Accidents and injuries related to powered paragliding: a cross-sectional study
Received 2014 Apr 17; Revised 2014 Aug 2; Accepted 2014 Aug 6; Collection date 2014.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
PMCID: PMC4156803 PMID: 25168039
Abstract
Objectives
Powered paragliding (PPG) and paragliding are two totally different sports, mainly because of the use of an engine in powered paragliding. As a consequence, the pattern of injuries caused by each of these two sports may be different.
Setting
To test this hypothesis, we analysed 384 incident reports gathered by the US Powered Paragliding Association from 1995 to 2012. The majority of the incidents occurred in the USA, while 26 incidents occurred elsewhere: Canada (8), Mexico (5), Panama (1), China (1), Japan (1), Malaysia (1), Indonesia (Java) (1), Europe (8): of which Spain (1), Belgium (1), UK (3), Italy (1), Romania (1), unknown (1).
Outcome
To identify the most affected body area and the most common type of injury sustained in PPG, and to highlight any differences from paragliding.
Results
Conclusions
To help prevent the specific injuries of PPG, the most appropriate equipment should be identified. The results of this study also suggest that, in the future, this sport should be analysed separately from paragliding.
Keywords: Extreme Sports, Paragliding, Sporting Injuries, Adventure Sports, Powered Paragliding, Hand Injuries
Strengths and limitations of this study.
- This is the first study in the literature on powered paragliding.
- We analysed a large amount of data (384 incident reports) collected from 1995 to 2012.
- Under-reporting bias, due to the voluntary nature of data submission, cannot really be estimated, because there is no way to find out the exact number of people who were aware of the existence of the database.
- Data analysis was performed by only one researcher with no cross-checking.
Introduction
Powered paragliding (PPG) or paramotoring is a sport in which the pilot flies by means of a wing similar to that of paragliding, the sport from which it is derived, under which the crew is suspended by means of long lines. It is a sport in its own right—different because the equipment used includes an engine, worn on the back and held in place by a harness (figure 1).
In contrast with paragliding, which is practised over hilly or mountainous areas because it requires a descent in order to take off, a paramotor can take off from level ground thanks to the power of the engine. It is safer to fly over level ground because there are fewer obstacles, the thermals are not too strong, and winds are generally steady. Furthermore, PPG differs from paragliding because the thrust of the engine allows the paramotor pilot to take off and fly without the need for strong winds or thermals, therefore in safer and more stable weather conditions. However, compared with other aerial sports, paragliding remains the most similar to PPG: they both require the pilot to keep the wing inflated by means of his/her own weight and skill.
PPG was invented in the 1980s and rapidly gained popularity—so much so that various national and international competitions have been held throughout the world over the last few years. In 2007, it was estimated that, in the USA alone, the sport was practised by 3000 people. 1 It seems to be a prevalently male sport; in 2013, the number of female members of the US Powered Paragliding Association represented only 2.6% of the total membership.
As PPG has grown in popularity, the number of accidents associated with it has inevitably increased. Knowledge of the accident dynamics, the type of injuries sustained and the body area affected is of vital importance in sports medicine, in order to provide insight into the types of conduct, protective clothing and safety systems that should be adopted to improve safety.
A careful examination of the literature led us to conclude that there are no existing studies on this sport in the medical literature, except for a case we had previously reported 2 ; in a recent literature review, 3 this sport is only mentioned among the varieties of paragliding, with which it is usually grouped.
Given that flying a paramotor is very different from flying a paraglider, we expected that the accident and injury types would differ greatly between the two sports as a result. The aim of this study was therefore to clarify the dynamics of paramotoring accidents, the conditions in which these occur, and the type of injuries sustained, and to highlight any differences from paragliding.
Materials and methods
We analysed incident reports of accidents that occurred between 1995 and the end of 2012, which the US Powered Paragliding Association (USPPA) had collected using a specific form published on its website. 4 Data collection started in 1995; we decided to use all the data available between 1995 and 2012 (the starting date of the present study). Data were primarily collected for accidents in the USA but, as USPPA is popular among powered paragliders worldwide, accidents in other countries were also reported.
The forms submitted had been completed by the pilot involved, a witness, or the Association itself based on the information gathered. The form included drop-down menu lists, checklists and text fields. It consisted of five sections:
- General information (date, time and place of the accident)
- Pilot information: including demographic information and details of the pilot’s PPG experience
- Details on the accident: including a description of the type of accident, the main cause, weather conditions at the time, characteristics of the takeoff and landing area, and details of the pilot’s clothing and equipment
- Injury information: including the body parts affected, the seriousness of the injury, any medical assistance and possible collateral damage to people or things
- Narrative: an extensive description of the event and its consequences
The form lacked a specific question about the nature of the injuries, but careful reading of the narrative section allowed us to obtain this information from almost all the forms. When these data were missing, they were designated ‘unknown’ in the results. The narrative section was read by only one researcher.
The data published by the USPPA were public and anonymous; their use for study and publication purposes was authorised beforehand by the USPPA. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, using the software Wizard Pro 1.3.27 and the χ 2 test.
