black adhesive tape on the underside of the wing for the purposes of the competition. The aircraft was not certified to a published standard and there was no requirement for it to be. The pilot was using a borrowed paramotor unit on the accident flight as the one he had planned to use was unserviceable. This unit was generally similar to his own and he was familiar with its operation. Wing details General The ‘Revolution’ series of parafoils entered production in 1996 and they are produced in various sizes, ranging from 21 to 30 square metres (m 2 ) in area. The wing, bearing serial number 0306303, was manufactured in March 2006. It was labelled as a ‘Revolution 23’, but belonged to a batch

Accidents Database

Paramotor, None, 11 June 2007

Report Overview

Paramotor, None

Summary:

Official Documents

Document Content Preview

Paramotor, no registration 06-08.pdf

Change History

Related Entities