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

 


airborne82nd  (C License)

Mar 8, 2014, 11:59 AM
Post #1 of 261 (12905 views)
Shortcut
Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) Can't Post

Florida dropzone? 172 hit a skydiver? anyoneknow where and who?

Chris


(This post was edited by PhreeZone on Mar 8, 2014, 4:43 PM)


stratostar  (Student)

Mar 8, 2014, 2:04 PM
Post #2 of 261 (12639 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.baynews9.com/...and_plane_crash.html

MULBERRY --

The Polk County Sheriff's Office and Polk Fire Rescue responded to a skydiving plane crash on Saturday afternoon in Mulberry.

According to reports, Shannon Trembley was doing "touch and goes," which are a maneuver that involves landing on a runway and taking off again without coming to a full stop, in his private Cessna from the South Lakeland Airport near 7500 Coronet Road in the Mulberry area around 11 a.m.

During his third pass, officials said the passenger-side wing of his plane became entangled in and then cut the strings of a parachutist.

The parachutist, John S. Frost of Gainesville, was flung to the ground, officials said. The plane nose-dived into the ground.

The incident occurred at around 75 feet above the ground.

Both men were transported by ambulance to Lakeland Regional Medical Center. Frost was treated and released. Trembley is being held for observation.

Neither received serious injuries. No other people were involved.

The NTSB and FAA were notified and have responded to the scene. They will investigate the incident.


iopenhi  (D 30110)

Mar 8, 2014, 2:27 PM
Post #3 of 261 (12597 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Flung to the ground from 75'... Miraculous indeed that he sustained no injuries...

Or perhaps that's not entirely accurate


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 8, 2014, 2:45 PM
Post #4 of 261 (12558 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/...rs-parachute-mid-air

You'll say holy fuckballs just like I did.


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Mar 8, 2014, 3:27 PM)


sundevil777  (D License)

Mar 8, 2014, 2:54 PM
Post #5 of 261 (12547 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

75 feet above the ground?

Reporters, and editors can't get it even close to right, even when they are publishing the pics that show the event.


browncow  (D License)

Mar 8, 2014, 3:49 PM
Post #6 of 261 (12367 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Holy fuckballs


SoCalJumper  (D License)

Mar 8, 2014, 4:46 PM
Post #7 of 261 (12168 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

DAMN!!!! Crazy


shropshire  (C License)

Mar 8, 2014, 6:16 PM
Post #8 of 261 (11872 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Wrong place .... wrong time


strife  (D 5457)

Mar 8, 2014, 6:17 PM
Post #9 of 261 (11868 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SoCalJumper] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

the photos are incredible, they are both lucky people, holy batshit.


Lukasz_Se  (A License)

Mar 8, 2014, 6:48 PM
Post #10 of 261 (11742 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

theonlyski wrote:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/...rs-parachute-mid-air

You'll say holy fuckballs just like I did.
Holy fuckballsShocked
So lucky to walk away from that!!!


Quincy  (D 26576)

Mar 8, 2014, 7:30 PM
Post #11 of 261 (11595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

FIRST ... glad everyone was OK.

That said, this is why I NEVER believe the news media...!!!... I mean look at the pictures and read the article. <<< They say "... and then cut the strings of a skydiver's parachute 75 feet above the ground." >>> What ... is it a requirement to get into the media that you have actual crystal clear photographic evidence and then you get to print something completely INSANE...???...!!!... His feet might have been 7.5 INCHES above the ground ... but clearly not 75 feet.

Second ... the article is titled "Private skydiving plane..." that is doing touch-and-go landings. After reading the above ... anything else seem out of place with that statement?

NEVER believe the media...!!!... They can't even have the pictures and get the narrative right in the same article.

OK ... vent off/over...


Scrumpot  (D License)

Mar 8, 2014, 7:50 PM
Post #12 of 261 (11526 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Incredible pictures, attached to this article, here:
http://news.msn.com/us/skydiver-pilot-treated-after-midair-accident

Just based upon the raw pictures alone... absolutely amazing either survived, let alone merely minor injuries!

Anyone have pertinent details?


DAVE619  (D 29384)

Mar 8, 2014, 9:38 PM
Post #13 of 261 (11260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Most every place I have jumped has rules regarding staying the hell away from runways & taxiways, this usually includes the airspace above them up to 1000'. What are the policies at this place? If this happened on take off or landing I am assuming it happened pretty close to the runway, why was the jumper so close to an active runway?


D22369  (D 22369)

Mar 8, 2014, 11:14 PM
Post #14 of 261 (11132 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DAVE619] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

at skydive Yakima we landed on the grass runway unless there was an airplane taking off/landing- then you got to practice landing in the small parking lot or on the edge of the runway - or if high enough you could land on the other side of the orchard.

have to pay attention, this jumper wasn't obviously, he could have easily landed on the edge of the runway if he would have seen the plane

Roy


pope  (D 19947)

Mar 9, 2014, 1:27 AM
Post #15 of 261 (10976 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DAVE619] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

DAVE619 wrote:
Most every place I have jumped has rules regarding staying the hell away from runways & taxiways, this usually includes the airspace above them up to 1000'. What are the policies at this place? If this happened on take off or landing I am assuming it happened pretty close to the runway, why was the jumper so close to an active runway?
+1.
If the Cessna pilot was truly doing t&g's, then IMHO this jumper had no business landing where he was. If it's really that cut and dry (and it rarely is) he should have picked a spot to the side of the runway. If there were no spots on the side of the runway, (especially if this jump was made under a temporary NOTAM for a demo), then more attention needed to be paid to radio ATC and ground control, which may be true either way...based only on what I saw in the photos and basic reports...
$0.02


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 4:10 AM
Post #16 of 261 (10873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DAVE619] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, I only have limited experience, & have only jumped at six DZs. But... all those DZs strictly kept the plane(s) away from the LZ until all jumpers had landed. From the pix, it appears the jumper (aka: Lucky) followed a typical pattern where he turned onto final at the edge of the runway. He was about 20' or more in over the grass when hit.

What kind of DZ allows T&Gs w/jumpers in the air??


FlyingRon

Mar 9, 2014, 4:59 AM
Post #17 of 261 (10792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

This pearl from the airport directory...

PARACHUTE JUMPING AND ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY ON AND INVOF ARPT. THLDS MKD WITH 3 WHITE BUCKETS PERPENDICULAR TO CNTRLN.


DannHuff

Mar 9, 2014, 5:20 AM
Post #18 of 261 (10737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Well done to the photographer who did a great job in capturing the incident.


jimjumper  (D 11137)

Mar 9, 2014, 6:38 AM
Post #19 of 261 (10576 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

The photo's and a sensationalized story were just shown on the "Today" show. It also gave them an excuse to show photo's from the Oklahoma incident and the plane collision from last year.


billokeefe  (D 7953)

Mar 9, 2014, 7:01 AM
Post #20 of 261 (10527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

As Klatu would say "Thank the Almighty Spirit" that no one was hurt. I just saw this on the news this Sunday morning. Just to set the record straight about the aircraft. It's a Cessna 170, or at least looks big enough to be that model, maybe a Cessna 140, but it is definately NOT a 172. Please note the tailwheel. In any event, this sure is one of those situations where hopefully everyone will learn a good lesson and nobody got hurt in the learning. This really shows that both pilots and jumpers need to maintain a vigilance for each other and both have a responsibility to do so when sharing the airspace.