The following definition of injury was adopted: ‘any physical complaint sustained by an athlete that results from training or competition, irrespective of the need for medical attention or time lost from sports activities’. 5–7 Each incident report was also given a National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics (NACA) score: a 7-point system 8 developed to assess the severity of injuries and diseases sustained or developed during aviation accidents. However, it was not possible to distinguish between classes V and VI in all cases on the basis of the available data. These two classes both cover conditions that pose an immediate threat to life and require immediate emergency medical assistance; therefore we decided to consider them as a single category.
We subsequently focused on accidents resulting in injury (disregarding those with a NACA score of 0), and we divided these into three classes based on the severity of the injuries:
- minor (NACA I, II), usually not requiring emergency medical measures
- major (NACA III, IV, V, VI), almost always requiring emergency medical measures
- fatal (NACA VII)
We associated the accidents thus classified with the accident dynamics cited in the incident reports and with the phase of flight in which the accidents occurred. We also explored the correlation between injury severity and pilot rating, and between injury severity and accident dynamics.
Results
At the start of the study, 384 incident reports were available. One had been submitted twice, therefore one copy was retained and the other was excluded.
The pilots involved in PPG accidents were aged between 24 and 72 years (average age 44.5, median 48, SD 9.54).
The majority of the accidents described occurred in the USA, while 26 occurred elsewhere: Canada (8), Mexico (5), Panama (1), China (1), Japan (1), Malaysia (1), Indonesia (Java) (1), Europe (8): of which Spain (1), Belgium (1), UK (3), Italy (1), Romania (1), unknown (1). Only three accidents involved a female pilot. Pilot injuries were classified according to the NACA category (table 1).
Table 1.
NACA score of powered paragliding accidents in this study
| Category | Description | Pilots | Per cent |
|---|---|---|---|
| NACA 0 | No injury or disease | 194 | 50.6 |
| NACA I | Slight injury or illness. No acute medical intervention necessary | 59 | 15.4 |
| NACA II | Slight to moderately severe injury or illness. Further diagnostic examination needed or outpatient medical investigation, but usually no emergency medical measures necessary | 48 | 12.5 |
| NACA III | Moderate to severe but not life-threatening disorder. Emergency medical measures usually on the site | 43 | 11.2 |
| NACA IV | Severe injury or illness where rapid development into a life-threatening condition cannot be excluded. Emergency medical care is required | 11 | 2.9 |
| NACA V | Acute vital (life-threatening) danger | 5 | 1.3 |
| NACA VI | Breathing and/or cycle stopped and/or resuscitation | ||
| NACA VII | Death | 23 | 6 |
NACA, National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics.
The following factors were taken into consideration: the phase of flight during which the accident took place (table 2), the primary cause (table 3) and the type of accident (table 4).
Table 2.
Phase of flight
| Phase of flight | Count | Per cent |
|---|---|---|
| Takeoff (including inflation and run up) | 165 | 43 |
| Cruise | 107 | 27.9 |
| Landing (including approach and after landing) | 55 | 14.3 |
| Not available/other | 56 | 14.6 |
Table 3.
Primary causes of accidents
| Primary cause | Total | Per cent |
|---|---|---|
| Pilot errors (only) | 205 | 53.5 |
| Mechanical failure (including fuel exhaustion) | 67 | 17.5 |
| Pilot error and weather | 17 | 4.4 |
| Pilot error and mechanical failure | 17 | 4.4 |
| Weather (gust, thermal, rain, wind increase, etc) | 22 | 5.7 |
| Not applicable/unknown | 24 | 4.4 |
| Other* | 31 | 1.8 |
*Including takeoff disturbed by wake turbulence created by the passage of other aircraft and landing out of the landing zone (LZ).
Table 4.
Types of accidents
| Type | Total | Per cent |
|---|---|---|
| Collision with terrain/obstruction on ground | 76 | 19.8 |
| Power plant equipment malfunction | 58 | 15.1 |
| Body contact with spinning prop | 43 | 11.2 |
| Hard landing | 40 | 10.4 |
| Fall | 37 | 9.7 |
| Wing malfunction or deflation | 35 | 9.1 |
| Other | 29 | 7.5 |
| Handling | 20 | 5.2 |
| Line tangle/damage | 15 | 3.9 |
| Collision with other aircraft/ultralight | 14 | 3.6 |
| Water immersion | 10 | 2.6 |
| Other/not applicable | 35 | 1.5 |
The rating for the experience of the pilots involved was as follows: 25.5% PPG2 (pilots who have an experience of 40 or more flights 4 ), 13.5% PPG1 (experience of 2 flights or more), 15.1% PPG3 (experience of 200 or more flights), 9.1% instructor, 12.8% none, 11.7% not applicable, 6% unknown, 1.8% other. No statistically significant correlation was found in our sample between accident severity and pilot rating (χ 2 , p=0.044).
Data for the type of place where the accidents occurred were as follows: 70.5% flat terrain, 11.4% not applicable, 8.8% hilly terrain, 2.6% water, 2.6% mountainous terrain, 2.6% unknown data, 1.3% other.
