The 28-year-old pilot of a Cessna Reims 182 that went through the canopy of a paraglider in Austria late last month has been charged with causing bodily harm through negligence, and Austrian aviation authorities are also reviewing the incident, according to MSN. The pilot, who has not been identified, told police he didn’t have time to evade the paraglider. He was able to land safely back at Zell am See Airport. The 44-year-old paraglider, identified only by her Instagram name of Sabrina, deployed a reserve parachute and made a semi-controlled descent to a mountain road where she bounced off a tree before landing in a grassy area. She was not seriously injured.
“The day a Cessna 172 (sic) knocks you out of the sky while you’re paragliding. I still actually can’t believe that I am sitting here typing this and that apart from a few nasty bruises and scrapes all over, nothing really happened,” she is quoted by the Independent as saying. She also reportedly urged pilots to be on the lookout for other aircraft and acknowledged that it’s tough for other pilots to see paragliders. Sabrina reportedly said she was flying in an area where paragliding is permitted. She launched from a ski resort named Schmittenhöhe and was flying toward the city of Piesendorf when the 182 came up from behind her and collided with the canopy.
I’ve done lots of flying around known paragliding & hang gliding areas over the years, and I’ve been taught (and taught) numerous times to keep a good distance away. After all, paragliders and hang gliders are more difficult to see and not as easily maneuverable as we are.
This could have ended far worse….but could have been avoided as well.
Very impressive of her to get on the ground without serious injury, especially with her badly damaged primary chute trailing behind her all the way. Thank goodness the 182 wasn’t 20 feet lower.
Now that is a proficient pilot! (not the Cessna guy). What an outstanding emergency procedure performance on her part
<deleted, misread>
Well the solution is obvious: mandate ADS-B/out for all ‘chutes …
The cry for easy (“obvious”) solutions is usually the frist, the loudest and the faulty one.
ADS-B in Europe is limited as one of it’s frequencies is used for military tactical air navigation.
…I know your response was likely made with implied sarcasm, but FWIW: Both sailplanes and paragliders have limited power aboard (i.e. only the batteries we can carry) – which makes transponders a tough challenge. The spec for Mode-C / Mode-S / ADS-B requires a lot of broadcast power, and a transmitter response to essentially every radar hit on the unit. This sucks down juice at a heavy rate compared to all of the other modern avionics we equip in our craft. In my sailplane I run multiple color navigation screens, electric variometers and altimeters, and a radio – and combined they only draw about 1/2 of the power of the ADS-B Out system! (I only have such a system because I’m flying a large 2-seat sailplane and can fit three 9Ah lithium batteries in the fuselage)
The soaring community “solved” this problem awhile ago with FLARM / SoftRF. Its a low-power solution that provides intelligent two-way collision alerting and avoidance within a 5-10 mile range (which is plenty of time for aircraft moving at less than 300 knots). And these units also typically include a receiver for Mode-C / Mode-S transponder signals – so that we can see and avoid powered aircraft that are transponder-equipped (even if they don’t see us). Because the system is voluntary, its not carried by all soaring pilots – but it provides a huge safety advantage.
I wish the FAA recognized it in some way, instead of the “one size fits all” Mode-S / ADS-B solution that has to work for Cessnas, 787s, and everything in-between. Curious folks can check out https://www.flarm.com/en/general-aviation/ to learn more.
You are right, NWade. My tongue was buried so deeply in my cheek because I thought it was obvious that the current crop of ADS-B “solutions” being bruited by the FAA are unworkable.
So my new obvious solution is to get away from the idea of equipping aircraft in the first place: the FAA should mandate that at least one active crew-member of an aircraft must be wearing one of your nifty little gizmos. I’ll buy one to protect myself, since I’ve already invested in ADS-B/out.
