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 261 (1718 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 261 (1632 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 261 (973 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 261 (947 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 261 (945 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 261 (904 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 261 (793 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 261 (626 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 261 (583 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 261 (513 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.


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)