To identify the most affected body areas and therefore obtain the data most critical for the development of protective clothing, we calculated the number of injuries sustained in each body area (table 5). Of a total of 256 injuries, the most affected body areas were the upper limbs (44.5%), followed by the lower limbs (32%) and back (9.7%).
Table 5.
Distribution of injuries sustained in different body regions in powered paragliding found in this study (χ 2 , p<0.001)
| Body region | Body area | Cases | Type of injury (number of cases) | Total | Percentage of all injuries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head | Head | 7 | Concussion (3), unknown (2), contusion (1), open wound (1) | 18 | 7 |
| Neck | 3 | Burn (1), C2 fracture (1), unknown (1) | |||
| Face | 8 | Fracture (4>), laceration (2), burn (1), other (1) | |||
| Chest | Chest | 7 | Rib fracture (2), abrasion (1), burn (1), contusion (1), open wound (1), unknown (1) | 7 | 2.7 |
| Upper limb | Shoulder | 32 | Fracture (6), open wound (5), bruising (4), other (3), tendon injury (3), dislocation (2), laceration (2), unknown (2), abrasion (1), burn (1), contusion (1), muscle strain (1), sprain (1) | 114 | 44.5 |
| Arm | 26 | Laceration (7), burn (5), contusion (3), fracture (3), unknown (3), open wound (2), tendon rupture (1), abrasion (1), sprain (1) | |||
| Forearm | 11 | Burn (2), laceration (2), fracture (2), unknown (2), contusion (1) open wound (1), soft tissue injury (1) | |||
| Wrist | 8 | Fracture (3), contusion (2), laceration (1), other (1), sprain (1) | |||
| Elbow | 5 | Open wound (2), abrasion (1), burn (1), unknown (1) | |||
| Hand | 32 | Fracture (17; 11 with amputation), open wound (6), laceration (3), contusion (2), muscle strain (1), other (1), sprain (1), unknown (1) | |||
| Abdomen | Abdomen | 2 | Contusion (1), soft tissue injury (1) | 2 | 0.7 |
| Back | Back | 25 | Fracture (8), unknown (8), other (3), contusion (2), abrasion (1), burn (1), muscle strain (1), open wound (1) | 25 | 9.7 |
| Pelvis | Pelvis | 8 | Fracture (4), contusion (1), internal bruising (1), muscle strain (1), other (1) | 8 | 3.1 |
| Lower limb | Thigh | 13 | Fracture (4), contusion (2), laceration (2), open wound (2), abrasion (1), burn (1), unknown (1) | 82 | 32 |
| Knee | 19 | Contusion (4), sprain (4), laceration (2), ligament rupture (2), unknown (2), abrasion (1), dislocation (1), meniscus and ligament tear (1), muscle strain (1), other (1) | |||
| Calf | 17 | Fracture (7), burn (2), contusion (2), laceration (2), unknown (2), wound (2) | |||
| Ankle | 22 | Sprain (8), fracture (5), contusion (3), unknown (3), dislocation (1), ligament rupture (1), other (1) | |||
| Foot | 11 | Fracture (3), unknown (3), contusion (2), other (2), laceration (1) |
Of the 23 fatal accidents, five were the result of unintentional landing on water and drowning; one autopsy revealed the cause of death to be drowning, which was probably the consequence of unconsciousness due to the head injury sustained. Another two accidents were fatal because of cerebral spine fractures with spinal cord damage. In four cases, death was caused by severe head trauma. In all remaining cases, death was the result of high-energy multitrauma, although the reports do not allow us to identify precisely the injury responsible for death.
Most injuries were minor (NACA I–II), followed by major ones (NACA III–VI) and fatal ones (NACA VII). No significant difference was found in the distribution of fatal, major and minor injuries among the three main phases of flight (takeoff including inflation and run up, cruise, and landing including approach).
With regard to the relationship between accident dynamic and accident severity, accidents due to body contact with a spinning prop and wing malfunction/deflation prevalently caused major injuries (NACA III–VI): 55.6% and 56.2%, respectively. Accidents due to water immersion were prevalently fatal (71.4%). The other dynamics of injury were mainly associated with minor injuries (NACA I–II). A statistical correlation between injury severity and type of accident was found (χ 2 , p
Table 6.
Severity of injury by type of accident
| Type of accident | Minor (%) | Major (%) | Fatal (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collision with terrain/obstruction on ground | 62.5 | 18.8 | 18.8 |
| Power plant equipment malfunction | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Body contact with spinning prop | 44.4 | 55.6 | 0 |
| Hard landing | 74.1 | 22.2 | 3.7 |
| Fall | 54.5 | 40.9 | 4.5 |
| Wing malfunction or deflation | 31.2 | 56.2 | 12.5 |
| Other | 80 | 0 | 20 |
| Handling | 53.8 | 23.1 | 23.1 |
| Line tangle/damage | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Collision with other aircraft/ultralight | 40 | 40 | 20 |
| Water immersion | 14.3 | 14.3 | 71.4 |
| All types of accident | 56.6 | 31.2 | 12.2 |
The correlation between accident severity and pilot rating is barely significant (χ 2 , p=0.044; 95% confidence).
