Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper)

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All

chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 13, 2014, 2:42 PM
Post #251 of 263 (2604 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

diablopilot wrote:
Quote:
Yes pedestrians (just like parachutists)technically have the right of way but it's not always as cut and dry.

No they don't, hence jaywalking laws. The law clearly show that parachutists are not to be landing or flying over runways at low altitudes.

What *law* are you referring to? If you are talking about the drift over provision, nearly all of are breaking the *regulations* on every jump.


teason  (D 18902)

Mar 13, 2014, 4:32 PM
Post #252 of 263 (2518 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Quote:
Yes pedestrians (just like parachutists)technically have the right of way but it's not always as cut and dry.

No they don't, hence jaywalking laws. The law clearly show that parachutists are not to be landing or flying over runways at low altitudes.

Even if someone jaywalks, vehicles MUST still yield right of way. Whether or not the jaywalker breaks the law is irrelevant. If the vehicle did not do everything reasonable to yield the right of way, the driver is criminally negligent. Claiming "well he shouldn't have been jaywalking" wouldn't absolve the driver of his obligation of prudent use of the vehicle.

There are contradictions in the law such as this. That's when it comes down to establishing the particulars.

For instance: 91.113 (3g) "When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way"

however... it later states "it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft."

Also, if I stole a balloon, I would be breaking the law, specifically FAR 101.5. Does that means aircraft wouldn't have to yield right of way as per FAR 91.113 "A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft"

You see it's simply not cut and dry. Regs must be interpreted. The spirit of the law must be taken into account.

If you can show me where in the FARs it clearly states that parachutes are not to land on the runways I'd love to see it. Other than that it states avoid "creating a hazard to air traffic". FAR 105.23 (3c)
(and the Canadian regs don't even mention that!)

There's certainly room to argue against the "right of way regs" if it can be proven that the jumper did not take necessary precautions to avoid presenting a hazard, but again it is not cut and dry. Did the pilot make every reasonable effort to yield right of way?

That's why there are investigators and courts.




Channman  (C 36498)

Mar 17, 2014, 7:17 PM
Post #254 of 263 (1859 views)
Shortcut
Re: [teason] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

..."it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft."

Many a moon back in the early 1980's when learning to fly, I would take solo flights out of Houston Hobby to a local airport at the time known as Houston Gulf airport which had a active DZ on the field. On numerous occasions it was very common for the jump pilots to cut in on aircraft on short finals to land and or as you put it take advantage. Happened to me on several occasions.

This DZ is no longer operating but I wonder if this sort of practice is still performed today at a DZ near you?


teason  (D 18902)

Mar 17, 2014, 8:09 PM
Post #255 of 263 (1833 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Channman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm sure it still happens. Jump pilots trying to reduce their times sometimes have little patience large circuits and a midfield downwind.

Jump pilots in our neck of the woods make sure air traffic is well informed if someone's in the circuit and more than once I've wondered where the plane is only to find that they were waiting their turn for a student or a pilot unfamiliar with the airport taking his time.

But we all see cowboys come through our operations and short finals are common place.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 17, 2014, 8:25 PM
Post #256 of 263 (1831 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Channman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Channman wrote:
..."it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft."

Many a moon back in the early 1980's when learning to fly, I would take solo flights out of Houston Hobby to a local airport at the time known as Houston Gulf airport which had a active DZ on the field. On numerous occasions it was very common for the jump pilots to cut in on aircraft on short finals to land and or as you put it take advantage. Happened to me on several occasions.

This DZ is no longer operating but I wonder if this sort of practice is still performed today at a DZ near you?

The drop zone you speak of is "the Old Spaceland" - aka Spaceland Parachute Center. I wasn't jumping there until '87 but I can say as a first hand source that no such activity was happening while I was jumping there.

I seriously doubt that jump pilots routinely (if ever) intentionally cut other pilots off on what you call "short final". Think practically about that comment. Re-read what you wrote..."it was very common for the jump pilots to cut in on aircraft on short finals".

Really??? Very common?? On "short final"? That sounds like a collision waiting to happen.

Cutting someone off on "short final" would be a very radical move and likely be cause for enforcement action if reported. More over, if I was the pilot that was cut off on short final there would probably be an altercation on the ground that wouldn't have ended well for anyone.

A more likely scenario is that pilots in the pattern (you?) didn't like seeing a jump plane making a rapid descent from above and enter a short base to final, so they (you?) embellish stories about how they almost got taken out by it.

I was intimately involved in the business end of skydiving for many years including running several DZ's including my own. During that time I can't count the times when pilots made truly ludicrous accusations about the operation of our jump planes. The vast majority of the time we were able to quell the problem through education of typical jump plane operations.

