Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

A discussion restricted to the topic of hang gliding.
User avatar
CloudHopper
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sun, Mar 09 2003, 08:35:41 pm
Location: North Carolina

Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

Post by CloudHopper »

PPG is easy to learn, and then these irresponsible (and/or untrained) operators like to see how high they can motor up to. This creates a dangerous situation which might cause others to lose their rights to fly.
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/tex ... araglider/
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/tex ... araglider/
User avatar
Andrew Vanis
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue, Dec 26 2006, 11:42:04 pm

Re: Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

Post by Andrew Vanis »

That is an irresponsible post.

and - its one way of creating a view that a PPG who was (from the info I have) compliant with all the applicable regulations is the one that caused the issue....Pretty soon they will go after PGs and HGs en masse just because a powered plane pilot wasn't paying attention. More of them than of us.

Just unfortunate over all.

That we all have rights to be in the sky is the position to take for our sport.
User avatar
CloudHopper
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sun, Mar 09 2003, 08:35:41 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

Post by CloudHopper »

Thanks Andrew.

I did jump to an assumed cause too early and I now apologize for the bad post.

The preliminary data appears to show that both the Cessna pilot and the PPG operator were probably both in legal airspace, except both of them unfortunately were not at their best (safest) altitudes for the directions they were traveling. The Cessna was cruising at a steady altitude, but whether the PPG was cruising at a steady altitude or climbing or descending is unknown.

The Cessna 208 was on a southwesterly heading with an ATC assigned altitude of 5,000' msl, but was maybe 200' below that elevation at the time of the collision.

Part of the PPG's prop cage is imbedded in the Cessna's wing in such a way that it appears the PPG was hit from behind. If the PPG pilot was cruising westerly, he should have been at a fixed altitude of 4,500' msl, but the collision occurred at about 4,800' msl.

Most likely neither pilot saw the other craft prior to impact, and the PPG pilot probably didn't hear the plane coming either because of his own motor's noise.

The lesson for us hang glider pilots here is that we should always be on the lookout for traffic and be ready to dive out of their way. Our altitudes are all over the place when we fly XC, but when over 3000' above the ground we should be particularly cautious at or near the thousands of msl altitude (e.g., 4,000', 5,000', 6,000', 7,000', etc.). This is where the IFR traffic and ATC assigned planes will most likely be cruising, and they are often not looking where they are going. Our only advantages over the unfortunate PPG pilot is that we can sometimes hear them coming, and that we have a higher dive speed to help us get out of their way.

The +500' altitudes are also dangerous, because that's where the higher VFR planes are usually cruising. Those VFR pilots don't look out as often as they did in the old days. There are too many "glass goodies" in their modern cockpits and these devices are major distractions.

Be careful up there!
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/12/c ... fatal.html
User avatar
Andrew Vanis
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue, Dec 26 2006, 11:42:04 pm

Re: Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

Post by Andrew Vanis »

Thanks for taking ownership of the content of your post

"Part of the PPG's prop cage is imbedded in the Cessna's wing in such a way that it appears the PPG was hit from behind."

...........Only 3-4 feet from this being an AMAZING bar story....Shame
User avatar
Rebardan
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat, May 21 2005, 11:24:42 pm
Location: Crestline, CA

Re: Oblivious Operators are Dangerous

Post by Rebardan »

I wish some enterprising ultralight interested individual would take on
building a low power ADS-B receiver and code it to alarm the owner of approaching aircraft.
If the PPG in this case had even a 10 second heads up and a vector of the approaching
208, they'd likely both be at home having dinner telling an interesting story about their flying day.
User avatar
CloudHopper
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sun, Mar 09 2003, 08:35:41 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

Post by CloudHopper »

Ultralight owners in congested airspace might could benefit from some modern equipment:
https://flywithsentry.com/mini
https://www.sportys.com/foreflight-sent ... eiver.html
User avatar
Davis
Site Admin
Posts: 15438
Joined: Thu, Feb 27 2003, 06:38:33 pm
Location: On the road, USA

