52 DHV-info 134
Foto: Andreas Busslinger
Accident
Figures 2004 - Paragliding
The number of accidents sank significantly
Part 1, to be continued in the next DHV-Info
A report by Karl Slezak, DHV Safety Commissioner
1. Accident figures
A total of 159 paragliding accidents involving German pilots in Germany and abroad
were reported to the German Hang Gliding
Association DHVfor the year 2004. The number ofaccidentsreported hasfallen bya fifth
compared to the previousyear, in the case of
accidentsleading to seriousinjuries, thisfall
amounted to approx. 15%, the number offatal accidents, amounting to 7, was significantly lower than the average of the past
years. On a particularly positive note: In
2004 there wasno fatalparagliding accident
in Germany!
Please take the following remarks regarding
the accident figures into account (the same
applied in the lastfew statistics): In the years
before 1999, only accidents, which were reported through the regular channels, (reported by pilots, witnesses or the police) entered the statistics. In the past4 years, abouta
quarter of all accidents only became known
after inquiries of the Safety Commission.
This seems to explain the significant increase of the accident numbers since 2000.
Graph 1 shows the development of the absolute accident numbers since 1997. Graph
2 shows the relative accident numbers,
which isa clearlymore telling figure. In order
to reach this figure, the number of accidents
iscompared to the number oflicensed pilots
(including only German licenses) in the same year. The result reflects the so-called accident rate, i.e. what proportion of the licensed pilotsin relation to the totalnumber oflicensed pilots are involved in an accident
each year.
2. Comparisons
This spot usually contained a comparison of
the paragliding accident figures with those
Absolute accident numbers since 1997
* according to the German code regulating airsports (LuftVO) “severe injuries”
range from torn muscles or ligaments to most severe and life-threatening injuries
Relative accident numbers since 1997
ofother air sports(gliding, microlight, skydiving, smallmotorized airplanesup to 2 tons).
The comparative figures for 2004 have, however, not been available yet. They will be
published online (at www.dhv.de under Sicherheit/Unfallanalyse) assoon aswe receive the figures.
3. 2004 – Flight weather conditions
To many pilots the year 2004 seemed to be
particularly adverse for pilots compared to
the previous year of 2003 with its so-called
“summer ofthe century”. In reality, however,
it was a “normalyear” considering the weather. Nearly all parameters, hours of sunshine, temperature, precipitation and wind, weDHV-info 134
53
Foto: Hannes Schmalz
close by, heard unspecified noises and because of the helicopter deducted that they
were looking for a missing person. He
contacted the control room by mobile and
asked his colleagues to return to searching
the area they just left in more detail. When
they finally found the paraglider it had almost turned dark. He would not have survived the night with temperatures below –
15°C.
Accidents caused by asymmetric deflation
unharmed slightly injured severely injured
11
4
21
fatal
5
Accidents after asymmetric deflations
re within the mean long-term range. The
number ofnewlyissued paragliding licenses
also points to an “average year” in terms of
airsports. With almost 1,700, this number
was slightly above the mean value of the
years since 1996. In the record summer of
2003 more than 2,100 licenseswere issued.
ragliding accidents. Furthermore, general
training deficits, particularly during take-off
and landing, stand out.
Sometimes, however, the mistakes are only
small and the pilot is very unlucky. An example of such a case is the pilot, who tried to
carry out a landing on a sloping snow field in
Proportion of total paragliding accidents caused by asymmetric deflation
4. Accident causes
Paragliding accidents almost always result
from severalfactors. The byfar mostfrequent
combination is: Deflations (asymmetric or
frontal deflation) caused by turbulence and
a subsequent reaction of the wing, which
cannot be controlled or not sufficiently be
controlled by the pilot. The most renowned
unforgiving meteorological sins (flying in
“Foehn” conditions, approaching fronts,
thunderstorms, storms etc) tend to be exceptions in this context, even though they
are committed regularly. A mixture of strong
wind and high thermal activity forms the
most accident prone condition. If the aviation weather report forecast “turbulence in
crest regions” and the day promises good
thermal activities, pilots should as warned
as when “southerly winds with tendency to
Foehn” or “rapid overdevelopments” are forecast. False interpretations of the weather
situation and/or the a false interpretation of
the effects of the terrain on the winds (lee!)
by the pilot cause more than half of all pa-
54 DHV-info 134
41 accidents resulting from asymmetric deflations and entangled lines were reported.
