Small Aircraft
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 15; Flight Crew Total 6000; Flight Crew Type 300
Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
I departed 52F from runway 35 for a straight out VFR climb enroute to ZZZ for pattern work. After departure; and during the initial climb; I visually observed a powered parachute maneuvering at approximately 1;200 feet MSL on the extended straight out departure path from 52F.  I then observed a second powered parachute operating at my current altitude of 1;500 feet MSL directly in my flight path (altitudes later crosschecked from my ForeFlight flight path replay). Since the second powered parachute was head-on I did not see him until the last minute.  I was forced to make an abrupt maneuver to the left (west) to avoid a midair collision.  I have since learned from other pilots based at 52F that this is a frequent occurrence in all areas around 52F; and at times powered parachutes have operated within the lateral and vertical traffic pattern boundaries of 52F; which seems to be contrary to 14 CFR part 103.13(a) and (b).  In addition; this type of operation is prohibited at 52F per the remarks section of the A/FD.  These types of operations are less regulated than drones and drone operators.  I am concerned that if allowed to continue without some type of mitigation or FAA intervention that it is only a matter of time before there is an accident. I would suggest either requiring some kind of formal training/testing/checking for powered parachutes or prohibiting these operations under (not just within) the all Class B airspace.
GA pilot reported a NMAC with a powered parachute at 52F airport. Reportedly; this is a common occurrence around this airport.