Re: Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

Post by Davis »

Check out the pictures of the parachute (and reserve) and tell me if you think that the chute is a paraglider. Doesn't seem that way to me. Perhaps a paraplane instead?
LeadingEdge
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon, Sep 23 2013, 08:37:02 pm

Re: Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

Post by LeadingEdge »

In the world of general aviation, almost all mid air collisions involve one aircraft hitting the other aircraft from behind. Simply the issue of one pilot not managing (or noticing) closing distance.
User avatar
CloudHopper
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sun, Mar 09 2003, 08:35:41 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Irresponsible PPG Operators are Dangerous

Post by CloudHopper »

Responding to Davis' post:

I can't tell from the photos whether it's a PPG or a Paraplane. I'm not even sure whether the white 'chute is the reserve or the main wing, but I'm assuming the main wing is the multi-colored one that is twisted up. Is that correct?

It really doesn't make much difference whether it's a powered paraglider or a Paraplane type vehicle, with or without wheels. Two fine men are no longer here.

All pilots of Part 103 craft (including hang glider pilots) should be aware that operating in Class E airspace near the Class B airspace's boundary carries additional risks, especially when above 3000' agl and especially when near a whole thousands of feet msl altitude (e.g., 4000' msl, 5000' msl, 6000' msl, 7000' msl, etc.).

USHPA could do its members a favor by sending out NOTAMs to their members reminding them of this.
User avatar
Martin
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue, Nov 04 2003, 07:39:11 pm
Location: West Coast, Canada

Re: Oblivious Operators are Dangerous

Post by Martin »

Rebardan wrote: Wed, Dec 29 2021, 11:25:21 am I wish some enterprising ultralight interested individual would take on
building a low power ADS-B receiver and code it to alarm the owner of approaching aircraft.
If the PPG in this case had even a 10 second heads up and a vector of the approaching
208, they'd likely both be at home having dinner telling an interesting story about their flying day.
Not sure how it all works but the Euro's appear to use an alternate approach using the cellular networks connecting to regional server/data based of aircraft tracking. As I understand it, ATC's and other users feed data to the network, you have a subscription and a app to read the data. With your subscription, you send data into the network, other subscribers will "see" your data, software deals with conflict resolution. One small issue, ATC does not feed the data back into the system, everybody needs to be using the network and there is the suggestion the the system does occasionally have issues with delays in handling the data (so not always "live"). On the other hand, I might have this all wrong, a BHPA member could chirp in here?

There are also several other device based systems including FLARM, Power-FLARM and FANET. Device based options are plagued with small market and international radio frequency bandwidth standards, for example a FLARM system in Europe can not be used in its interactive state (passive + interrogation) in North America (not legally assigned frequency to operate).On top of that, the only other traffic it will see is transmitting Flarm.

Power-Flarm I believe is legal in North America, passive use can feed ADS-B data, TCAS an other FLARM based transmission into user flight track resolution. Low power Flarm "out" is potential for our use but sending out anything ADS-B becomes a problem for weight and power (dedicated ADS-B transmitter). Of course, but for anything to work, others have to be "squawking" something, and better yet "listening" with a system compatible to what ever we are using.

Perhaps a passive, scanner, programed for your region would go a long way to improving safety. Next to that the server based system has some potential.

BTW, I highly recommend that every hang or pg pilot who fly's XC take a flight with a GA pilot (preferably in something "fast"!) for a local regional hop. You will get a chance to see just how complicated a local hop with multiple airports and ATC's, radio frequency changes, squawking, talking, and just managing the aircraft leave very little time to "have a look around".

A very long time ago, when having a beer with a "un-named" NAV Canada official, he/she joked that..."when it comes right down to it, we huck a whole bunch of stuff up into the sky and hope everybody can avoid running into each other" ......

Cheers and Happy New Year!
Martin