This represents a decrease compared to the
previousyears(2002: 46, 2003: 49), the proportion of these accidents among all accidents, however, remained almost the same.
The proportion of accidents resulting from
asymmetricdeflationsamong the totalnumber ofparagliding accidentshasstabilized at
a quarter over the past 3 years. Thus, asymmetric deflations remain the most common
cause of accidents, but no longer dominate
the accidentstatisticsthe waytheyused to in
1997
36%
1998
34%
1999
33%
2000
32%
alpine terrain. Butthe field wasicy, so the pilotwasjustaboutable to stand. He had so little grip, that his wing, sliding down the slope, caused him to fall. He consequently slipped down the snow field gaining ever more
speed, unable to stop the slide. When the pilot saw a big rocky drop, he thought he was
lost. He shot over the vertical cliff at high
speed and landed after more than 100 metres free fall at the bottom of the cliff in a pile
ofdeep snow under high trees– he survived.
Severely injured and unable to move, he later had to helplessly watch two helicopters
circling above him searching. He could not
be seen between the trees. After a painfulsearch, the pilotwasable to recover hismobile
phone from hisharness, butithad been broken in the crash. He was saved by a ski mountaineer, who was also member of the mountain rescue. He happened to be on a tour
2001
30%
2002
26%
2003
24%
2004
25%
the 90s.
Deflations occurring close to the ground (up
to 100 m above ground) represent the most
accident-prone risksituationswhen paragliding. In 30 outof41 reported accidentsafter
deflations, the deflation occurred atlow altitude, mostlybetween 20 to 30 metresabove
ground. Deflations at higher altitudes become highlydangerous, ifthe deflated wing becomes entangled in the lines and forces the
wing into a spiral. 11 cases(2003: 16) ofspirals resulting from entanglements were reported, in most (9 cases) cases, the rescue
parachute solved this extreme fall situation.
The majority of accidents after deflations
concerned wings with DHV-rating 1-2 (with a
market share of approx. 60%) and here
mainly “high performance wings” of this category. The stricter requirements for the seal
ofapproval(Gütesiegel) from 2003 for wings
with DHV-ratings1 and 1-2 have notlefta significantmarkin 2004. Mostofthe wingswith
1-2 DHV-ratingsflown in 2004, however, had
been tested according to the old requirements.
What causes accidents after deflations? In
wingswith rating 1-2, theyare mostlycaused
by the rapid rotary impulse of the wing,
connected with a further forward motion and
ground contact of the pilot during the rotation. Many pilots, including those with longterm experience and hundreds of flights,
emphasise the rapid sequence of events in
their accident reports. “Everything went so
quicklythatI had nottime to react”. “The fierce reaction ofmywing surprised me completely.” Statements like these keep cropping
up from the accident reports. A significantly
lower proportion ofthe accidentsafter deflations are caused by overreactions of the pilot, stalls of the inflated side of the wing caused by too strong breaking (less than 20%).
In this context the following stood out: In
wings with DHV-Rating 1, which turn relatively slowly after asymmetric deflations and
merely pitch forward slightly, exaggerated
breaking is the most frequent cause of accidents. 6 of the 8 accidents after deflations
with category 1 wings (years 2003 and 2004
taken together) resulted from a stall caused
by exaggerated breaking on the open side.
The reason for this pilot reaction can probablyfound in outdated instructionson how to
act after a deflation, which still seems to be
widespread. “Break on the opposite site after an asymmetric deflation!” A pilot reacts
correctly, if he simply reacts to the wing’s actions after a deflation.