The data on collateral damage from the various accidents reveal that, in addition to the 383 pilots directly involved, 7 bystanders and 16 pilots of other aircrafts involved in collisions were also injured, making a total of 406 people. The data are insufficient to classify the severity of the injuries suffered by these people precisely. No injuries were sustained in 13 cases.
Discussion
In our study, the weather conditions were a main or contributing cause of 10.1% of the accidents: weather conditions alone were the cause of 5.7% of the accidents, while the weather conditions contributed to the accident together with pilot error in 4.4% of the accidents. This figure is much lower than that reported for paragliding by Zeller et al, 9 who mentions adverse weather conditions as a cause in 19% of paragliding accidents. This can be explained by the fact that an engine allows frequent flying and in a much wider variety of weather conditions, so pilots are less likely to risk flying in extreme and hazardous conditions.
However, our study clearly shows that the use of an engine influences the accident dynamics. It can itself be the cause of accidents, it can be an important aggravating factor in the event of an accident, or it can be the direct cause of injury.
This study shows that takeoff is the most dangerous phase of flight in PPG (32.9% of the accidents took place during this phase of flight; or 43% if we include those during run up and inflation, phases that can be considered an integral part of takeoff with a paramotor), whereas, in paragliding, the most dangerous phase is landing. 3 9 This can be explained by the fact that takeoff with a PPG requires a delicate balance between the thrust of the engine, the weight of the crew and the lift of the wing. In addition, takeoff from level ground and the prevalently horizontal thrust of the engine results in the pilot moving away from the ground slowly, in contrast with paragliding, where the distance from the ground increases rapidly because takeoff is from a slope. As a result, the falling distance remains decreased for much longer during takeoff with a PPG than it does in paragliding, limiting the possibility of adopting emergency manoeuvres and making the use of an emergency parachute impossible.
The use of an engine can be the direct cause of accidents typical of PPG: the two causes listed as ‘fuel exhaustion’ and ‘mechanical failure: power plant/propeller’ were responsible for 14% of accidents.
The engine may also aggravate the accident, mainly because of the energy it produces and transmits to the crew, but also because of its weight. It is mounted on a special frame worn by the pilot: the overall weight of the equipment and accompanying power plant vary between 20 and 40 kg. In the case of a collision, these two factors synergise to make the impact more traumatic given that engine displacement varies between 80 cc and 250 cc and engine power varies between 11 and 22.5 kW; engine thrust is at its highest during takeoff, the phase of flight when PPG accidents most frequently occur. In some reports, it is explicitly mentioned that it was precisely the energy supplied by the engine that made the impact fatal.
Some reports state that pilot error had been to some extent caused by a state of mental confusion suffered by the pilot during the execution of acrobatic stunts. Steep spirals are extremely dangerous manoeuvres in PPG; the position of the crew and the centrifugal acceleration (increased by the thrust of the engine) may reduce blood supply to the brain, which could cause a momentary state of mental confusion or even blackouts at a time when the maximum level of attention is required. 10
In the case of immersion in water, the weight of the engine can rapidly drag the pilot under the surface, giving him/her no time to free himself/herself from the equipment, making this type of accident particularly feared among paramotor pilots. In our study, this dynamic was responsible for 21.7% of fatal accidents (71.4% of accidents involving water immersion were fatal) and a serious (non-fatal) case of near-drowning. It is therefore inadvisable to fly a paramotor over or near water; it is essential that pilots wishing to do so use self-inflating and specially designed safety systems. These auto-inflating flotation devices are mounted on the paramotor’s frame and are activated by a CO2 cartridge, which fires on submersion, so no pilot input is required.
Paragliding injuries mainly involve lower limbs and spine, 3 9–17 whereas, in PPG, the upper limbs are more commonly affected and spinal injuries are less common. The different injury distribution may depend in part on the different flight dynamics and different distribution of the forces acting on the crew. This is due to the thrust of the engine and the weight of the equipment.
The engine is undoubtedly the factor that distinguishes PPG from paragliding in terms of injury type; contact with the propeller caused 43 accidents (11.22%) in our study and was responsible for the majority of injuries to the upper limbs, in particular lesions to the hands (figure 2), wrists, forearms, arms and shoulders, as well as all 11 fractures with loss of fingers cited in this study. Contact with very hot engine parts was the cause of four cases of burns to the face, neck, back, shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, calf, thigh and ankle, while two cases of generalised burns were the result of actual fires caused by combustion of the engine fuel. In another case, electrical burns to the chest and one arm were sustained following collision with high-voltage power lines. Contact with power lines is an established cause of accidents in paragliding too, while burns resulting from engine fuel combustion or contact with the engine are specific to PPG.
Indeed, PPG is widely believed to be safer than paragliding, and fatal events are considered to be rarer than in paragliding. 1 In our study, 6% of accidents were fatal (fatal accidents/total number of accidents: 23/383).
This figure is no lower than the values cited in the literature for paragliding and hang-gliding (table 7), but is, however, comparable with the 6.1% of fatal paragliding accidents reported by Schulze et al 18 in a study very similar to ours, which was conducted using the data from incident reports.
Table 7.