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 7:39 AM
Post #21 of 261 (10375 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

FlyingRon wrote:
This pearl from the airport directory...

PARACHUTE JUMPING AND ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY ON AND INVOF ARPT. THLDS MKD WITH 3 WHITE BUCKETS PERPENDICULAR TO CNTRLN.

I ran that through Google Translate, but am still at a loss. What's that last sentence mean??


ryoder  (D 6663)

Mar 9, 2014, 7:43 AM
Post #22 of 261 (10363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Before throwing stones at the pilot, take a look at the airport.
It is just a grass strip, and the peas are right on the edge of it at the South East end: https://www.google.com/...5:0xd93f5abd765e6bc1


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 7:53 AM
Post #23 of 261 (10301 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ryoder] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

ryoder wrote:
Before throwing stones at the pilot, take a look at the airport.
It is just a grass strip, and the peas are right on the edge of it at the South East end: https://www.google.com/...5:0xd93f5abd765e6bc1

Not trying to throw Anyone under the bus. Just trying to learn what happened. If that's the airport. Then, the pilot was doing T&Gs right at the corner where parachutes were landing.

Are You sure that's the right airport? If so, the pilot chose to do T&Gs at an end of the runway, right where Skydivers were landing Crazy.


Quincy  (D 26576)

Mar 9, 2014, 7:56 AM
Post #24 of 261 (10293 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billokeefe] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Zoom in on the pics. From the tail number a Cessna 170B.


dzjnky  (D 28727)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:12 AM
Post #25 of 261 (10243 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:
FlyingRon wrote:
This pearl from the airport directory...

PARACHUTE JUMPING AND ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY ON AND INVOF ARPT. THLDS MKD WITH 3 WHITE BUCKETS PERPENDICULAR TO CNTRLN.

I ran that through Google Translate, but am still at a loss. What's that last sentence mean??

THLDS MKD WITH 3 WHITE BUCKETS PERPENDICULAR TO CNTRLN. = Thresholds Marked with three white buckets perpendicular to centerline [of runway].

Also, I think "INVOF" means "In vicinity of"

In other words, the end of the runway is marked by white buckets.

Check out "South Lakeland Airport, Coronet Road, Mulberry, Florida" on Google Earth - this appears to me to be an "interesting" place to skydive, and one where the skydivers should be acutely aware of airplane traffic... I know nothing of the skydiving operation there, and thus do not know what local policies are regarding crossing the runway.


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:14 AM
Post #26 of 261 (4722 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ryoder] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Is there a law that says every airstrip in Florida must have a DZ? That's a tight area for regular jumping. The lesson for pilots is to listen to the radio when flying in and out of an active DZ. The lesson for jumpers is obvious.


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:32 AM
Post #27 of 261 (4660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dzjnky] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Ah, Thanks.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:41 AM
Post #28 of 261 (4623 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:
If so, the pilot chose to do T&Gs at an end of the runway, right where Skydivers were landing Crazy.

Or, equivalently, a skydiver tried to land near the end of the runway, right where a pilot was doing touch and goes....

Anyway, for the thread in general:

A pilot would normally aim to cross the threshold of a runway fairly low, to touch down not very far down the runway, maximizing the takeoff distance available. While pilots can get into debates about best methods of operation, and how far down the runway to touch down, you do expect planes to be flying in and landing near the end of a runway -- Which in this case appears to the be southeast end of the runway, near where the small parachute landing area is too.

Google maps suggests the bowl is about 200' from the runway centerline, and thus the landing area around the bowl will be closer to the runway.

So the area is pretty tight for airplanes and parachutes.

"See and avoid" just didn't work out. A skydiver on a tight final approach with few outs is going to expect a powered plane to keep an eye out. It looks from pics like a jumper's final approach would have been to the northeast, crossing the runway unless you crank a really tight 90 just before the flare. Don't know how common that wind direction is there.

Meanwhile, a pilot on a stabilized final approach is generally going to be focused on their target area along the runway and not able to look around too much once they have decided they are "number 1 for landing" and have to concentrate on their own landing. Not saying the pilot shouldn't have been looking out more, given that planes & parachutes co-exist there, but it is understandable that a conflict could occur, even if both parties thought they were taking care.

Edit: Added photo for those not checking out google maps:
(The houses more or less across the runway from the bowl appear -- at first glance -- to be the ones in the background of the spectacular accident photos.)

[inline south-lakeland.png]

Edit 2: Hmm, inline photo works in Preview Post but not when posted. Whatever.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 9, 2014, 8:50 AM)
Attachments: south-lakeland.png (882 KB)


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:54 AM
Post #29 of 261 (4573 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ryoder] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

ryoder wrote:
Before throwing stones at the pilot, take a look at the airport.
It is just a grass strip, and the peas are right on the edge of it at the South East end: https://www.google.com/...5:0xd93f5abd765e6bc1

No stones, but...

1. It is the pilot's responsibility to insure the airspace is clear before rolling out for takeoff.

2. The least maneuverable craft has the right-of-way. In this case that was the parachute.

Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.


Premier skydiverek  (C 41769)

Mar 9, 2014, 9:22 AM
Post #30 of 261 (4503 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.

Maybe because he is 87 years old...


FlyingRon

Mar 9, 2014, 9:38 AM
Post #31 of 261 (4448 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
No stones, but...

1. It is the pilot's responsibility to insure the airspace is clear before rolling out for takeoff.
He was landing it would appear (touch and go).
Quote:
2. The least maneuverable craft has the right-of-way. In this case that was the parachute.
There is no SUCH rule and parachutists are not "craft" anyhow.

Quote:
Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.
On the other hand it appears the parachutist was well away from the impromptu landing zone (near the threshold he was NOT) and traveling perpendicular to the runway when he crossed into the path to the aircraft.


(This post was edited by FlyingRon on Mar 9, 2014, 9:38 AM)


vitriol  (C License)

Mar 9, 2014, 9:38 AM
Post #32 of 261 (4448 views)
Shortcut
Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't believe the airport is the problem. I believe it is the pilots and skydiver fault.

When you walk across a street you look both sides before crossing. Same when you fly over a runway. Same when you take off: you can't assume you are alone in the sky, and you should always look where you are going.

I'm not saying the pilot could have seen the parachutist in this case, but it doesn't hurt to be aware of your surroundings. Also, again not saying it is the case here, but many older pilots don't listen or call on the radio. The pilot dropping the jumpers and the pilot taking off should know who is doing what. And in the end, legally, the skydiver has priority before a plane.

Many big dropzones operate next to an active runway with pretty much no problems, but close calls do happen. Attached a screen grab from a skydiver that flew over the no fly zone.
Attachments: Screen Shot 2014-03-09 at 11.34.38 .png (691 KB)


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 9:55 AM
Post #33 of 261 (4389 views)
Shortcut
Re: [vitriol] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Many here seem to think the Jumper flew straight over the runway. I'm used to seeing people cross a runway by 1,000', & fly inside of it, as a border. The slight angle of the first Pic makes me think that's what this guy was doing.

