Paramotor, None, 8 July 2007

116 © Crown copyright 2009 AAIB Bulletin: 2/2009 Paramotor EW/C2007/07/02 ACCIDENT Wing: Paramania Revolution 23 Paramotor unit: Modified H & E Paramotores R120 series Year of Manufacture: 2005 Date & Time (UTC): 8 July 2007 at 1950 hrs Location: Middle Barn Farm, Bexhill, East Sussex Type of Flight: Private Persons on Board: Crew - 1 Passengers - None Injuries: Crew - 1 (Fatal) Passengers - N/A Nature of Damage: Substantial Commander’s Licence: None required Commander’s Age: 42 years Commander’s Flying Experience: 5 years (paramotors) Information Source: AAIB Field Investigation Synopsis The paramotor was being operated by an experienced pilot who was also an instructor. He was seen to initiate what was described as a ‘wingover’ manoeuvre to the right, at about 1,000 ft, but this was seen to develop into a rapid spiral to the left which continued for several turns, with a high rate of descent. The aircraft started to recover at a late stage but the pilot received fatal injuries in the impact with the ground. There was no defect identified within the wing (canopy and rigging) but structural failures were identified within the paramotor unit, consistent with having occurred in flight and precipitating the spiral descent. One Safety Recommendation is made to the Civil Aviation Authority concerning self-regulation of this activity. AAIB Special Bulletin 4/07 In-flight structural failures were identified in the early stages of the investigation and the AAIB published ‘Special Bulletin 4/07’ in August 2007. This was to draw attention to the structural failures, which appeared to have precipitated this accident and also to highlight the lack of regulation concerning the design and construction of paramotors. The Special Bulletin also advised that pilots should refrain from extreme manoeuvres until the structural integrity of these machines be ascertained. History of the flight Several instructors, students and other pilots of a paramotor school had spent the day at the site discussing paramotor flying, conducting ground instruction and waiting for conditions to become suitable for flying. At around 1930 hrs, in conditions 117 © Crown copyright 2009 AAIB Bulletin: 2/2009 Paramotor EW/C2007/07/02 described as a light west-southwesterly wind and good visibility, three of the more experienced pilots launched. The pilot involved in the accident was flying a combination of wing and paramotor unit belonging to the school, at which he was an instructor. He had aborted his first three attempts to launch because on each occasion the wing made an uncommanded left turn. On the first launch the wing “dipped” left and the paramotor’s propeller took “a couple of turns around the lines”. Another paramotor pilot freed the lines, the pilot checked them himself and then prepared for the next launch. On the second and third launches the wing turned left again and the assisting pilot noticed that a buckle was caught in the webbing at the base of the lines, fouling the rigging: this was in the ‘B’ line webbing and resulted in the ‘B’ line being shorter than the other flying lines, inducing the uncommanded turn to the left. After the assisting pilot had freed the buckle, the pilot launched without apparent difficulty. He then climbed to approximately 500 ft and appeared to “attempt a wingover”, during which the right side of the wing collapsed over approximately 40% of its span. It re-inflated almost immediately. The pilot then flew normally for several minutes and was seen to conduct some “low skimming”, before climbing to approximately 1,000 ft. From that altitude he appeared to initiate a wingover to the right but the aircraft almost immediately entered a wingover to the left that developed into a left‑hand spiral. The first three turns of this spiral appeared “normal” to the witnesses, in the sense that the speed of rotation was similar to other spiral manoeuvres they had observed. However, the fourth and subsequent turns appeared to develop into a fast rotational manoeuvre in which the vertical axis of the wing/paramotor unit combination appeared almost horizontal and the axis of rotation appeared to be between the wing and the harness. The aircraft completed five or six such turns until, at approximately 150 ft above the ground, witnesses heard the note of the engine increase, indicating to them that the pilot may have applied full power. The manoeuvre appeared to become less severe, as though the aircraft was beginning to recover to normal flight but, shortly afterwards, it was clear that it had hit the ground, although approximately the last 30 ft of the descent were obscured by low hedges and trees. The school’s other instructor directed another pilot, who was airborne at the time, to fly over to the site of the impact, some distance from the main gathering. Several witnesses made their way on foot or by car but were hampered by numerous ditches which separated the fields. Others alerted the emergency services, the first of which arrived in vehicles which were also unable to reach the site. One person was able to identify the location using a handheld GPS and directed the air ambulance to within a short distance of the injured pilot. The pilot was attended at the scene by paramedics then flown to hospital. He remained unconscious throughout and died two days later. Pilot information The pilot had flown paragliders since the 1980s. Although no formal record of pilot experience existed (nor was required), family members recalled that he began to fly paramotors five years before the accident. He was a member of the British Microlight Aircraft Association (BMAA) and held a current Foot Launched Microlight Instructor Rating. 118 © Crown copyright 2009 AAIB Bulletin: 2/2009 Paramotor EW/C2007/07/02 Colleagues of the pilot described him as having a keen interest in improving the safety of the sport. Members of his family provided documentary evidence of this interest, including drafts of an amended syllabus of training to fly paramotors and notes of discussions he had with several other participants, regarding the foundation of a single organisation to oversee the sport. Medical and pathological information The post-mortem revealed the presence of relatively severe coronary artery disease. No acute changes were evident, however, and it is likely that this was an incidental finding. The post-mortem report for HM Coroner stated that the cause of death was multiple injuries. Meteorological information No official meteorological observations were available at the accident site. Other paramotor pilots present stated that the surface wind was from the west‑southwest at about 4 mph. The wind was stronger aloft, “perhaps 16‑18 mph” according to one pilot, but there was little or no thermal activity and no other turbulence. Visibility was “good”, with a mostly clear sky and some cloud to the west with an estimated base at 4,000 ft. Description of the paramotor A complete paramotor (Figure 1) consists of a wing (canopy) and a system of suspension lines and risers (shrouds), akin to a paraglider, and a lower ‘paramotor unit’ assembly, accommodating the pilot and powerplant. In the accident aircraft the wing and paramotor units came from separate manufacturers and the paramotor unit had been modified. The fabric wing relies on air pressure at the leading edge to inflate it and produce its aerofoil shape. The upper and lower surfaces are stitched together at the trailing edge and around the wing tips, but the leading edge has openings and chordwise vertical ribs are attached to the upper and lower surfaces of the wing, dividing it into cells. Holes in the ribs permit the cross-flow of air, so that air pressure inside the wing is equalised. The air pressure inside the wing is dependent on airspeed and the direction of the relative airflow. In this design, four sets of cords or ‘lines’ are atta

Accidents Database

Paramotor, None, 8 July 2007

Report Overview

Paramotor, None

Summary:

Official Documents

Document Content Preview

Paramania Revolution 23 02-09.pdf

Change History

Related Entities