The history of local pilots getting upset over what they viewed as radical jump plane flight that wasn't is well documented. Different isn't wrong and the FAA agrees.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 17, 2014, 10:19 PM
Post #257 of 263 (1790 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
Channman wrote:
..."it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft."

Many a moon back in the early 1980's when learning to fly, I would take solo flights out of Houston Hobby to a local airport at the time known as Houston Gulf airport which had a active DZ on the field. On numerous occasions it was very common for the jump pilots to cut in on aircraft on short finals to land and or as you put it take advantage. Happened to me on several occasions.

This DZ is no longer operating but I wonder if this sort of practice is still performed today at a DZ near you?

The drop zone you speak of is "the Old Spaceland" - aka Spaceland Parachute Center. I wasn't jumping there until '87 but I can say as a first hand source that no such activity was happening while I was jumping there.

I seriously doubt that jump pilots routinely (if ever) intentionally cut other pilots off on what you call "short final". Think practically about that comment. Re-read what you wrote..."it was very common for the jump pilots to cut in on aircraft on short finals".


Really??? Very common?? On "short final"? That sounds like a collision waiting to happen.

Cutting someone off on "short final" would be a very radical move and likely be cause for enforcement action if reported. More over, if I was the pilot that was cut off on short final there would probably be an altercation on the ground that wouldn't have ended well for anyone.

A more likely scenario is that pilots in the pattern (you?) didn't like seeing a jump plane making a rapid descent from above and enter a short base to final, so they (you?) embellish stories about how they almost got taken out by it.

I was intimately involved in the business end of skydiving for many years including running several DZ's including my own. During that time I can't count the times when pilots made truly ludicrous accusations about the operation of our jump planes. The vast majority of the time we were able to quell the problem through education of typical jump plane operations.

The history of local pilots getting upset over what they viewed as radical jump plane flight that wasn't is well documented. Different isn't wrong and the FAA agrees.

Boatman would have been pissed. Wink

Sparky


Channman  (C 36498)

Mar 18, 2014, 9:31 AM
Post #258 of 263 (1679 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, I guess we have a disagreement. I lived it on two occasions. I consider a short final as within 1.5 miles. And yes it was the old Spaceland DZ.

"A more likely scenario is that pilots in the pattern (you?) didn't like seeing a jump plane making a rapid descent from above and enter a short base to final, so they (you?) embellish stories about how they almost got taken out by it."

Damn DUDE...don't have a heart attack on me...cool the burners. Embellish is far from what happened, seems you're a bit agitated. But yea I'll say it again, on two occasions I was cut off while on final...not on an extended down wind or on a base leg 3 miles out.

As a Note: don't recall implying I almost got taken out just cut off. And as a student pilot at the time it was what it was a ASSHOLE PILOT, well from a students point of view.

NOTE: After re-reading my post I did use the word Numerous which after some thought would be incorrect. Rare occasions might be more accurate.


(This post was edited by Channman on Mar 18, 2014, 9:47 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 18, 2014, 7:20 PM
Post #259 of 263 (1512 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Channman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Channman wrote:
Well, I guess we have a disagreement. I lived it on two occasions. I consider a short final as within 1.5 miles. And yes it was the old Spaceland DZ.

1.5 miles isn't "short".


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Mar 18, 2014, 10:48 PM
Post #260 of 263 (1469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Enough with the unrelated arguments. Stick to the incident, please.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 19, 2014, 6:53 AM
Post #261 of 263 (1401 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

billvon wrote:
Enough with the unrelated arguments. Stick to the incident, please.

In a major accident the NTSB always looks into medical factors. This probably doesn't count as "major" but since the Cessna pilot had a medical that was over 2 years out of date, I wonder if NTSB will investigate that. It will be interesting to know WHY he hadn't renewed his medical, and if his eyesight was a factor. In order to "see and avoid" you first have to be able to see.