If the Pilot was only doing T&Gs, & so didn't need that much runway. Why would he still choose to target the very busy N tight end where jump ops were occurring?

Everyone wants to get home in one piece. Based on the Info that's been provided. It looks like the takeaway from this is not to jump at rinky_dink little airports w/too tight LZs, & poor oversight.


rrmtopo  (C License)

Mar 9, 2014, 9:58 AM
Post #34 of 261 (4380 views)
Shortcut
Re: Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

In the picture sequence when you first see the ground, the shadow of the parachute appears to be close to the road & associated powerlines, jumper may have been squeaking it in from a bad spot/poor canopy skills. And the old Cessna operating from a grass strip is not required to have a radio, however most have at least a handheld these days so both pilots should have been on the radio declaring what they were doing (jumpers away/touch n go). It would be interesting to know who did what.


pcjumper  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:15 AM
Post #35 of 261 (4331 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rrmtopo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

I have been to this DZ half a dozen times or so. The landing area is VERY tight and if the wind is out of the E or NE then you are flying on final over the runway. As you can see in the pics there are also power lines on the west side of the field that jumpers get to contend with.

Great DZO and pilots.

I wonder if the DZ makes a call to let aircraft using the field know that there are canopies in the air.


Amazon  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:19 AM
Post #36 of 261 (4321 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billokeefe] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

billokeefe wrote:
As Klatu would say "Thank the Almighty Spirit" that no one was hurt. I just saw this on the news this Sunday morning. Just to set the record straight about the aircraft. It's a Cessna 170, or at least looks big enough to be that model, maybe a Cessna 140, but it is definately NOT a 172. Please note the tailwheel. In any event, this sure is one of those situations where hopefully everyone will learn a good lesson and nobody got hurt in the learning. This really shows that both pilots and jumpers need to maintain a vigilance for each other and both have a responsibility to do so when sharing the airspace.

Ding ding ding we have a winner... it is indeed a C-170 tail dragger built in 1952.

N211R


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:28 AM
Post #37 of 261 (4273 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydiverek] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

skydiverek wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.

Maybe because he is 87 years old...

And lost his medical 3 years ago? Wink


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:31 AM
Post #38 of 261 (4265 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

To dig a little deeper:
I'm thinking that because of the location near the end of the 3115' runway, flaps down, and the report of the pilot supposedly doing touch and goes, I would guess the pilot was on approach and not taking off.

FAR 91.113 addresses right of way. For landings, the lower aircraft has priority. It even looks like the Landing section is different from the Converging section, so the stuff about giving way to less maneuverable aircraft in the Converging section doesn't specifically apply to Landings. Still, one could say that both sets of rules apply -- the Landing one at first, but if getting close to actually colliding nonetheless, the Converging section that mentions giving way to the less maneuverable applies. Fertile ground for internet rules-lawyering.

[Edit: FlyingRon brought up the point earlier, whether parachutists count as an 'aircraft' in FAA-speak.]

Clearly when they collided, neither was lower. And before that who knows. The parachute could even have been higher. Totally guessing, 1000 fpm decent rate for what looks like a bigger canopy, while the C-170 despite flaps could have a little power on could be descending only 600 fpm. So by FAA rules, depending on what the details were, one might even say the slow parachute close to the airport was the one that should have given way to the lower airplane on a long final -- until things got so bad as to be close to collision, when the airplane should have gone around.

As much as one might fault the pilot for likely not seeing the parachute, I surmise that the skydiver never saw the airplane in such an obvious spot for an airplane to be in -- on short final for the area near the end of the runway.

Any arguing about the FAA rules doesn't help much if neither party spotted the other until the last moment.

Mind you if one were the skydiver and did notice the airplane when one was say at 300' setting up for final, approaching a runway crossing where would you go? About the only solutions I can see:

a) Ride in brakes until the plane passes. Hopefully it would do so in time and still allow one to make it across the road and have time for a good flare. Without good judgment of relative motion, you might still be on a collision course though and not be able to 'wait out the plane'.
or
b) crank a 90 (braked if necessary) and land along the near edge of the runway, between the runway and the road. A little tight, passing an aircraft head or tail on say 40' apart at most, but a good option.

A good exercise in planning one's outs -- Any jumper there would need to keep some plans in mind, especially when landing across the runway or landing towards it.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 9, 2014, 10:39 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:32 AM
Post #39 of 261 (4257 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:
If the Pilot was only doing T&Gs, & so didn't need that much runway. Why would he still choose to target the very busy N tight end where jump ops were occurring?

Touch and goes are performed like any other landing. Just because you intend to do a touch and go doesn't mean you land half or 3/4 way down the runway. The pilot needs to be able to abort the "go" safely in case of an engine hesitation on throttle up (for example) or other issue that might occur.

See also FAR Part 105.23(c). The parachutist has the responsibility to avoid conflict with air traffic.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:35 AM
Post #40 of 261 (4237 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

pchapman wrote:
FAR 91.113 addresses right of way. For landings, the lower aircraft has priority.

A parachute is not an aircraft.

The relevant FAR is Part 105.23(c)


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:39 AM
Post #41 of 261 (4219 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

FlyingRon wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
No stones, but...

1. It is the pilot's responsibility to insure the airspace is clear before rolling out for takeoff.
He was landing it would appear (touch and go).

In reply to:
After a review of google street view, it does appear that the plane was landing (he was at the southeast end of the runway flying northwest). If he was he must have pulled up just prior to the collision. Look at the photo series. The main gear of the plane is distinctly higher (using the fence in the background and the gauge) on the last photo before the collision than in the shot just before it. My bad. The ascension in the sequence made it look to me like the plane taking off.

Quote:
2. The least maneuverable craft has the right-of-way. In this case that was the parachute.
There is no SUCH rule and parachutists are not "craft" anyhow.

In reply to:
There absolutely is such a rule. FAR 91.113 gives non-powered craft right-of-way over powered craft, just as it gives balloons right-of-way over all other aircraft - powered or otherwise, and gives any type of craft in distress ultimate right-of-way.

For the purposes of right-of-way, a person under canopy is flying a non-powered craft. I've had that conversation more than once over the years with faa guys and that's the answer I've gotten each time.

Quote:
Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.
On the other hand it appears the parachutist was well away from the impromptu landing zone (near the threshold he was NOT) and traveling perpendicular to the runway when he crossed into the path to the aircraft.

In reply to:
That may be true, but assuming the info I've gotten from feds in the past is correct, the pilot of the plane still should have yielded to what is essentially a glider. The pilot has the ability to add power and make an evasive maneuver. The skydiver does not.

Right-of-way aside, it appears that there was tunnel vision on the part of one or both of these guys. They either didn't see the other or thought there wasn't going be a conflict.


NinerThreeKilo

Mar 9, 2014, 10:42 AM
Post #42 of 261 (4206 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

airtwardo wrote:
skydiverek wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.

Maybe because he is 87 years old...

