# NTSB WPR12LA149: Powrachute Sky Rascal, Indio, CA, March 30, 2012 - Type: NTSB accident investigation - Classification: Accident · Serious injuries · Limited investigation · Final report - Date: March 29, 2012, 18:35 local (Mar 30, 2012, 01:35 UTC) - Place: Indio, CA - Coordinates: 33.744167, -116.233886 (estimated) - Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=33.7442&lon=-116.2339&mi=10 - Phase of flight: [Initial climb](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-phases/350) (OpenAirDocs' grouping) - Defining event: [Initial climb: Turbulence encounter](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/360) - Highest injury: Serious injuries - Injuries: 1 serious - Status: Completed, report February 27, 2013 - Report: Approved by Office Director - NTSB office: Western Pacific Region - Parties: Federal Aviation Administration - NTSB case key (mKey): 83255 - NTSB case page: https://web.ntsb.gov/investigations/?ntsbnumber=WPR12LA149 - NTSB report (PDF, downloads): https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/83255/pdf - NTSB docket: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=83255 - Page: https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/WPR12LA149 ## Probable cause The operation of an airplane by a non-certificated pilot. Contributing to the accident was the non-certificated pilot's failure to maintain clearance from powerlines during initial climb in gusty wind conditions. ## Findings NTSB's coded findings; those marked are part of the probable cause. - [Performance/control parameters: altitude](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062012): Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Not attained/maintained (probable cause); cases with it: [All aircraft, 1,310 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062012/cases.md) - [Wind: gusts](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03034045): Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena · Effect on operation; cases with it: [All aircraft, 1,199 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03034045/cases.md) - [Object/animal/substance: wire](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03022032): Environmental issues › Physical environment · Effect on operation; cases with it: [All aircraft, 588 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/03022032/cases.md) - [Experience/qualifications: qualification/certification](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02031010): Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge · Pilot (probable cause); cases with it: [All aircraft, 280 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02031010/cases.md) ## Sequence of events The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event best describes what happened. - [Initial climb: Turbulence encounter](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/360) (defining event); cases with it: [All aircraft, 423 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/360/sequence.md) - [Initial climb: Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT) ](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/470); cases with it: [All aircraft, 10,189 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/470/sequence.md) ## Analysis The non-certificated pilot reported that he waited for the wind to subside before taking off. The pilot said that when the wind subsided, he departed, but during the initial climb, the powered parachute encountered either a downdraft or a gust of wind and collided with a set of powerlines. The powered parachute was subsequently consumed by fire after becoming entangled in the wires. The pilot reported no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the aircraft that would have precluded normal operation. ## Factual narrative On March 29, 2012, about 1835 Pacific daylight time, an unregistered Powrachute Sky Rascal experimental powered parachute sustained substantial damage following a collision with powerlines during initial climb near Indio, California. The non-certificated pilot, the sole occupant of the aircraft, received serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight, which was being operated in accordance with 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91, and a flight plan was not filed. The aircraft departed a private strip about 2 minutes prior to the accident. In a telephone interview with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC), the non-certificated pilot reported that he waited for the wind to subside down before taking off. The pilot stated that after taking off either a downdraft or a gust of wind blew him into a set of powerlines, in to which the aircraft became entangled. The pilot revealed that he eventually jumped to the ground, but was not sure if the aircraft was on fire or not when he jumped. The pilot reported no mechanical failures or malfunctions with the aircraft. When asked if he was a licensed pilot, he said he wasn’t, and when asked why he had not registered the aircraft, he replied that he didn’t think that he needed to, as it was exempt, but that he could not remember "how that worked." Subsequent attempts to interview the pilot during the course of the investigation were not successful, as he was moved to an assisted living facility due to the extent of his injuries. Additionally, the Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report, NTSB Form 6120.1, was not obtained during the investigation, due to the pilot’s incapacitated condition. According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness inspector, after the aircraft was inspected to determine if it was in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 103, the regulation that governs ultralight vehicles, it was discovered that the stock 5 gallon fuel tank had been replaced with a 10 gallon tank, and that the stock 407 engine had been replaced with a heavier 503 engine, which put the weight of the aircraft outside of the FAR 103 limits. The aircraft would then be required to be certificated. When the inspector confronted the accident pilot about the modifications, the pilot stated that he was unaware of them and blamed the individual who sold him the aircraft. According to the inspector, when the previous owner was interviewed he stated that he had made no modifications to the aircraft, and that the only thing he changed prior to its sale was the propeller. At 1852, the automated weather reporting system at the Jacqueline Cockran Regional Airport (TRM), which was located about 8 nautical miles south-southeast of the accident site, reported wind calm, visibility 10 miles, sky clear, temperature 25 degrees Celsius (C), dew point 4 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 29.81 inches of mercury. ## Aircraft - Registration: UNREG (not matched to a registry record) - Reported make and model: Powrachute Sky Rascal - Category: Powered parachute - Serial number: None - Engines: Rotax 503 52 horsepower reciprocating - Damage: Substantial damage - Fire: On-Ground - Flight: Personal, Part 91 - Operator: Paul Harrison - Registered owner: Paul Harrison - Airworthiness certificate: Special, Experimental light sport (Special) - Departed: Indio, CA - Destination: Indio, CA ## Flight crew As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names. - Pilot; age 44; injuries: serious; seat: single ## Weather - Conditions: Visual (VMC), Day - Wind: 100° at 6 knots - Visibility: 10 statute miles - Lowest ceiling: none - Temperature: 84 °F, dew point 37 °F - Altimeter: 29.79 inHg - Observed at: TRM, 8 nm away ## Docket (2 files) The files NTSB released with the investigation on January 16, 2013, on NTSB's docket system: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=83255. 302 KB in all. - Weather Data (item 1, .PDF, 190 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40383745&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Weather%20Data-Master.PDF - Record of Conversation with Pilot (item 2, .PDF, 112 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=40384416&FileExtension=.PDF&FileName=Record%20of%20Conversation%20with%20Pilot-Master.PDF From the NTSB's public API. Aircraft are matched to registry aircraft by N-number and event date, checked against the reported serial number, make and model; the registry's history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model. --- OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.