Studies on paragliding and hang-gliding reporting fatal outcome after accidents
| Sport | Study | Fatalities | Participants | Percentage of fatal events |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paragliding | Krüger-Franke et al 11 | 2 | 218 | 0.91 |
| Paragliding | Schulze et al 18 | 25 | 409 | 6.10 |
| Paragliding | Lautenschlager et al 19 | 1 | 86 | 1.16 |
| Paragliding | Fasching et al 12 | 0 | 70 | 0.00 |
| Hang-gliding | Foray et al 20 | 7 | 200 | 3.50 |
Considering the differences between PPG and paragliding, further research on this sport and related injuries should be conducted separately from paragliding, in separate studies.
The results of this study suggest that further investigation should consider if the use of certain types of safety clothing and equipment would significantly reduce various risks specific to this sport. The effectiveness of protective gloves to protect against hand injuries, caused by contact with the spinning prop, should be evaluated in future studies.
As many prop strike injuries occur higher up the upper limb, where gloves would not be effective, an even better solution may be to add a so-called ‘safety ring’ to the engine cage. The safety ring is an aluminium ring that is mounted just forward of the radial arms and has the same radius as the prop. It is designed to make it difficult for an open human hand to reach the prop when it is in full thrust, and it adds very little in terms of expense and weight to the equipment. Further studies should evaluate its effectiveness, and its use could eventually be made obligatory, given that these injuries are often severe, in some cases involving amputation of the fingers.
Given the extreme danger caused by water immersion, it might be useful if pilots provided themselves with an auto-inflating flotation device when flying near water. As in paragliding, periodical checking and maintenance of equipment (the wing and lines in particular) are essential. In addition, in PPG, careful inspection and maintenance of the engine is vital, given that its malfunctioning could be a cause of major injury.
This study has some limitations. First, as there is no way of finding out exactly how many people knew about the existence of the database, the effect of under-reporting bias, due to the voluntary nature of our data submission, cannot really be estimated. In addition, as the injury reporting form is online, only PPG pilots with access to the internet were able to participate. For this reason, even though most people use the internet, selection bias cannot be excluded.
Finally, the lack of a specific question about the kind of injury sustained on the form might have led to the loss of some data even though in almost all cases it was possible to obtain detailed information on the type of injury by carefully reading the narrative section of the reports. Data analysis was performed only by one researcher with no cross-checking.
Conclusions
This study reveals a pattern of accidents in PPG that is clearly different from that observed in paragliding: PPG accidents are more common during takeoff; weather and wind conditions have less influence in causing accidents; the energy from the engine and the weight of the equipment may aggravate accidents.
The pattern of injuries sustained in this sport is characteristic: they mostly involve the upper limbs, while those to the spine are less common. Finally, contrary to the common belief of experts in this sport, 1 the number of fatal accidents/number of accidents is not lower than those that occur in paragliding and hang-gliding 11 12 18–20 (table 7). For these reasons, PPG should be analysed separately from paragliding in separate studies.
Further research will be useful to confirm the data of this study, to investigate the role of safety equipment such as protective gloves, safety ring and auto-inflating flotation devices, and to evaluate the effectiveness of periodical checks of the engine, to reduce certain risks specific to this sport.
Paramotor Safety and Death Statistics: How Dangerous are They?
Paramotoring is one of the most fun sports to take part in, but how dangerous is it? There’s just something intrinsically terrifying about strapping a fan to your back and taking off into the air. How well-founded are these fears? According to paradrenalin.com, there will be one fatality every year out of every 1504 paramotor users, but if you learn and follow specific safety tips, paramotoring can be safe for you. This a better statistic than paragliding (the non-motorized version of paramotoring) which sits at around one person out of every 752 people. It’s also a better statistic than motorcycles which sit at one fatality for every 1382 motorcycle drivers. This may seem like good news, but death isn’t all that there is to worry about with paramotoring. When surviving a crash, the survivor is often left with several injuries.
Statistics on Injury and Death
Picture the scene, you’ve just purchased your first paramotor. You’re out in an open field, ready to leap into the clear blue sky. The engine is humming on your back, and you begin to run forwards. Your feet slap the ground, faster and faster as the wing begins to lift up behind you. You can feel yourself lifting off the ground. This is it, the moment you’ve been waiting for. In an instant, everything goes wrong. A random rock snags your foot, and you and skid a good twenty feet on your face. There’s grass is in your mouth, you’ve got scratches on your arms, and that cute girl you were hoping to impress is now laughing hysterically at you. That is until she gets a sick look on her face from seeing your broken nose. Despite the humor of this situation, it brings up an uncomfortable question about paramotors. The smallest mistake seems like it could easily be life-threatening when flying paramotors. Just how dangerous is using one of these machines?
Data
A study conducted by BMJ gathered together a lot of data on paramotoring accidents. They were able to compile 383 reports, and we can see some of that data here:
| Types of Accidents | ||
| Type | Total | Percentage |
| Collision with terrain/obstruction on ground | 76 | 19.8% |
| Equipment malfunction | 58 | 15.1% |
| Body contact with spinning prop | 43 | 11.2% |
| Hard landing | 40 | 10.4% |
| Fall | 37 | 9.7% |
| Wing malfunction or deflation | 35 | 9.1% |
| Handling | 20 | 9.2% |
| Line tangle/damage | 15 | 3.9% |
| Collision with other aircraft/ultralight | 14 | 3.6% |
| Water immersion | 10 | 2.6% |
| Other | 64 | 9.4% |
We can see from this chart that the most common type of accident is a collision with the terrain/obstruction on the ground. This is followed by engine failure, wing faliure, or other equipment malfunctions.