•
•
•
No turning = Do not break
Slow turning = Breakslightly (it often
suffices to put the body weight in the
opposite direction of the rotary motion)
Rapid dynamic turning = Break
decisively and energetically
What causes deflation accidents?
Turbulences of course. Apart from two cases
in the last year, which were caused by intentional deflations.
The top cause isturbulence in a lee in frontof
obstacles. This mainly affects flight situations during take-off, in preparation for landing or when flying close to the mountain.
The stronger the wind is mixed with ther-
mals, the greater the riskof deflations. 4 out
of the 5 fatal deflation-accidents last year
took place in conditions with strong winds
(2) and/or with high thermal activities in the
lee ofa mountain (2). Ranked second are the
shear turbulences of stronger thermals.
Luckily, these events mostly occur at great
heights, so thatthe pilothasmore time to get
the situation backunder controlor to use the
rescue parachute. Nevertheless, a fatalaccident was caused by this (spiral fall after entangled wing without using the rescue parachute).
Some yearsago, expertjournalsreported about glasses which enable you to see thermals. Of course the upwind glasses where a
hoax. If there were a possibility to make lee
areas visible to pilots, accident numbers
would immediately drop by half. But until
these glasses are invented in a few hundred
years, the only option is for every pilot to acquire an intimate knowledge of wind flows.
In strong wind conditions, a pilotmustcontinuouslycheckhisflightpath for potentiallee
areas. When soaring at a slope, even terrain
with only a slight angle to the wind flow or
dents in the terrain can cause considerable
lees. Everybody is forced to fly close to the
ground during take-off and landing. And
that’s exactly where most accidents occur.
• Take-offsin strong wind and strong thermal
upwinds resulted in 7 accidents, 5 of which
involved severe injuries. A paraglider cannot
withstand a mixture of 20 or 25 km/h dynamic wind plus almost the same wind caused
bythermalson top ofit. The usualscenario in
these situationsisa follows: The pilotisdraw
up almost vertically, the thermal, which is
ripped apartbythe strong wind, hitsthe wing
and causes an asymmetrical deflation. Alternatively: An obstacle atthe luffside in the
take-off area causes strong turbulences, if
you enter these turbulences at winds of 25
km/h your wing is bound to collapse.
• Even more criticaldeflationsare caused by
turbulence close to the ground in preparation for landing, mostly in the lee of an
obstacle (trees, buildings, etc.), sometimes
caused by turbulence from thermal activity.
13 pilots reported accidents of this kind. All
13 were severely injured. Pilots often underestimate, how far the dangerousturbulence
caused byan obstacle reacheslee-wards. As
a basicrule: 10 timesasfar asthe obstacle is
high. In a valley in the afternoon at wind
speeds of 25 km/h a 10 meter tall building
causeslee turbulence for atleas100 meters.
In the Osterfelder landing area in Garmisch
alone
3 severe accidents occurred after deflations
during landing. This location hasvery strong
valleywindsin the afternoons(often over 40
km/h), even in autumn. The fields around
the landing area contain many little huts,
which often cause long trains of lee turbulence.
• Undetected lees when soaring present the
second mostcommon cause ofaccidentsresulting from deflations close to the ground.
These are often lee traps, which are difficult
to detectand have detrimentaleffectson the
pilots. Air flow lees, such as the area, where
wind flows around the side of a mountain,
ridges or dips in the terrain. The latter in particular often cause small but especially dangerousturbulencesattheir sides. Ifyou were
to draw up a risk profile of a paragliding
flight, the result would show that the part of
the flightatgreater distance from the ground
is at least 5 times safer than the part of the
flight spent close to the ground. This should
always be taken into account by:
•
•
•
not starting into thermals if the overall
wind is strong,
keeping adequate distance to the
terrain when soaring,
and avoiding any lees in preparation
for landing. It is better to land in a
different field without obstacles than
to crash on the official landing site due
to an asymmetric deflation!