And lost his medical 3 years ago? Wink


Yep, he got his private single engine land in 08' and his third class medical (good for 2yrs at his age) in 2010.

It is possible he JUST got a new medical and it hasn't posted in the airmans database yet, but not probable.

Also the C170 he was flying does NOT qualify under the LSA rules that allow pilots to use their drivers license as a medical to fly some types of small aircraft.

Next the Airport Facility Directory had parachute operations listed to the airport.

Further more, the sectional chart had the airport marked for para ops.

I'm quite sure the DZ pilot made his call on the local freq and well as with ATC

Also a canopy isn't too hard to see when it's dead ahead like that (that's comming from a pilot who learned to fly at Harvey and has also flown jumpers).

On top of all the the Cessna 170 decided to stay in the traffic pattern during jump ops, nothing against it in the FARs, but it ain't a good idea.

So we have a pilot who, most likley, legally shouldn't be flying, a area very clearly marked for DZ ops and the PICs choice to remain in the pattern.

I think the person who is going to get a new arse hole torn via your friendly local fed is going to be the pilot.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:43 AM
Post #43 of 261 (4205 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
pchapman wrote:
FAR 91.113 addresses right of way. For landings, the lower aircraft has priority.

A parachute is not an aircraft.

The relevant FAR is Part 105.23(c)

What ARE they considered as?

No direct mention is made in 105, surely it's addressed somewhere?


Found this a rather interesting read...

http://www.avweb.com/...-1.html?redirected=1


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:48 AM
Post #44 of 261 (4181 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

I see. So, the Jumper should've simply throttled back up, & done a go around Crazy?

Opinions differ, but it's unknown whether or not he flew over the runway at all. It does appear that he wasn't over the runway when hit.

Posters are going back & forth, working on assumptions about both parties lines of flight, & who knew what & when. Perhaps conjecture should stop until the FAA releases its report?


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:50 AM
Post #45 of 261 (4169 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
pchapman wrote:
FAR 91.113 addresses right of way. For landings, the lower aircraft has priority.

A parachute is not an aircraft.

The relevant FAR is Part 105.23(c)

So much for Pilot In Command... Jumpers are people, too. Just like motorcycles are also motor vehicles.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:52 AM
Post #46 of 261 (4156 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
pchapman wrote:
FAR 91.113 addresses right of way. For landings, the lower aircraft has priority.

A parachute is not an aircraft.

The relevant FAR is Part 105.23(c)

Educate me, John. I don't see anything in 23(c) that addresses that. What does the drift over provision have to do with aircraft definition?

"(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground."

Whether defined as an "aircraft" or not, someone has to have the defined right-of-way. I have spoke to my local feds on right-of-way over the years and have always gotten the answer that the pilot of a powered aircraft must yield to a skydiver under canopy. Their opinion was that a skydiver under canopy is essentially flying a glider.


NinerThreeKilo

Mar 9, 2014, 11:03 AM
Post #47 of 261 (4101 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:
I see. So, the Jumper should've simply throttled back up, & done a go around Crazy?

Opinions differ, but it's unknown whether or not he flew over the runway at all. It does appear that he wasn't over the runway when hit.

Posters are going back & forth, working on assumptions about both parties lines of flight, & who knew what & when. Perhaps conjecture should stop until the FAA releases its report?

It's the NTSB that will make the report, the FAA enforcement folks will act on that report.

There is no debate here, if the pilot didn't have a medical he was not legally fit to be in that aircraft to begin with. PIC at fault


FlyingRon

Mar 9, 2014, 11:07 AM
Post #48 of 261 (4083 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft. Nothing in 91.113 gives the skydiver any standing.

You still are misinterpreting 91.113. It says nothing about maneuverability. It has specific category/class priorities on converging (other than head on).

There is obviously a see and avoid problem here. Most likely the NTSB (if there were such an investigation) will blame both parties as BOTH have such responsibility (unlike nautical rules of the road there is no "privileged vessel" in aviation). However, casting aspersions on FORMER VETERANS just because they've surveyed to old age is absolutely reprehensible.

I agree, he was probably on the landing, the incident from other's reports occurred about a third of the way down the field from the approach end.


(This post was edited by FlyingRon on Mar 9, 2014, 11:08 AM)


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:08 AM
Post #49 of 261 (4076 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NinerThreeKilo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post


"It's the NTSB that will make the report, the FAA enforcement folks will act on that report."


Oops, that's what I meant.

"There is no debate here, if the pilot didn't have a medical he was not legally fit to be in that aircraft to begin with. PIC at fault."


I wasn't even addressing that point. I take it we know who the pilot was? Is not a Airport owner liable if he/she allows a non-legal pilot to operate from the field?


Amazon  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:27 AM
Post #50 of 261 (4002 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

FlyingRon wrote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft. Nothing in 91.113 gives the skydiver any standing.

You still are misinterpreting 91.113. It says nothing about maneuverability. It has specific category/class priorities on converging (other than head on).

There is obviously a see and avoid problem here. Most likely the NTSB (if there were such an investigation) will blame both parties as BOTH have such responsibility (unlike nautical rules of the road there is no "privileged vessel" in aviation). However, casting aspersions on FORMER VETERANS just because they've surveyed to old age is absolutely reprehensible.

I agree, he was probably on the landing, the incident from other's reports occurred about a third of the way down the field from the approach end.

I agree.. Depending on the angle of descent of the skydiver was coming in..... I don't know about you but that great big blind spot you have from the pilots seat from the port wing might be a wee bit of a factor. Unsure The pilot probably saw the parachute too late Pirate


AirCav  (D 3888)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:28 AM
Post #51 of 261 (2820 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/24923080/2014/03/08/plane-collides-into-skydivers-parachute-mid-air
If someone would make this a clicky, you can see the first three frames it appears the jumper is looking right at the aircraft. The next few frames show that it appears the aircraft is on the "go" portion of the touch and go. Flaps appear to be at take off setting, (one or two notches verses landing flaps three or four notches). IMHO it looks as if possible blame could be placed on both parties involved
In reply to:


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:29 AM
Post #52 of 261 (2817 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft. Nothing in 91.113 gives the skydiver any standing.

Not arguing with you...clearly the issue isn't addressed in print that I can find.

Like Chuck said - I too have been told 'verbally' by Feds on several occasions we're classified as non-powered aircraft or gliders...would really be nice to have that down solid on paper somewhere though. Crazy


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:30 AM
Post #53 of 261 (2810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AirCav] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

AirCav wrote:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/...rs-parachute-mid-air
If someone would make this a clicky, you can see the first three frames it appears the jumper is looking right at the aircraft. The next few frames show that it appears the aircraft is on the "go" portion of the touch and go. Flaps appear to be at take off setting, (one or two notches verses landing flaps three or four notches). IMHO it looks as if possible blame could be placed on both parties involved
In reply to:


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:34 AM
Post #54 of 261 (2796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

The bottom line is that, regardless of how the NTSB or the FAA rule on this specific case, if jumpers can't stay away from the runway without being aware of other traffic when landing, it's going to cause problems for all other skydivers when it comes to arguing rights to airport access.