Complacency Kills
To avoid collisions with objects close to the ground, it’s best to stay high up in the air. Doing maneuvers close to the ground could go catastrophically wrong if a sudden gust of wind surprises you. Tucker Gott, a paramotor enthusiast and Youtuber, has found a clever solution. To avoid bad wind conditions, he prefers to fly below the earth’s surface. See how he does it in this video. He also has some commentary on complacency. In another one of his videos, Tucker begins to notice a problem as he’s taking off. He finds himself inexplicably turning right as soon as his feet leave the ground. “So as I gain a little bit of altitude, I can now see what the problem is. It looks like three of the lines have bunched together. – This is something I’ve never really seen, and haven’t encountered since then, but that basically deforms the right wing tip and pulls it in, which causes that right turn. So now that I have a little more altitude, I have two choices. I can either keep flying, climb higher and try to pump the brake, or pull those lines to let them loose. Or I can come in for a landing immediately. Given the situation, I decided to just come in for a landing immediatly. and get back on the ground safely.” Well said Tucker, well said. When encountered with a situation like this where something feels off, even if you don’t immediately know the problem, come in for a landing to figure it out. It’s better to solve an easy problem on the ground, then to find yourself solving a hard problem 2,000 feet in the air.
Primary Causes of Accidents
Another set of data that BMJ collected was the causes of accidents in individual cases. These can give a greater insight into what to be especially aware of while flying on paramotors:
| Primary Causes of Accidents | ||
| Primary cause | Total | Percent |
| Pilot errors (only) | 205 | 53.5% |
| Mechanical failure (including fuel exhaustion) | 67 | 17.5% |
| Not applicable/unknown | 24 | 6.3% |
| Weather (gust, thermal, rain, wind increase, etc) | 22 | 5.7% |
| Pilot error and mechanical failure | 17 | 4.4% |
| Pilot error and weather | 17 | 4.4% |
| Other | 31 | 8.2% |
Looking at this we can clearly see that pilot error is the main cause of accidents, followed by mechanical failure, and bad weather. We can extrapolate from this data that by becoming a better pilot, taking care of your gear, and flying in ideal weather conditions you can avoid assuming unnecessary risk. So, what are some ways to become a better pilot?
How to Become a Safer Pilot
There are two ways to go about learning how to pilot a paramotor. Teaching yourself, or going to an instructing school. Teaching yourself to fly will most likely get you killed, but some people don’t have the time or money to attend one of the schools. For those who absolutely have to teach themselves, there are many online resources, such as helpful tutorials on Youtube and many good websites that can teach you how much of an utterly stupid idea it is to try to teach yourself. So many problems can occur when training on your own. Taking off at the wrong time of day in strong but invisible and imperceptible thermal conditions can toss you around like a leaf in the wind, and fold your wing in half. This can and does injure/kill students. Another issue that you could run into is having brake and/or throttle lines that are set too short to reach in flight or long enough to wrap up in a prop during flight. Not being able to reach controls has killed unsuspecting self-trainees, and getting a break caught in a prop can kill you in an instant. Another problem you could run into with self-training is not running with straight body posture and a forward facing propeller angle practically no one does this properly without training, and the engine pushes the pilot straight down during the launch run. If you haven’t been dissuaded yet from self-training, there is a useful website here which gives the basic rundown of how paramotors work, but if I’ve almost convinced you what a bad idea self-training is, you can click here for another testament to how dangerous self-training can be.
Paramotor Flight School
For those of you with common sense that have decided to attend a training school, let me tell you a bit about what to expect. Most paramotor flight schools have you visit the instructors location for a week or two. During this time period, you’ll spend some time indoors doing “ground school” lessons, or book learning. this typically happens whenever weather conditions outside are non-flyable. When you are outside, most of the time will be spent learning how to ‘kite’ a paraglider wing, learning how to handle it on the ground, and how to position it over your head while running and getting ready for takeoff. At the end of your time in the school, your instructor will guide you via headset through the process of launching, manuvering through the air, and landing. By going to a paramotor flight school, you’ll become well acquainted with the parts of the paramotor rig, and get comfortable with maneuvering with a wing.
Dangerous Common Mistakes that New Pilots Make
After flight school, you should be ready to enter the new and exciting world of paramotoring. However, even after flight school, people are still prone to accidents and mistakes. Studies show that 90% of accidents happen within the first 10 flights. A common mistake that people interested in starting to paramotor make is buying equipment before even going to flight school. How do you know that you’ll enjoy paramotoring? You might save up months worth of wages to purchase one, and then find out paramotoring just isn’t for you. Paramotoring isn’t for everyone, and many pilots cannot get over the initial nerves. I’m not saying you can’t, but it’s wise to make sure you can before making a big investment. After going to flight school, you’ll have a better grasp on the type of paramotor that you want to buy as well. Buying a paramotor that isn’t right for you can be an expensive mistake. Another common mistake that those interested in paramotoring make is that they don’t go on a tandem flight before deciding on whether to even invest in the training. A tandem flight is when you ride on a paramotor with a trained professional. This is a far safer, and far cheaper way to find out if paramotoring is right for you. After your tandem flight, it’s time to find a flight school near you. It’s important to have a good connection with your instructor, and you’ll be spending some time together. Following this link will take you to a website that can help you find flight schools near your location. These aren’t the only flight schools, but they’re a place to start on your search for a flight school for you.