Accidents resulting from front collapse
unharmed slightly injured severely injured
0
0
6
fatal
0
Front deflation
In 2004 6 accidents(13 in the previousyear)
resulting from front deflation were reported
to DHV.
Itmaybe coincidence, but: Whereasslowing
the wing down after a front deflation often
caused stallsand thuslead to accidents, not
a single accident caused by this reason was
reported in the 2004 season. Wouldn’t it be
great, if pilots had finally learned how to react properly after a frontal deflation: Do not
break after a front deflation! In this phase,
DHV-info 134
55
Foto: Andreas Busslinger
the wing isoften located significantlybehind
the pilot. Slowing the wing down always
leads it to stall. Only when (and if) the wing
pitches in front of the pilot, should you use
the breaks.
All 6 accidents occurred close to the ground,
2 of them immediately before landing or after take-off at a height of less than 5 metres.
In two casesthe pilotsfellvictim to the extreme turbulences of an approaching cold
front. One of the pilots suffered life-threatening injuries, his wing had collapsed completely(eye witnessreportssuggesta stable
front deflation, which did not reopen by itself). Some pilots reported on the newly licensed pilot’s actions in disbelief. After take-off on the west side of the mountain he
flew straightinto the lee, hiswing deflated in
the front, re-inflated on one side and caused
him to crash into the mountain. During hisrescue and even later atthe police and with his
paragliding instructor, the severely injured
pilot insisted on his equipment being
checked for failures, because he claimed it
had caused hiscrash. He insiststhatthe has
not committed any mistakes!
Oversteering
Accidents resulting from oversteering
unharmed slightly injured severely injured
1
0
11
fatal
0
Accidents caused by stalls tend to be a consequence of oversteering in preparation for
landing. 6 of the 12 reported accidents caused by stalls in 2004 resulted from this situation. Among beginners this mistake is often caused by pulling the lines through for
landing completely too early, because the
beginner has not quite learned how to estimate hisaltitude properly(Often the opposite is the case, though: The pilot is to late in
pulling hislinesdown completelyand “flies”
into the ground at full speed).
Some experienced pilotsalso had accidents
in preparation for landing because they slowed down too much in their final approach.
In two cases, a thermal close to the ground
caused the an additional increase in the
wing angle and lead to a stall.
A pilot reported a truly terrifying extreme situation during a cross-country flight in
strong thermals. The wing dropped backinto
a full-stall and then shot so far forward that
56 DHV-info 134
the pilot fell into the wing. Luckily he managed to use hisrescue parachute and land safelyin a tree. Such extreme reactionsare very
rare. The pilot may have erroneously taken a
massive and complete front deflation for a
full-stall, slowed the wing down atthe wrong
moment (wing behind pilot) and thus caused the stall and the rapid forward pitch.
Spin, an asymmetrical stall, used to be a
common cause of accidents in all flight situations. Today’s paragliders, however, have such a low tendencyto spin, thatthe number of accidents caused by spins has fallen
considerably. However: In approach for landing, particularly if the pilot turns in strong
winds from backwinds against the wind,
asymmetrical stalls are occurring again (3
accidents with severe injuries in 2004). The
reason: Some pilots underestimate, how far
the wing willdriftwith the wind when turning
against the wind. If this occurs at low height,
some pilotsbecome edgyand tryto force the
wing to go around the corner by pulling the
steering linesdown further. Thiscan resultin
an asymmetrical stall.
Sinking aids and extreme
flight situations
Accidents caused by sinking aids and extreme flight
situations
unharmed slightly injured severely injured
2
2
2
fatal
1
Spiral dive, B-line stall, big ears
One of the most common causes of fatal accidents over the past few years were out-ofcontrol spiral dives. This lead to a broad-based debate about this flight manoeuvre.
Every pilot should have learned by now that
spiral dives are particularly demanding ma-
noeuvre, which requires excellent piloting
techniques, demands a lot of the body and
thus truly requires serious training. Safety
training providers have adapted to these requirements. Almost all of them offer special
spiral dive training, which gradually teach
the pilots the art of spiral dives.
