A paraglider in the Austrian Alps survived a midair collision with a Cessna 172 on May 23, after the aircraft cut through parts of her canopy and suspension lines, according to video footage of the incident. The individual flying the paraglider, identified only as a 44-year-old woman, deployed a reserve parachute after the collision and made an emergency landing.
WATCH: A paraglider was hit by a Cessna 172 near Zell am See, Austria, on Saturday but deployed her emergency parachute and landed safely. The plane pilot also landed safely after the midair collision. pic.twitter.com/tZzqaENIud
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 24, 2026
Authorities also have not released the name of the aircraft pilot, identified as a 28-year-old man. Officials said the flight was a scenic flight, not a flight lesson.
Both the paraglider and the pilot sustained serious injuries in connection with the collision, authorities said. Video footage shows the aircraft passing beneath the paraglider’s canopy and severing control lines, but it does not show the aircraft striking the paraglider’s body. The pilot told authorities he was unable to avoid the collision. Officials have not said what type of airspace the aircraft and paraglider were operating in at the time.
Story by guest contributor Teresa Konopka
The right of way rules are pretty clear. Having had a winter engine failure mid N. Atlantic 45 years ago in a brand new Mooney I can understand how the lady felt.
Looking at the video accompanying this article I saw no “See and Avoid” attempts being made by the Cessna pilot. He was flying and maintaining his straight and level flight path and not making any attempt at all to avoid the parachutist. From what I could see in her video I would be surprised to discover that the pilot in the Cessna was experiencing any flight emergencies that might distract from or endanger his own flight. My wife and I were recently visiting in this area, and it seemed to be a popular region in which para-gliders operate. Austrian flight authorities should probably be considering checking out this pilot’s flight awareness capabilities and eyesight. It is only by the grace of God (and the situational awareness of the paraglider) that this incident avoided true tragedy.
.
Both para-glider and pilot are very lucky that her suspension lines were severed in the incident. If not, she could have been dragged by the wing, which could have been fatal for both.
Also, as the tail number was crystal clear (OE-KAF), just after contact, a quick look up of the aircraft tail number shows that it was a 1978 C182, not a C172
Absolutely terrifying for everyone involved.
It’s entirely likely the pilot didn’t see the paraglider until too late. If you look at the video you’ll see there are only a few frames where you can see the airplane, either. It would only take a few moments of the pilot looking down at a map, changing a radio frequency, or pointing something out to a passenger, for the paraglider to apparently “appear out of nowhere”.
Those canopy lines are very strong, and they must have transmitted a very violent shock to the paraglider’s body. It’s lucky she wasn’t disabled by that, and was able to get the reserve parachute out.
It’s another reminder to the authorities that we need Electronic Conspicuity (EC) devices suitable (from a cost and power standpoint) for small aircraft like paragliders. Regulators have consistently prevented this. They have insisted on expensive, battery-hogging high-power units capable of communicating with distant ground stations, consistent with a command-and-control mindset, when all that’s really needed is for aircraft to “see” each other. They have prohibited the use of portable devices not tied to an aircraft registration number (paragliders aren’t registered). They have allowed the use of suitable devices on drones but prohibit manned aircraft from carrying them - and even if a paraglider used one, manned aircraft cockpit displays filter them out to reduce clutter because they’re drones and should be down low. Sorry - this is something I’ve grumbled about for years and now we have come very close to a multiple fatality.
I did some research on portable EC devices. The PowerFLARM Flex at about $1,500 (with calibration and battery) seems like the best solution right now for this situation. If both the paraglider and Cessna had such a device, they might have detected the conflict and avoided a collision. These devices are popular with glider operators. The PowerFLARM Fusion is a more permanent $2050 solution using aircraft power without a display of its own that sends via wifi to an iPad app like ForeFlight. EC technology is relatively young right now and there aren’t any products on the market yet that integrate all the different technologies: ADS-B, FLARM, Remote ID. I expect that when Part 108 becomes final, we will see more integrated products. uAvionix is one of the companies that is working on this. I would expect FLARM technology to add Remote ID eventually and perhaps Foreflight Sentry Plus. The bottom line is that low altitude airspace is getting more and more crowded. Different aircraft require different methods of broadcasting their position due to power, weight, cost and radio spectrum congestion. See and avoid is still the main way to prevent aircraft collisions but it’s becoming increasingly harder to see and avoid smaller aircraft in more congested airspace. We need affordable, portable devices that integrate ADS-B, FLARM and Remote ID to improve flight safety.
Oh that poor woman. How terrifying!
The 182 pilot blasted over the ridge at high speed and low terrain clearance. Even if he did see her canopy he wouldn’t have had time to react. It looked like 2-3 seconds from first sight over the ridge to impact. I’ve spent a fair bit of time working in Tyrol in the Lech River valley of the SW corner of Austria. There is a lot of sailplane activity there with a club winch launching several an hour. I caught an aerobatic performance with an Extra EA300L, D-ENVY pirouetting about the peaks from the same airport. It was absolutely reckless of the 182 pilot to pop over the ridge like that. There is no telling what is on the other side. A sailplane or EA300L impact would have been more devastating.
We have to accept that see and avoid has limits and should move on. I don’t intend to state that the Cessna pilot performed flawlessly - there will be an inquiry to determine that, but with FLARM technology being mature and affordable it would be great if it was more widely installed or even made mandatory. Ideally there would be a mandate to adapt TCAS to “see” FLARM-equipped traffic, at least for operations in airspace with uncontrolled VFR traffic. This has been a very graphic reminder that it’s time for EASA to quit studying the subject and start acting/regulating.
Much discussion about electronic collision avoidance devices here and the limitations of the see see and avoid concept. No doubt the electric stuff has value but it does not replace LOOKING OUTSIDE OF THE AIRPLANE, which 182 pilot certainly was not.
Of course you still need to look out. The electronic stuff can help you to look in the right place and alert you to traffic that you missed in your scan. Sometimes you need your eyes in to monitor the airplane and in the right (or wrong) circumstances than can be enough to let you miss traffic.
Over the years, I’ve had some 22 motorcycles and this is an example of why I stopped, "
the other guy"! When I was 17 years old, a drunk pulled out in front of me. I hit him broadside, about 74 mph, and did 3 months in the hospital. So about 5 years ago I hung that up and started flying. I figured it was safer than riding a motorcycle. Since that time Ive had 9 close proximity alerts, all airplanes and 1 engine out landing. Maybe I should’ve never sold my scuba duving gear? I figure all 3 of these “hobbies” are about equal in personal danger to a certain degree, so bring on the 2nd engine out and all those people who can afford a plane but not a ADSB transponder.