This is not a tough calculation: General Aviation's needs will always trump parachute operations in terms of overall aviation 'GDP'.

The jumper was in the wrong place. For my $.02, it appears as though the pilot did see the canopy and was pitched up to try to abort the 'landing/T&G'. That looks like an aggressive AOA for a T&G. (not a pilot, just someone who pays attention)

On another note, I would've chopped that main as soon as I thought it'd be snagged. Cool


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:39 AM
Post #55 of 261 (2779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
A parachute is not an aircraft.

Which is a fairly fundamental thing for skydivers to understand about US air regs. I got sucked into thinking they were, following the lead of others' posts, given that we tend to use similar rules about conflicting flightpaths.

The FAR definition of 'aircraft' is too general to be strictly true, as it would include drones, kites, paper airplanes, and parachutes. So that's of little use even if at first glance it would include parachutes.

Certainly part 105 seems to treat parachutists as separate entities but doesn't seem to explicitly state that. And from searching, parachutes don't really show up anywhere else in the FARs (other than for parachute rigging, powered parachutes which are totally different, and emergency parachute use).

Maybe that's the best we can do: Because parachutes get their own section, and are never really mentioned elsewhere under all the aircraft rules, we have to believe they are not considered aircraft. [edit: If parachutists were aircraft, we'd need to have a lot of exemptions listed, e.g, minimum instrument panel requirements, data plates, etc. So the lack of such exemptions in the rule suggests parachutes are separate.]

105.23c is interesting as it doesn't really address airplanes and parachutes co-existing at all. It basically says a parachute must remain 2000' above an airport's traffic pattern. Which is open to interpretation but could mean that even on an airstrip with no airplanes within miles, you couldn't cross the runway below 2000'... Or does one contend that 'the traffic pattern' doesn't include the runway itself?

The 2000' rule could totally change how parachute operations should be conducted, compared to the way they actually are. Wonder what the USPA says.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 9, 2014, 11:41 AM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:39 AM
Post #56 of 261 (2776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
The bottom line is that, regardless of how the NTSB or the FAA rule on this specific case, if jumpers can't stay away from the runway without being aware of other traffic when landing, it's going to cause problems for all other skydivers when it comes to arguing rights to airport access.

This is not a tough calculation: General Aviation's needs will always trump parachute operations in terms of overall aviation 'GDP'.

The jumper was in the wrong place. For my $.02, it appears as though the pilot did see the canopy and was pitched up to try to abort the 'landing/T&G'. That looks like an aggressive AOA for a T&G. (not a pilot, just someone who pays attention)

On another note, I would've chopped that main as soon as I thought it'd be snagged. Cool


I doubt there was time to chop all things considered.


~ and I agree - gotta be aware of what's going on below you.

I do a lot of airshow demos & that's always a fear - keeping a constant scan going as far as any aircraft moving or props spinning is paramount. Nothing worse than seeing a chopper's main rotor start spinning when on final.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:49 AM
Post #57 of 261 (2750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

FlyingRon wrote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft. Nothing in 91.113 gives the skydiver any standing.

You still are misinterpreting 91.113. It says nothing about maneuverability. It has specific category/class priorities on converging (other than head on).

There is obviously a see and avoid problem here. Most likely the NTSB (if there were such an investigation) will blame both parties as BOTH have such responsibility (unlike nautical rules of the road there is no "privileged vessel" in aviation). However, casting aspersions on FORMER VETERANS just because they've surveyed to old age is absolutely reprehensible.

I agree, he was probably on the landing, the incident from other's reports occurred about a third of the way down the field from the approach end.

I don't think folks are trying to categorize maneuverability as a class of craft, rather they are drawing a conclusion from reading the reg.

The regs give balloons right-of way over all other craft and non-powered craft right-of-way over powered craft. That pecking order is obviously based on which craft has the most maneuverability.

For the sake of conversation, what if the person flying the canopy performed a ground launch to get in the air? Would that person not be categorically flying a "glider"?


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 9, 2014, 12:00 PM
Post #58 of 261 (2721 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
On another note, I would've chopped that main as soon as I thought it'd be snagged...

So you would induce your own injury rather than keep trying not to be injured?


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Mar 9, 2014, 12:20 PM
Post #59 of 261 (2677 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

pchapman wrote:
A good exercise in planning one's outs -- Any jumper there would need to keep some plans in mind, especially when landing across the runway or landing towards it.
Very good statement right there. Thanks. Smile


totter

Mar 9, 2014, 12:28 PM
Post #60 of 261 (2660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't think folks are trying to categorize maneuverability as a class of craft, rather they are drawing a conclusion from reading the reg.

The regs give balloons right-of way over all other craft and non-powered craft right-of-way over powered craft. That pecking order is obviously based on which craft has the most maneuverability.

For the sake of conversation, what if the person flying the canopy performed a ground launch to get in the air? Would that person not be categorically flying a "glider"?

Unfortunately most regs are open to a degree of interpretation.
I had a PAI, (that's Primary Avionics Inspector for those who don't know the acronym) whose favorite saying was "Your locally owned and operated FAA FSDO" . Meaning you could ask an inspector in one district his/her understanding of a rule and get a totally different reply from an inspector at another FSDO. Hell, it happens sometimes within the same FSDO.
So you both could be correct.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Mar 9, 2014, 12:36 PM
Post #61 of 261 (2648 views)
Shortcut
Re: [totter] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

totter wrote:
Unfortunately most regs are open to a degree of interpretation.
. . . . Meaning you could ask an inspector in one district his/her understanding of a rule and get a totally different reply from an inspector at another FSDO. Hell, it happens sometimes within the same FSDO.
So you both could be correct.
Amazing, isn't it, that there is that kind of ambiguity or lack of clarity in the regs? I dealt with that for 30 years as a controller. It was amazingly frustrating to have one person against 20 trying to set inane policies in place due to one of their "interpretations." CrazyCrazy


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 9, 2014, 12:47 PM
Post #62 of 261 (2615 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dzjnky] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

If you look at the last few photos taken you can see the plane came to a rest several hundred feet short of the white buckets that are there to make the start of the threshold. From the photos the plane had touched down or just about touched prior to contact with the jumper. That tells me that the pilot was already well under the intended glide slope and had it been a paved field he would have came up short anyways. The speed of the plane can be seen by how little distance was covered after contact with the jumper.

Pilot may not have had a new medical in years what it seems and on a few news sites some pilots that used to operate out of the field were posting comments that this gentlemen was infamous around the field for not using a radio at all and would ignore radio calls.


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 9, 2014, 12:57 PM
Post #63 of 261 (2577 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
kuai43 wrote:
On another note, I would've chopped that main as soon as I thought it'd be snagged...

So you would induce your own injury rather than keep trying not to be injured?

Hardly. I'd be interested in your explanation as to how that would induce a further injury.

