C208 and Paraglider midair 12/21/21

BladeSlap said:
I think with the way inflation vs pay is going, plus adding more and more regulations, and of course people choosing to be more homebodies and shut ins, there will be less and less GA, so big sky is growing outside, of the busses in the flight levels.
Click to expand...

I have ADS-B and I'll continue to use it. I don't believe a reasonable argument can be made that ADS-B is not an enhancement to safety as far as aiding the separation of reporting aircraft.

But that still means that a pilot must use all the resources to see and avoid and not be heads down in the cockpit (flight deck - ;)) staring at a screen where some traffic may not be displayed at all.
 
FlyingElvii said:
Area is listed as a Parachute jump area to 24,000. With an approach and a departure path right through it…
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that garner a title of "Objectionable" on the VFR Sectionals for the airfield?
Not that it has any bearing on this particular outcome, I'm new at this and still trying to sort through the detailed information you can gather from the charts.
 
Daleandee said:
I have ADS-B and I'll continue to use it. I don't believe a reasonable argument can be made that ADS-B is not an enhancement to safety as far as aiding the separation of reporting aircraft.

But that still means that a pilot must use all the resources to see and avoid and not be heads down in the cockpit (flight deck - ;)) staring at a screen where some traffic may not be displayed at all.
Click to expand...

It’s great, but it is what it is
 
I have ADS-B in both my airplanes..it does enhance safety, but does not guarantee safety. There is always an element of risk involved in everything we do.
 
See and avoid only works if the other aircraft is within your sight lines. Was tooling along in an Arrow with another POA member in mountainous terrain when I glimpsed a glider right below us passing underneath. Probably was riding a thermal upwards and should have had eyes on us but based on how close it was likely not. Definitely within 300 feet. Probably 100-150 feet.
 
DavidWhite said:
Thats definitely not the case in any airplane I’m flying.
Click to expand...
Risk Homeostasis (or why it's hard to idiot-proof anything because idiots adapt)

NOT A COMMENT ABOUT ANYONE AT POA-- because we are all above normal-- it's "those" other people...

Risk homeostasis, initially proposed Prof. G. J. S. Wilde, at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario in 1982 suggests that people maximize benefits derived from safety improvements by comparing the expected costs and benefits of safer and riskier behavior and maintain a relatively stable level of risk. In effect "subsidizing" risk taking behavior with the dividends from safety improvements.

He noted that when both Sweden and Iceland made major changes including driving on the heretofore opposite side of the roadway there was a profound but short reduction in traffic accidents and fatalities. Then those markers returned to previous values. He suggested that drivers had responded to increased perceived danger by taking more care, only to revert to previous habits as they became accustomed to the new regime.

In Germany when new taxicabs were required to have anti-lock brakes the crash rates over the transition period actually increased with the newer, nominally safer cabs having a much higher accident rate. Professor Wilde concluded that drivers of ABS-equipped cabs took more risks, assuming that ABS would prevent accidents while the non-ABS equipped cab drivers were thought to drive more carefully since they could not rely on ABS in a dangerous situation.
 
Warren Dunes said:
Risk Homeostasis (or why it's hard to idiot-proof anything because idiots adapt)

NOT A COMMENT ABOUT ANYONE AT POA-- because we are all above normal-- it's "those" other people...

Risk homeostasis, initially proposed Prof. G. J. S. Wilde, at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario in 1982 suggests that people maximize benefits derived from safety improvements by comparing the expected costs and benefits of safer and riskier behavior and maintain a relatively stable level of risk. In effect "subsidizing" risk taking behavior with the dividends from safety improvements.

He noted that when both Sweden and Iceland made major changes including driving on the heretofore opposite side of the roadway there was a profound but short reduction in traffic accidents and fatalities. Then those markers returned to previous values. He suggested that drivers had responded to increased perceived danger by taking more care, only to revert to previous habits as they became accustomed to the new regime.