How to Maintain Gear for Safety
One of the scariest things that can happen to a paramotorist is for their equipment to fail them mid-flight. In order to avoid this, certain precautions can be taken in maintaining your paramotor. When becoming a paramotor pilot, you have to practically become a 2-stroke mechanic. Fortunately, for each paramotor, a manual comes with it that should teach you how to take care of your specific model. There are some blanket rules that go for all paramotors though.
When doing an engine check, don’t forget to:
- Check the spark plug
- Tighten bolts (torque the head)
- Readjust and tighten the prop rig
- Check for any gas leaks
- Ensure integrity of rubber mounts
- Verify idle stability
To maintain your wing:
- Check for any holes or tears after every flight
- Be sure that the wing is clean after landing and before packing it away
- When landing and taking off, try to choose areas that won’t damage the wing when it touches the ground (avoid gravel or areas with brush)
- Be sure that the wing is dry before packing it away
- Test the lines before every flight to make sure they will hold you
It’s usually best to do some maintenance every 10 hours of flight. Be sure to always follow your manual when maintaining your paramotor.
Ideal Flying Conditions
Flying conditions are what can make or break a paramotor pilot. It’s always best to stay on the safe side of things when it comes to weather.
Wind
One of the first weather issues that people will run into when paramotoring is wind. Wind speed plays a big factor in paramotoring. A good rule of thumb is that if wind speed is about 12 mph, don’t go flying that day.
Another thing to consider is wind gusts. These are sharp spikes in wind speed, and they can effect your paramotoring experience in an unpleasant way. If the wind gusts are 5 mph above whatever the average is that day, it’s best to not go out.
There are apps that can be accessed here, that can determine wind speed. All good paramotor pilots have a way to find out the current wind speed, among other weather information.
Precipitation
Concerning rain, it’s best to not paramotor in precitipation, as it can lead to something called parachutal stall, where you lose all forward momentum and begin to sink towards the ground.
If you find yourself in the rain, open up your trimmers and apply your speed bar if you have it. Keep these settings as you’re going in for a landing and don’t take them off until you’re ready to flare.
Avoid steering with your breaks as well. Use the tip steering toggles instead. When trying to get down to the ground in the rain, use tight turns, but don’t exit the turn too aggressively, as this could tilt your paramotor out of balance, and cause you to enter a parachutal stall.
An average wing will stall around 17 degrees angle of attack, but if your wing is we,t it could stall at just 9 degrees. Keep this in mind while flaring during landing, as doing so at the wrong time could cause problems. Be very careful and only flare very close to the ground within the last few feet.
Cloud Cover
As far as cloud cover goes, flying over mid morning fog, or high above the clouds is an amazing feeling, but there are certain things that you should avoid concerning clouds.
Flying into clouds is illegal, and dangerous according to the CAA “Rules of the Air” regulation. Flying close to clouds is also illegal, but how close you can get depends heavily on the type of cloud, and the type of paramotor you are using.
In my research, I found a strange and interesting phenomenon called “Cloud Suck”. Hopefully, none of us will experience this because frankly, it sounds terrifying.
Cloud clearance rules keep us safe from the danger of the phenomenon known as cloud suck. Towering cumulus clouds and cumulonimbus are often associated with this strange activity.
Cloud suck is when you are pulled inexplicably towards and into clouds.
Cloud suck is more commonly seen in paragliding where thermalling is more common, but it’s still very possible in paramotoring. Thermalling pilots can find themselves fighting to stay out of the clouds while thermalling as the clouds try to draw them in. The vertical reach of a cumulus cloud is a good indicator of the strength of rising air beneath it, and thus is an indicator for the potential of cloud suck.
Many pilots have reported that they have been unable to descend while experiencing cloud suck, even while pulling deep spirals or other active areal maneuvers to descend. Getting throw towards the ground is one thing. Getting stuck in the sky is a completely different ballpark.
So avoid flying into or near clouds. If it’s cloudy outside and you have low visibility, then consider not flying that day. When trying to get above the clouds, a good rule of thumb is to fly through a break in the clouds. Clouds can dampen your wing, and cause parachutal stall.
When it comes to weather, rely on training, and use your common sense. All it takes is one wrong gust of wind at the wrong time to ruin your whole day.
Laziness over Life
Read Flake was a paramotor pilot who was not an expert, but certainly had experience with over 500 flights under his belt. He was out one day at a well known free flight site, Point of the Mountain.
It was getting to be later in the day, a little past 10 O’clock, and most of the other pilots had gone home after a fun day of paramotoring. It was only a little gusty, nothing an experienced pilot like Read couldn’t handle.