In the UK (and also NZ and AU), real ADS-B Out (albeit not Mode-C / Mode-S) can be achieved via a small and relatively inexpensive device about the size of two decks of cards stacked on each other. The built-in battery keeps it squitting all day long and then ready to go for the next day. It also passes ADS-B In data to other gear in your cockpit.
I use it in my own single-seat sailplane, alongside Flarm and of course all of my nav gear, varios, radios, canopy flasher, popcorn popper (ok maybe not) and so on. No Mode-C/S really cuts the power demand while still providing a whole lot of conspicuity.
You can find the device I use by searching for uAvionix SkyEcho.
The only reasons you couldn’t use such a device with a parachute are regulatory.
I believe, as you do, in the help of electronic conspiquity.
The systems assist – and assist only – in see and avoid.
FLARM is the worst of the three possibilities;
TCAS is;
ADS-B is;
ADS-B is utilized – entirely illegal – to broadcast your personal data throught the internet. The goverments know, but they don’t care…
Pick your poison!
I use (located Germany, mostly flying continantal Eurpoe) a self build STRATUX:
Thorsten –
As far as FLARM:
FLARM also has one major advantage over the others: It transmits velocity vector information so that the receiving aircraft can project a “cone of possible positions” into the future and determine the likelihood of collision based on the direction and speed of both aircraft. AFAIK, no other anti-collision system does this.
Having said all that, I want to make it clear that I don’t think FLARM is a perfect solution or even necessarily the best one. I am trying to point out information about FLARM that I think its important for folks to know (since most people don’t know about it at all); not argue with you.
Furthermore, I think – given your location – you need to understand that we all may use the term “ADS-B”, but it is fairly different in the US than in Europe. In the US:
IMHO, the FAA made a major mistake with ADS-B by:
–Noel
And kites too.
Not kidding. If ADS-B receivers were intelligent to also calculate best avoidance and verbally advise the pillot, perhaps ADS-B would be a good thing.
See & Avoid !!!
Sadly no mention of the “ancient” technology that exists since antiquity: anticipation and vision.
Almost everyone except Hawkeye VFR experienced aviators rush to point out novel technologies.
Perfecting our scanning techniques and employing them vigorously prevents midair collisions.
Technology helps but is only a small part, we need to focus on the art of collision avoidance !!!
That’s right, to be safe I need to work hard to See & Avoid traffic in every phase of flight regardless of technology on board or lack thereof.
If I can see you I will do my best to stay clear for OUR Safety.
See & Avoid is always the fundamental building block. No one disputes that. But it is impossible to “see and avoid” through your wing, or through a windshield post, or many other parts of your aircraft. Electronic systems have far higher capabilities than the Mark 1 Eyeball, and thus should be used to augment the pilot’s capabilities.
We acknowledge that safe driving is important, but we still equip cars with seatbelts and airbags.
We acknowledge that bicyclists should be careful when riding, but we still have helmet laws.
Why is this any different?
AC 90-48E – Pilots’ Role in Collision Avoidance
Thanks for your comment and question.
Respectfully, please take the time to study the above AC.
Your comment ” But it is impossible to “see and avoid” through your wing, or through a windshield post, or many other parts of your aircraft.” will be answered.
Cheers.
Respectfully, I have studied that AC and nothing in it gives me X-ray vision or makes my aircraft structure perfectly transparent.
Humans are not robots, they do not follow instructions perfectly. There is no reason we shouldn’t give them tools that assist in their shortcomings and imperfections.
Providing tools and assistance does not mean you must accept complacency or poor instruction.
There is no evidence that adding airbags to cars made people worse drivers; but there is evidence that airbags have saved lives.
To learn, one must respect knowledge and be open minded.
( Sophists and Socrates were two very different thinkers in ancient Greece. The Sophists believed that truth depended on who was speaking. In contrast, Socrates believed that there was one absolute truth that could be found through knowledge and wisdom.)
Food for thought…..
Have a thoughtfully great day !