Premier cpoxon  (D 11665)
Moderator
Feb 9, 2015, 1:28 AM
Post #262 of 263 (853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Brief report:

Quote:
NTSB Identification: ERA14LA146
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, March 08, 2014 in Mulberry, FL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/15/2014
Aircraft: CESSNA 170B, registration: N211R
Injuries: 2 Minor.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The pilot reported that the airplane was on final approach for runway 32 about 15 feet above the ground when he observed a parachutist “drop down in front of” him. He maneuvered to avoid the parachutist; however, the airplane’s right wing collided with the parachute’s suspension lines. The airplane crashed nose-first into the ground, and the parachutist was thrown to the ground. The parachutist reported that he was maneuvering to land at the drop zone and was crossing the approach end of runway 32 about 75 feet above the ground when he first observed the airplane “coming at” him. The pilot was a resident of the fly-in community, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport/Facility Directory noted that parachuting operations were conducted in the vicinity of the airport. Although the airplane had been established in the traffic pattern and the parachutist had the opportunity to observe aircraft operations as he descended, it is apparent that the pilot and the parachutist were unaware of each other’s presence until just before the collision. FAA Advisory Circular 90-66A, paragraph 9e, states, "Pilots and parachutists should both be aware of the limited flight performance of parachutes and take steps to avoid any potential conflicts between aircraft and parachute operations." Thus, both the pilot and the parachutist were responsible for being aware of each other’s presence and avoiding each other.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The failure of the pilot and the parachutist to see and avoid each other, which resulted in the airplane’s wing colliding with the parachute’s suspension lines

Full narrative

Quote:
NTSB Identification: ERA14LA146
On March 8, 2014, about 1104 eastern standard time (EST), a Cessna 170B, N211R, collided with the ground following an in-flight collision with a parachutist and parachute at South Lakeland Airport (X49), Mulberry, Florida. The private pilot and the parachutist received minor injuries. The airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 as a personal flight. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed. The local flight originated about 1045.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the pilot was in the local traffic pattern and was performing a full stop landing. While on short final, the airplane struck the lines of the parachute as the parachutist was descending. The airplane pitched up, then down and impacted the turf runway in a nose down attitude. There was no fire. The pilot and the parachutist were taken to a local hospital for treatment of their injuries.

The pilot of the airplane that struck the parachutist reported the following. He was on final approach for runway 32 and was about 15 feet above the ground when "a parachutist dropped down in front of me and was a going to land in the center of the approach end of the runway." He immediately climbed to avoid the parachutist and the parachute rigging caught his wing. He crashed nose first into the ground.

The parachutist reported that he was part of a group of parachutists jumping on the day of the accident. It was a "normal day" and after preparing his gear, the flight departed X49 and climbed to jump altitude. He was about the middle of a group of 5 to 7 parachutists jumping from the airplane. After deploying his parachute, he maneuvered to parallel the runway. He was watching for another parachutist at about the same altitude. He initiated a left turn on approach to eventually land into the wind. Winds were light at 3 to 5 knots. His approach path crossed the approach end of runway 32. Suddenly he observed the airplane "coming at me." He was about 75 feet AGL when he first observed the airplane. The airplane's wing contacted his parachute and he landed and the airplane crashed.

Two witnesses reported that the parachutist's glide path crossed the approach end of runway 32. One of these witnesses reported that the right wing caught the parachute's suspension lines, causing the airplane to crash and the parachutist to be thrown to the ground. The airplane crashed in a nose-first attitude. Also, one witness reported that the pilot was performing his third touch-and-go landing of the flight.

The pilot, age 87, did not possess a current FAA medical certificate. His most recent medical certificate was a third class certificate issued on February 8, 2010. He also could not provide evidence of a current flight review as required by 14 CFR Part 61.56. He was a resident of the fly-in community where the accident occurred.

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 90-66A, paragraph 9e, addresses the subject of parachute operations at airports without operating control towers: "When a drop zone has been established on an airport, parachutists are expected to land within the drop zone. At airports that have not established drop zones, parachutists should avoid landing on runways, taxiways, aprons, and their associated safety areas. Pilots and parachutists should both be aware of the limited flight performance of parachutes and take steps to avoid any potential conflicts between aircraft and parachute operations."

14 CFR Part 105 addresses parachute operations. Section 105.5 (General), states: "No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from an aircraft, if that operation creates a hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface.

The FAA Airport/Facility Directory, current at the time of the accident, noted under airport remarks, "Parachute jumping and ultralight activity invof arpt."


theonlyski  (D License)

Feb 18, 2015, 5:05 AM
Post #263 of 263 (402 views)
Shortcut
Re: [cpoxon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The pilot, age 87, did not possess a current FAA medical certificate. His most recent medical certificate was a third class certificate issued on February 8, 2010. He also could not provide evidence of a current flight review as required by 14 CFR Part 61.56. He was a resident of the fly-in community where the accident occurred.

Neither of which surprise me. I arrived at the dz not long after it happened and I knew he didn't have a medical. Missing the flight review portion doesn't surprise me either. You could probably look at 10 people that live/fly there and 3-4 wouldn't be legal to fly, but they do anyways.

I'm actually surprised the plane was current as far as the annual goes, as I have heard of people flying around then realizing their registration was out for over a year at that airport.


First page Previous page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)