In Germany when new taxicabs were required to have anti-lock brakes the crash rates over the transition period actually increased with the newer, nominally safer cabs having a much higher accident rate. Professor Wilde concluded that drivers of ABS-equipped cabs took more risks, assuming that ABS would prevent accidents while the non-ABS equipped cab drivers were thought to drive more carefully since they could not rely on ABS in a dangerous situation.
Click to expand...
The unintended consequences of a "safety improvement". Look at accident/injury rates when seat belt laws are passed. Driver/passenger injuries go down, pedestrian injuries and crash rates go up. I'm not implying that seat belts don't work (quite obviously they do for those wearing them), but there are unintended consequences/human nature type consequences that occur. I could imagine that crashes like this, an aircraft with ads-b (and a pilot over relying on it) striking a flying object without ads-b, would possibly become more common. Not saying that was the case in this crash, but it certainly could be.
 
overdrive148 said:
None of the DJI aircraft by design (or other consumer drones) have ADS-B out as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

My understanding from talking to a DJI sales rep is that the FAA hasn't released the final rules on drone ADS-B out yet, so no one has it yet. Our FD was looking at upgrading our drone and I was inquiring about ADS-B since I knew it was soon to be a requirement, and DJI has no plans on upfitting our old drone.
 
It appears to be a Powered Paraglider. From the poor picture I saw, it appears to be one with wheels and a more substantial "cockpit" vs the fan strapped to your back type.
 
There are Powered Paragliders that go up to FL170. Search for "tucker gott 17000" and you will see a few. So, be careful out there. PPG can legally go up to 17999 MSL. I have seen videos of those guys pop in and out of the cloud. So, if you are in the cloud flying IFR, you may not even know what hit you!!
 
martym said:
Why is that a limit? Is there a physical barrier at that point that prevents them from going any higher?
Click to expand...

Class A airspace begins at 18,000 ft. They are not allowed to operate there.
 
Echo419 said:
Class A airspace begins at 18,000 ft. They are not allowed to operate there.
Click to expand...
"No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A . . airspace . . . unless that person has prior authorization"
So they are not allowed to operate there . . . unless.
 
martym said:
"No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A . . airspace . . . unless that person has prior authorization"
So they are not allowed to operate there . . . unless.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't they also need an instrument flight plan, with, um, instruments, and a rating for same?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Wouldn't they also need an instrument flight plan, with, um, instruments, and a rating for same?
Click to expand...
Nope again. The prior authorization thing is similar to gliders that get a "box" where they can operate above 18K. There was a hang gliding competition in Telluride that used to get a box to get higher during the competition.
 
A lot of GA pilots are unfamiliar with the ultralight regulations (ultralights include paragliders and hang gliders, powered or not). Ultralights are not covered by Part 91, only Part 103. Part 103 is two pages, including the definition of what an ultralight is. That's it. No minimum altitudes, no hemispherical cruising rule. Cloud clearance and visibility rules in 103 are similar to VFR GA, stay in G or E airspace unless with prior ATC permission. There's even no prohibition on drinking before (or even while!) flying, though I don't know any who actually would fly after drinking and the ultralight community would frown on it.

Most paramotor pilots stay below 1000', flying any higher in such a slow aircraft it boring, but probably every paramotor pilot has gone up to 5,280' at least once just to say they did it. And some use the engine only to get airborne, then shut it down to thermal soar just like any other motorglider, in which case they will stay as high as possible for as long as possible.

In one picture of the cage embedded in the Cessna's wing I saw, it definitely looks like a backpack paramotor, not one of the larger powered parachutes. Some of the backpack motors do have a very light wheeled trike attachment.
 
A lot of GA pilots are unfamiliar with the ultralight regulations (ultralights include paragliders and hang gliders, powered or not)..
Click to expand...
A lot of ultralight pilots are unfamiliar with the ultralight regulations. Makes sense as there is no required training or testing - why waste time on that?
 
Actually Hang Gliding and Unpowered paragliding have training, testing and ratings. Self regulated and a lot of dialog with the FAA.. Required to fly at most sites for insurance purposes. Not sure on the powered side.
 
It was a powered paraglider. He hit the wing causing a loss of control.
After seeing the 208 crash site and picking up pieces in 5 gallon buckets, those paragliders need ADSB. Sad loss of life.
 
CT583 said:
It was a powered paraglider. He hit the wing causing a loss of control.
After seeing the 208 crash site and picking up pieces in 5 gallon buckets, those paragliders need ADSB. Sad loss of life.
Click to expand...
Loss of life is tragic. Having said that, it was a CAVU day. This is also a good lesson in the need to look out the windscreen. No idea who is or isn't at fault, but the Paraglider was legally in Class E airspace. At the moment, Part 103 are not allowed to have transponders nor ADSB.
 