In other news - all things considered...
- I've got a preternaturally fast right hand.
- If the jumper had chopped, the Cessna might well not have gone down.
- And did you not see the Cool face?


totter

Mar 9, 2014, 1:00 PM
Post #64 of 261 (2565 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NinerThreeKilo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Also a canopy isn't too hard to see when it's dead ahead like that (that's comming from a pilot who learned to fly at Harvey and has also flown jumpers).
Tell that to an ex-jump pilot named John Dooley, who used to fly for Fayard.
He was coming into land at Lewisburg in the late afternoon. (CASA). An instructor had put his student directly over the runway. The runway at Lewisburg runs East-West, so the sun was directly in the windscreen of the CASA. He saw the jumper at the last moment, pulled up sharply to avoid and go around but snagged the canopy with the nose tire, ripping some cells. Student landed with a thud on the runway and luckily had no injuries.
I had a close call with a jumper under canopy once. At Crosskeys the jump run was almost always to the west unless winds aloft were another direction. This one day winds aloft were out of the west, but ground winds were out of the east. The runway at Crosskeys is East-West.
I was coming in to land on a long final in a Cessna and a load had just opened on the west side of the airport. I noticed that some of the groups had opened along the center line or just to the south of center line (landing area is on north side). I also noticed that the jumpers were making their way back to the landing area.
In hindsight the prudent thing to have done would have been a 360 for separation but the little voice in my head told me that "jumpers know they are not supposed to cross the centerline of the runway below 1000', so a continued in. Well this one jumper decided that he was going to stretch his glide and make the landing area and turned right into my path. I firewalled the throttle and climbed sharply away, all while cursing on the radio.
Moral is watch out for the other guy and expect the unexpected. From looking at the one picture that shows the aircraft/prior to collision it seems like the aircraft to trying to gain altitude. I agree with the one poster who stated that the AOA looks off for landing.
So the pilot may have believed that the jumper would land on the far side of the field and not cross his path, and visa-versa, the jumper could have seen the aircraft touch down thinking that it would be stopped before reaching him.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 9, 2014, 1:11 PM
Post #65 of 261 (2529 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PhreeZone wrote:
If you look at the last few photos taken you can see the plane came to a rest several hundred feet short of the white buckets that are there to make the start of the threshold.

Ok now I see the pails on google maps too, zooming right in. They are about as far down the runway as the bowl in the LZ. (Although the bowl isn't in the centre of the LZ.)

And they aren't far at all from where the plane crashed after being flipped by contacting the parachute.

Maybe the pilot was going to touch down a little early, maybe not. I'd guess not -- in skydiving terms, you can have a decent little swoop during your flare, even when not carrying extra speed. Even if he would have touched down early, someone more expert would have to say whether that breaks any rule or not.

After all, it doesn't look like the pails mark any hazard, but are perhaps just a suggestion so that the approaches over the neighbouring community and road aren't too low. We don't know what the airport owner actually wants. It's not as if the threshold here is the division between rough ground or ditch, and smooth concrete.

I've shot light airplane approaches to the numbers at airfields, trying not to touch the throttle, and touched down a little early and rolled in between the threshold lights. Blush Not ideal but I never saw it as really wrong, and it was good practice in learning the plane's flare and low speed characteristics.

If it had been a paved field or someplace where it mattered, the pilot would have flown the approach differently. Fifty feet short of some pails doesn't matter; and he might well have swooped past them anyway before touchdown.

In summary, I don't see the pilot's location over the runway having any influence on responsibility for the accident.

As for the pilot following rules in general, well that's another matter.

Edit:
On another topic, the aircraft angle. Since the photos take place before the threshold, I bet the pilot was landing but pulled back instinctively when faced with an obstacle ahead, so it wasn't a go-around started before seeing the jumper.

In one photo sequence, when the plane becomes visible, in the first shot it is partially seen and might be in a 3 point landing attitude. In the next shot it has pitched up to a fairly nose high attitude. Hard to tell but that's what I'm thinking.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 9, 2014, 1:20 PM)


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 9, 2014, 1:11 PM
Post #66 of 261 (2527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PhreeZone wrote:
If you look at the last few photos taken you can see the plane came to a rest several hundred feet short of the white buckets that are there to make the start of the threshold. From the photos the plane had touched down or just about touched prior to contact with the jumper.

With all due respect, go back and review the photos. [edit to add - looks as though you did] I think you're wrong. It appears as though he may have been right on track to T&G right at the bucket threshold. His final resting point after the crash was less than 100' from the buckets.

The reason he only cartwheeled with low airspeed is possibly due to the fact he pitched up when suddenly confronted by a canopy intruding into his committed final approach.

Regardless of whether the pilot was medically current or not, he had to deal with a jumper who either was not keeping his eyes open, or didn't have the presence of mind or skills to actively change his landing. That canopy has far more maneuverability than the Cessna that short on final.


(This post was edited by kuai43 on Mar 9, 2014, 1:23 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Mar 9, 2014, 1:27 PM
Post #67 of 261 (2475 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
pchapman wrote:
FAR 91.113 addresses right of way. For landings, the lower aircraft has priority.

A parachute is not an aircraft.

The relevant FAR is Part 105.23(c)

105.23 Parachute operations over or onto airports.

(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground



The airport is a fly in community owned by Southwind Homeowners Association. And it seems there have been some problems with the drop zone.

From meeting minutes.


Update on Skydivers/Jump School
Tee spoke to Cliff at the Jump School and invited them to our meeting but they declined. The pilot who did the low fly-bys over the houses is no longer with the Jump School. It was noted that most of the problems went with him. Many homeowners are concerned about safety issues regarding not enough radio announcements or jumpers away announcements. There have been a few incidents of poor communications between pilots. Tee will talk to Cliff or Bob about improving the number of times the announcements are given, talking to the tower and communicating with incoming/landing pilots.


Issue eight: Skydivers/Jump School

Discussion about many of the homeowners concerns about the jump school planes:
flying low over the houses
radio announcements/jumpers away announcements
skydivers landing on and damaging houses
bad blood/threats
night jumps
using both ends of the runway
“Hot dog” flying style.



Sparky


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 9, 2014, 1:36 PM
Post #68 of 261 (2446 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
kuai43 wrote:
On another note, I would've chopped that main as soon as I thought it'd be snagged...

So you would induce your own injury rather than keep trying not to be injured?

Hardly. I'd be interested in your explanation as to how that would induce a further injury.

In other news - all things considered...
- I've got a preternaturally fast right hand.
- If the jumper had chopped, the Cessna might well not have gone down.
- And did you not see the Cool face?

I didn't say *further* injury.

That aside, I just think your technique is pretty unorthodox. Looking at the photos I also don't think there would have been time to chop between any recognition of an imminent collision and the collision itself.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 9, 2014, 1:48 PM
Post #69 of 261 (2403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
That canopy has far more maneuverability than the Cessna that short on final.

They were both on short final.

That said, a jumper under canopy only has left, right and down, and at a low altitude the left and right will cause a "down" that might not be survivable.

The plane has the added advantage of being able to go up or maintain altitude. While in this case it seems the pilot didn't have enough time to make an evasive maneuver once he recognized the problem, in general a plane is far more maneuverable than a parachute because of its ability to remain at altitude or ascend.


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 1:53 PM
Post #70 of 261 (2385 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post


"On another note, I would've chopped that main as soon as I thought it'd be snagged."