Despite knowing it wasn’t completely ideal conditions, Read thought “I have a motor, there’s no need to drive to the top– just launch below and fly up to the ridge to catch the thermals.”
He did this, but when get got above the ridge, wind hit him unexpectedly and launched him straight towards some nearbyby power lines. In attempting to maneuver away from the lines, he cause a parachutal stall, and dropped about 40 feet to the ground.
You can see the video here.
Though he survived, as a result of this accident, Read broke his pelvis, crushed two of his vertebrae in his spine, and one in his neck as well. He also partially collapsed his lung.
It’s a rather harrowing story to hear when someone who has so much experience is just swept away
Unnecessary Risks
Accidents are unavoidable. Read’s story is a testament to that. but they can be reduced.
In Read’s case, he knew that the gusts of wind were potentially problematic, but decided to try to fly up to his location anyways.
Like Tucker Gott said, “Complacency Kills.”
Never take unnecessary risks while paramotoring, it’s a risky enough activity all on its own without you adding on potential issues because of laziness.
Something that Read could have done differently is to have taken the longer but safer road.
Richard Biggerstaff’s Story
Richard Biggerstaff was a paramotor enthusiast. He would often attend festivals, and loved the sport with all his heart.
Richard had received around 30 flights of training elsewhere and attended the paramotoring festival Austin Texas to brush up after a 9-month hiatus.
One Friday evening, he was out at the festival when disaster struck. According to two witnesses, he was doing a spiral from which he hit the ground.
There was a small post-impact fire that was quickly extinguished. Another pilot who was flying with Richard at the time saw the whole thing from the air.
He landed and rushed over, but when other witnesses arrived at the scene, the other pilot simply whispered, “He’s gone.”
Richard had been high, over 1000 feet AGL when he initiated the spiral. He had been conducting a trick called a “nose-over” spiral where the pilot and wing are pointed nearly straight down, rotating quickly.
The most likely explanation is that he blacked out before impact and never knew what happened. There is the possibility of equipment failure as the cause as evidenced by the fire (fires don’t usually erupt in crashes unless something was wrong with the equipment beforehand). However, it is far more likely, due to the nature of the spiral he was doing, that he lost consciousness.
A Word on Spirals
Spirals are absurdly dangerous. They tend to induce blackouts, and once you black out, no matter the altitude, it’s almost always a death sentence.
When you get down to it, paramotoring has an intrinsic and inseparable risk associated with it. But doing dangerous tricks on paramotors is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Be Wise
Paramotoring is a fun sport. It’s full of thrills, excitement and wonder. But it’s also full of danger, and potential heartache and pain.
I don’t mean to discourage anyone from paramotoring. All sports, all motorized vehicles, everything worth anything that life has to offer has risk involved with it. The dangers of paramotoring might be the very thing that attracted you to it.
Accident’s happen, and it’s true that some accidents are unavoidable no matter how much you prepare. However, fear shouldn’t stop us from experiencing new things and reaching new heights.
Accidents happen, accidents will always happen. But even most wild journeys have a safer, smarter path to follow. Follow the safer path. Don’t let fear cripple you, but don’t let your hubris get the better of you either. Find the middle ground that’s right for you.
Accidents happen, but you can change yourself to minimize the risk of accidents. Go out and put in the work to be a better pilot. Don’t be like Read Flake, or Richard Biggerstaff. Remember that complacency kills and that with preparation and caution, most accidents can be avoided.
Related Questions
Do you need a license for a Paramotor?
Paramotoring is a license-free sport. This is because paramotors are foot launched, like hang gliders. However, paramotorists are still bound by aviation law. Be sure you know the laws pertaining to aviation before taking flight yourself.
Is Paragliding Safer than Paramotoring?
Paramotoring is safer than paragliding for several reasons. Paramotors can be launched in zero wind, with no thermal activity. This means that paramotors don’t need to time their launches right, and therefore have zero penalties for launching them whenever they feel like. Also, due to paramotors constant forward momentum, the wing is less likely to collapse. If launching in strong enough conditions though, Paramotors and Paragliders are about the same danger level.
I am a California native and I enjoy all the outdoors has to offer. My latest adventures have been taking the family camping, hiking and surfing.
Recent Posts
As I have been learning about Paramotors I have noticed that it is very helpful to have a good pair of gloves. Being that there are so many types of gloves out there I narrowed it down to what the.
About Us
Welcome to Outdoor Troop! We are your go-to online destination for all things outdoor adventure. Whether you’re a seasoned outdoor enthusiast or just starting to explore the wonders of nature, our website is designed to be your ultimate resource and guide.
Legal Information
Outdoor Troop is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. Outdoor Troop also participates in affiliate programs with Bluehost, Clickbank, CJ, ShareASale, and other sites. We are compensated for referring traffic and business to these companies.
- About Outdoor Troop
- Author Bios
- Comment Policy
- Contact Us
- Editorial Policy
- Guest Post Policy
- Privacy Policy
- Terms Of Service
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4156803/https://outdoortroop.com/paramotor-safety-and-death-statistics-how-dangerous-are-they/