Even with hindsight, itisstilldifficultto comprehend the death ofa German pilotand a female Dutch pilotin Ölideniz, Turkey, who spiralled straight into the rocks through a cloud
cover that reached all the way to the ground.
A detailed report on this accident was published in DHV-Info and can be found online
at the Safety page of the DHV website.
Two other pilots in Andelbuch, Vorarlberg,
Austria, were lucky. The pilot flying above
thought the air underneath was free and
entered into a spiral dive. What he failed to
see was a paraglider flying towards the landing site underneath, who had to cross his
“spiral path”. They collided, but luckily only
their wings and not the pilots touched. The
pilot who had been flown into had to use his
rescue parachute, while the pilot who had
spiralled wasable to land withoutdamage to
his wing. Injuries were limited to a few bruises. Several similar accidents over the past
years, with severe to severest injuries, have
shown how dangerouscollisionsin spiraldives are.
In the past, there have been repeated reports
on the increased risk of accidents in test
flights of unknown wings. Particularly their
reaction in spiral dives tends to differ between differentwings, even between wingsof
the same DHV-category. A Swabian pilot,
testing a new category 2 wing experienced
justthis. The wing entered the spiralin a surprisinglydynamicway. The pilotmanaged to
exit the spiral just before the ground, but the
subsequent dynamic exit lead the canopy to
collapse and the pilot to crash. Result: severe spinal injuries.
Even the simplestmanoeuvre to loose altitude – big ears – can be tricky. Two cases, with
one lightinjuryand one uninjured pilotwere
reported in 2004. In both cases, a stall occurred upon recovering the big ears. One pilothitthe ground in a stall, the other used his
rescue parachute because of an extreme
subsequent reaction of the wing (stall with
subsequent far pitch, asymmetric deflation
and spiral fall).
For safety reasons the accelerator should always be engaged when flying with big ears.
When re-inflating the collapsed wing parts
(in case they don’t re-inflate automatically),
care mustbe taken notto oversteer. The control travel to a stall in this flight situation is
much smaller than during stationary flight.
The reason: Larger wing angles, higher surface load and a resulting higher stall speed.
Acrobatic flight
One near-death occurred during an SAT-manoeuvre during practice over water. After
exiting, the pilot entered a highly accelerated spiraldive. Hislow altitude above the water (approx. 100 metres when exiting the
SAT) left him no chance. He hit the water surface with high impact. He suffered such severe internal injuries, that he had to be reanimated twice in the intensive care unit. The
fatal accidents of the past years showed:
Exiting the SAT is particularly critical. Dynamicacceleration isalwayspossible in a difficult to control spiral dive.
Deep-stall
The number of accidents and incidents after
deep-stalls, amounting to 6, was relatively
low compared to the previous year (11).
Two pilots were severely injured, when their
wingswentinto a deep-stallduring winch towing. In one case, the all too casual actions
of the club’s winch crew also contributed to
causing the accident. A pilotwanted to do his
first towed take off after his initial training at
a local club. This club did not put much emphasis on the usual safety measures. Without informing the winch driver of the pilot’s
weight, he was basically catapulted into the
air from standing with his wing hanging far
behind him. The pilot, who was used to a safe take-off technique from his course, must
have steered the wing further down in thissi-
58 DHV-info 134
tuation. A stalloccurred and the subsequent
crash caused severe injuries.
If a paraglider gets wet in a rain shower, the
riskof deep-stalls increases drastically. One
would have thoughtthatthatwasa well-known fact among all pilots. But that is not the
case. Even a flying instructor was surprised,
when one of his students entered a deepstall after it had started to rain and got inju-
red at landing. Deep-stalls immediately after take-off can always be traced back to not
leading the wing up sufficientlyduring the inflation phase (and take-off with the wing
hanging slightlybehind the pilot) In the past
year one such accidentwasreported. The pilot remained uninjured after landing in a
tree, but his brand new equipment had was
a write-off.