You can't possibly be serious Crazy?? Your reflexes are fast enough to chop in a thousandth of a second, are they?


(This post was edited by PiLFy on Mar 9, 2014, 2:09 PM)


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Mar 9, 2014, 1:54 PM
Post #71 of 261 (2384 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PhreeZone wrote:
If you look at the last few photos taken you can see the plane came to a rest several hundred feet short of the white buckets that are there to make the start of the threshold. From the photos the plane had touched down or just about touched prior to contact with the jumper. That tells me that the pilot was already well under the intended glide slope and had it been a paved field he would have came up short anyways.

THLDS MKD WITH 3 WHITE BUCKETS PERPENDICULAR TO CNTRLN. = Thresholds Marked with three white buckets perpendicular to centerline [of runway].

In other words, the end of the runway is marked by white buckets.

*********************************************

I think if everyone zooms in and looks closely at the Google maps, you will see the threshold is roughly 50 feet to the north of the drive way for the duplex on the corner of Coronet Road and Adams Road. (Pretty much straight across from the mail box) This is the duplex that is in the back ground of all the pictures.

You can tell this by seeing it is the only building sharing a common raised roof.

It appears the jumper flew over (or very near over) the Palm tree and utility shed on the edge of the property of the duplex. It is my estimation that the collision took place no more than 100 feet short of the threshold.

When we practice touch and gos it is very common to set a goal of hitting the numbers. To do this we often come in short (low and slow) with a high AOA milking our altitude with the power. And then a sudden cut to hit the numbers.

Even if this pilot was not that extreme is is not unusual to come in a bit short on your approach so as to have as much usable runway as possible for your T&Gs. I think this approach looked right on.

You will also note that obviously many people use the turf just before the threshold to touch down. This is evident with the dead space of grass directly in line with the center line of the runway. In fact it appears that is a more common touch down spot than on the runway. I of course could be wrong.

But I do believe that this jumper barely made it over the power lines only to be surprised with something more ominous. I can only imagine what was going through his mind. To quote Eugene Levy in Splash:

"What a DAY I'm having!"


Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 2:33 PM
Post #72 of 261 (2297 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Deja Vu ?
Attachments: not the first time.jpg (127 KB)


muff528  (D 17609)

Mar 9, 2014, 2:50 PM
Post #73 of 261 (2242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

airtwardo wrote:
Deja Vu ?

http://www.ntsb.gov/...v_id=83236&key=0

"PROBABLE CAUSE(S)
PILOT IN COMMAND - FAILED TO SEE OBJECTS OR OBSTRUCTIONS
PERSONNEL - MISCELLANEOUS-PERSONNEL: OTHER"

So, we are not "aircraft". We are "miscellaneous personnel: other"


eta: Sorry, I intended to respond to the thread over in BF.


(This post was edited by muff528 on Mar 9, 2014, 2:55 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 9, 2014, 3:19 PM
Post #74 of 261 (2184 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

airtwardo wrote:
Deja Vu ?

Damn, once every 40 years! Wink

(The other report being for Akron NY in 1974. Quite the archives you have there, finding that photo.)


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 3:45 PM
Post #75 of 261 (2132 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

pchapman wrote:
We don't know what the airport owner actually wants. It's not as if the threshold here is the division between rough ground or ditch, and smooth concrete.

He's got a long list of wants, most aren't relevant.

The buckets were set there to give a suitable angle of descent to the runway after crossing power lines that run just before the beginning of the approach end of 32. The same power lines that ended up scaring a pilot of an Ercoupe enough to stall and crash his plane on takeoff from 14 a while back.

As for whomever posted the bit about him allowing someone to fly without a valid medical... I don't get questioned when I hop in a plane and take off, land at another airport for lunch/fuel, then go somewhere else. It would be nice to let us continue to fly by big boy rules and deal with the people who violate it on a case by case basis.


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Mar 9, 2014, 3:47 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 9, 2014, 3:45 PM
Post #76 of 261 (2561 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

airtwardo wrote:
kallend wrote:
pchapman wrote:
FAR 91.113 addresses right of way. For landings, the lower aircraft has priority.

A parachute is not an aircraft.

The relevant FAR is Part 105.23(c)

What ARE they considered as?


They are just "parachutes" and "parachutists". Just like "ultralight vehicles" are not "aircraft" per the FARs, and they have their own set of rules (Part 103).


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 9, 2014, 3:52 PM
Post #77 of 261 (2551 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:
kallend wrote:
pchapman wrote:
FAR 91.113 addresses right of way. For landings, the lower aircraft has priority.

A parachute is not an aircraft.

The relevant FAR is Part 105.23(c)

So much for Pilot In Command... Jumpers are people, too. Just like motorcycles are also motor vehicles.

FAR Part 105 does NOT in any way define a parachutist as a pilot, nor does it define a parachute as an aircraft.

You are supposed to have read the relevant FARs as part of obtaining your USPA license.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 9, 2014, 4:00 PM
Post #78 of 261 (2531 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NinerThreeKilo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

NinerThreeKilo wrote:
airtwardo wrote:
skydiverek wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.

Maybe because he is 87 years old...

And lost his medical 3 years ago? Wink


Yep, he got his private single engine land in 08' and his third class medical (good for 2yrs at his age) in 2010.

It is possible he JUST got a new medical and it hasn't posted in the airmans database yet, but not probable.

I'd say highly improbable. I had my FAA airman's medical just last Thursday afternoon, and it's already in the database. The physician enters the data directly into the database, and the certificate is printed on the spot. There is no longer a paper form to complete.

REGARDLESS, FAR §105.5 General.
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.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 9, 2014, 4:35 PM)


Krip  (Student)

Mar 9, 2014, 4:04 PM
Post #79 of 261 (2517 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Glad no one was hurt.

But the airplane engine is going to need some major work, the propFrown the cowlingFrown

Still a lot less expensive than a trip to the human taking a Helicopter ride, ER, sugeon, ICU, rehab, etc.Pirate


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 9, 2014, 4:37 PM
Post #80 of 261 (2449 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Krip] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Krip wrote:
Glad no one was hurt.

But the airplane engine is going to need some major work, the propFrown the cowlingFrown

Still a lot less expensive than a trip to the human taking a Helicopter ride, ER, sugeon, ICU, rehab, etc.Pirate

My guess is the cost of repairs >> value of aircraft, and it will be written off.


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 9, 2014, 4:40 PM
Post #81 of 261 (2444 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

"You are supposed to have read the relevant FARs as part of obtaining your USPA license."

I did? Uh oh, USPA is gonna have to charge us more money, again...

Seriously, others have posted relavent links that yield the right of way to non-powered aircraft. The old guy who routinely flouted basic safety practices (like monitoring the damn radio) finally had it catch up w/him. Wait for the NTSB report, & that's what it will say.


(This post was edited by PiLFy on Mar 9, 2014, 4:44 PM)


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 9, 2014, 5:18 PM
Post #82 of 261 (2368 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
Krip wrote:
Glad no one was hurt.