In this country I don’t believe the C182 pilot would be charged with anything as long as this collision was not intentional. Powered parachutes are considered ultralights in the US and according to pt103, ultralight aircraft are supposed to remain clear of powered manned airplane traffic. The same applies to skydivers under canopy (pt105). The good thing here is that no one was seriously injured.
“…remain clear of powered manned airplane traffic. The same applies to skydivers under canopy (pt105).”
Where does it say that in Part 105?
PS – the incident in the article above involved a paraglider, not a powered parachute.
FAR pt 105.5
Yours is a rather… interesting… (mis)interpretation of that rule.
105.5 is a general catch-all that means you should avoid doing stupid stuff, like dropping skydivers directly in front of a passing airplane with no warning. It’s really no different than 91.13 “Careless and Reckless” and 91.15 “Dropping of Objects”.
If you read the rest of Part 105 it gives instructions on how to conduct skydiving operations onto airports (controlled and uncontrolled), or at night, or into cities or crowds, and so on. It recognizes the fact that a skydver has limited control over their direction of travel with respect to a “powered manned aircraft” (interesting wording, by the way). Part 105 is a set of rules that skydivers and aircraft can follow to safely share airspace.
Your interpretation implies that skydivers must remain clear of other airplanes at all times and that airplanes can fly anywhere, anytime, and expect the “skydivers under canopy” to get out of the way. That is simply not the case.
PS – if a skydiver is not under canopy (i.e. in freefall) do the the airplanes have to remain clear?
You cannot conduct or as pic of a jump plane allow a parachute operation if it creates a hazard to air traffic. Also pt 91.113 right-of-way rules makes no mention of parachutes or ultralight aircraft having any right of way over air traffic. Every drop zone I have jumped at points out to jumpers to stay off the runway. Airspace marked on a sectional as a jump area is advisory in the US. Unlike some countries that allow skydiving ops through cloud layers, that is strictly prohibited in the US. Skydivers must adhere to VFR cloud clearance requirements in the US.
I agree with what you said in the above post. It follows the FAA definition of a “Hazard”, to wit:
§ 5.3 Definitions.
“Hazard means a condition or an object that could foreseeably cause or contribute to an incident or aircraft accident”
A skydiver landing on a runway is a foreseeable condition. Ditto for jumping through clouds. Those are foreseeable hazardous behaviors. As you said, “if it creates a hazard” then it’s not allowed.
But simply being under canopy does not automatically make it a hazard.
The rest of 105, such as filing NOTAMs, charting drop-zones, making radio calls, getting training, and so on, are ways to conduct parachute operations without creating a hazard.
Given all that, let’s create an example: A skydiver jumps at a charted drop zone after clearing the airspace prior to exiting with the pilot making radio calls. They open the canopy and are descending. Have they created a foreseeable cause or contribution to an accident (i.e. a hazard)?
An airplane flying straight and level either doesn’t notice or ignores the charted DZ symbol and multiple radio calls and runs right into ~175 square feet of slowly moving colorful fabric. Do you really think the FAA would not view such behavior as “careless and reckless”, or at least in violation of 91.113 “see and avoid”?
It’s the same with this paraglider. In the U.S. she would be under Part 103. She was flying from a known paraglider launch point along a known route. It was day VFR and she was clear of clouds. With specific regards to 103.13 she was maintaining vigilance to see-and-avoid other aircraft (judging by her head movements prior to the collision).
The Cessna 182 flew straight and level directly into ~250 square feet of slowly moving colorful fabric. From behind. Do you really think the pilot could simply say, “oops” and the FAA would reply “nah, you’re good, she was a hazard simply for being there”?
The paraglider collision was a failure of warning.
The paraglider saw the Cessna, but it was too late to avoid it.
The same problem applies to hang gliders, balloons, jumpers, powered parachutes, paramotors, and gliders.
Some are slow, hard to see, and limited in their ability to get out of the way.
Either way, seeing is not always warning.
That is where digital separation and electronic conspicuity (ECs) enter the argument.