Indeed. Why only paragliders? What not all ultralights? How about regular gliders and hot air balloons as well? Maybe skydivers too. But before those, how about eliminating the exception for aircraft produced without an electrical system. Wouldn’t you rather see that J-3 and other such aircraft have ADS-B first as they are in the pattern with you far more often than ultralights?
:dunno:

And while we are at it, eliminate NORDO! Let’s do it!! :crazy:

But first we must decide if the extra regulatory burden and cost thrust upon these operations would be worth it when weighed against their overall threat to others. And we need to decide if we want to hire a lot more FAA inspectors to go around and do enforcement. :loco:

And I wonder if once ultralights had radios and ADS-B if they then would he allowed to fly into any airport that the average GA plane flies into. Do we want them mixing with the rest of us in not only little old slow Mooneys but also fast moving Cessnas including jets? :ihih:

Damn, my knee is sore from jerking it too fast.

:biggrin::stirpot:
 
SkyDog58 said:
And I wonder if once ultralights had radios and ADS-B if they then would he allowed to fly into any airport that the average GA plane flies into. Do we want them mixing with the rest of us in not only little old slow Mooneys but also fast moving Cessnas including jets? :ihih:
Click to expand...

But ultralights already are allowed at airports. Any airport receiving federal funding is required to allow them, though "reasonable restrictions" in the name of safety are allowed. Privately owned airports that don't receive funding can exclude them and some do, though many allow them.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Indeed. Why only paragliders? What not all ultralights? How about regular gliders and hot air balloons as well? Maybe skydivers too. But before those, how about eliminating the exception for aircraft produced without an electrical system. Wouldn’t you rather see that J-3 and other such aircraft have ADS-B first as they are in the pattern with you far more often than ultralights?
:dunno:

And while we are at it, eliminate NORDO! Let’s do it!! :crazy:

But first we must decide if the extra regulatory burden and cost thrust upon these operations would be worth it when weighed against their overall threat to others. And we need to decide if we want to hire a lot more FAA inspectors to go around and do enforcement. :loco:

And I wonder if once ultralights had radios and ADS-B if they then would he allowed to fly into any airport that the average GA plane flies into. Do we want them mixing with the rest of us in not only little old slow Mooneys but also fast moving Cessnas including jets? :ihih:

Damn, my knee is sore from jerking it too fast.

:biggrin::stirpot:
Click to expand...
Without looking at any data, I would bet that in the past five years, there have been more midair collisions between aircraft with transponders than without. If I'm right, maybe transponders are the problem. (Possibly excluding gliders running into each other in contests.)
 
Dana said:
But ultralights already are allowed at airports. Any airport receiving federal funding is required to allow them, though "reasonable restrictions" in the name of safety are allowed. Privately owned airports that don't receive funding can exclude them and some do, though many allow them.
Click to expand...

Yes I know but you rarely see them at "any" airport. And 103.17 does place the restriction of needing ATC permission in controlled airspace. I have seen them at some non towered fields and of course at their smaller ultralight fields.

103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
 
Hang 4 said:
No idea who is or isn't at fault, but the Paraglider was legally in Class E airspace
Click to expand...
While not excluded from using Class E they are low man on the totem pole. They have to yield right-of-way to all aircraft and they can't operate in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Indeed. Why only paragliders? What not all ultralights? How about regular gliders and hot air balloons as well? Maybe skydivers too. But before those, how about eliminating the exception for aircraft produced without an electrical system. Wouldn’t you rather see that J-3 and other such aircraft have ADS-B first as they are in the pattern with you far more often than ultralights?
:dunno:

And while we are at it, eliminate NORDO! Let’s do it!! :crazy:

But first we must decide if the extra regulatory burden and cost thrust upon these operations would be worth it when weighed against their overall threat to others. And we need to decide if we want to hire a lot more FAA inspectors to go around and do enforcement. :loco:

And I wonder if once ultralights had radios and ADS-B if they then would he allowed to fly into any airport that the average GA plane flies into. Do we want them mixing with the rest of us in not only little old slow Mooneys but also fast moving Cessnas including jets? :ihih:

Damn, my knee is sore from jerking it too fast.

:biggrin::stirpot:
Click to expand...
If any operable radio and ADS-B setup was allowed (as they are in experimentals) then, yeah. If I could buy a whole setup for a few hundred bucks, instead of ten times that.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
If any operable radio and ADS-B setup was allowed (as they are in experimentals) then, yeah. If I could buy a whole setup for a few hundred bucks, instead of ten times that.
Click to expand...
And I think a weight increase above 254 lbs for ultralights for the added avionics equipment would be a good idea. But I don't think that will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top