But the airplane engine is going to need some major work, the propFrown the cowlingFrown

Still a lot less expensive than a trip to the human taking a Helicopter ride, ER, sugeon, ICU, rehab, etc.Pirate

My guess is the cost of repairs >> value of aircraft, and it will be written off.

The only part of the aircraft that looked serviceable was the empennage. Maybe the flaps, I didn't look too closely at those.


stratostar  (Student)

Mar 9, 2014, 5:48 PM
Post #83 of 261 (2298 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.faa.gov/...rcular/AC_105-2E.pdf

6.
PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ONTO AIRPORTS.
a.
Stipulations for Landing at or Flying Over an Airport. Most parachute operations take place at airports, including having the parachute landing area located on the airport property. Section 105.23 requires approval from airport management prior to skydiving onto any airport. However, § 105.23(c) allows a parachutist to drift over an airport with an open parachute without airport management approval as long as the parachutist remains at least 2,000 feet above that airport’s traffic pattern. (Airport traffic patterns are generally 1,000 to 1,500 feet above ground level (AGL)).
b.
Additional Aviation Activities. A large number of airports that accommodate parachute operations also have different kinds of aviation activities taking place simultaneously, including flight training, glider and helicopter operations, Emergency Medical Services Helicopter (EMS/H), sightseeing operations, and aerobatic practice over or in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Many airports accommodate a large volume of transient traffic during skydiving operations.
c.
Shared Facility Airports. The FAA recommends that shared facility airports have operating procedures so that each activity can operate safely by knowing the procedures for each of the other activities.
Representatives of each type of activity can operate more effectively by knowing the procedures for each of the other activities. Representatives of each type of airport user group should develop procedures specific to their activity and share these procedures with other user groups. Airport management must ensure that airport policies and procedures are kept current, which can be accomplished via regularly scheduled meetings with all airport user groups.
(1)
Traffic Patterns. With a minimum parachute opening altitude of 2,000 feet AGL (most parachutists open much higher), parachutes are nearly always open 800 feet or more above the traffic pattern altitude for any airport. Descending slowly and easy to visually acquire, parachutists and pilots have a shared responsibility to see and avoid each other. With a minimum parachute opening altitude of 2,000 feet AGL, parachutes are most often opened 800 feet or more above the traffic pattern altitude for any airport. Parachutists and pilots have a shared responsibility to see and avoid each other by descending slowly.
(2)
Parachute Landings on Airports. Airports may designate suitable parachute landing areas. While skydivers attempt to land in such areas, at times there may be inadvertent landings in other grass or hard-surfaced areas. This could include landings on runways (RW), taxiways, and other hard-surfaced areas. Areas such as RWS, taxiways, clearways, and obstacle-free zones are not prohibited areas but should not be designated as a primary landing area and should be vacated as soon as practical. Flying a parachute over RWS at low altitudes should be avoided where possible. The FAA recommends that airport management work with parachute operators to develop standard operating procedures (SOP) for activities conducted by parachutists. Airports that receive or have received federal funding or grant assurances may have additional requirements or restrictions to parachute landing areas. For additional information, see FAA Order 5190.6, AC 150/5190-7, Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities; and AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design current editions.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Mar 9, 2014, 8:28 PM)


Doug_Davis  (B 40488)

Mar 9, 2014, 6:03 PM
Post #84 of 261 (2276 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Ive got a couple local buddies down there.
Story I got was pilot is 87. Medical out of date. And was using/had drifted into a part of the grass commonly used as a taxiway rather than active runway.

I dont trust people that old in Buicks, no way Id put them behind the yoke of an aircraft. Crazy


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 9, 2014, 6:54 PM
Post #85 of 261 (2189 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

So I was digging a little into this issue where the FARs don't in any way classify parachutes as aircraft, nor list them in the different categories of aircraft that have to give way in a particular hierarchy -- while at the same time many people in aviation feel that they have been led to believe that the less maneuverable, unpowered vehicle is generally is be given some right of way.

I checked a few other English speaking countries' rules. While the quick look may not be perfect, it looks like some but not all places take parachutes into account, putting them towards one end of the right-of-way hierarchy.

Australia:
"All aircraft except balloons must give way to descending parachutists"
and
"Parachutists will avoid conflicting with traffic on the live side of a licensed aerodrome (assuming a live side is defined by aerodrome traffic), nor will they intentionally land on any runway, taxiway or apron"

New Zealand:
"all aircraft must give way to parachutes"

Canada on the other hand uses rules very close to the US about right of way, and doesn't include parachutes as aircraft, although rules about mixing parachutes & airports are different.

The UK also seems similar to the US in not including parachutes into the right of way rules.

Sometimes a country has guidelines and suggestions other than the official rules. For the US, I've seen AC90-66A, dealing with flying at non-towered airports, which says:

[Edit: and this matches nicely with the AC105 stuff Stratostar looked up]

“4) 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.”

... a common sense approach, notwithstanding the specific requirements of the FAR's.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 9, 2014, 6:56 PM)


TomSpoon  (D 20967)

Mar 9, 2014, 7:31 PM
Post #86 of 261 (2146 views)
Shortcut
Post deleted by TomSpoon [In reply to]

 


FlyingRon

Mar 9, 2014, 8:04 PM
Post #87 of 261 (2093 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomSpoon] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Someone managed to piece together the individual stills and identify where on the field this actually happened. The early sketch I got from someone else was apparently wrong. The incident took place ahead of where the field would normally have had displaced the threshold with buckets (it's not clear if the buckets were in place in this incident, you can't see them in the accident pictures).

This would appear to be the normal jumper approach to the area where it crosses the runway ahead of the threshold. Still not ideal though it doesn't change what I suspect the ultimate blame will be "Mutual failure to see and avoid."


TomSpoon  (D 20967)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:04 PM
Post #88 of 261 (2092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [muff528] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
muff528 wrote:
airtwardo wrote:
Deja Vu ?

http://www.ntsb.gov/...v_id=83236&key=0

"PROBABLE CAUSE(S)
PILOT IN COMMAND - FAILED TO SEE OBJECTS OR OBSTRUCTIONS
PERSONNEL - MISCELLANEOUS-PERSONNEL: OTHER"

So, we are not "aircraft". We are "miscellaneous personnel: other"
SO in this very similar 1974 Akron NY incident the NTSB blamed the pilot saying he "failed to see". I wonder if they will be consistent 40 years later.


FlyingRon

Mar 9, 2014, 8:07 PM
Post #89 of 261 (2072 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

In the US, again, there is no priviliged (or as they are claled in modern days, the stand on) "vessel." All people in the airspace are tasked with doing what they need to do to avoid collisions. There's scant regulatory guidance beyond that which would apply here. The closest you will get is the line someone posted above stating that parachutists crossing runways must do so at altitude and avoiding aircraft though it's pretty clear that's not exactly applicable nor practical when landing adjacent to runways in many cases.


stratostar  (Student)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:42 PM
Post #90 of 261 (1988 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/...lision-with-skydiver

San Francisco Chronicle

Pilot recalls collision with skydiver
MyFox Tampa Bay - &#8206;27 minutes ago&#8206;



Quote:
The day after a skydiver and plane collided in midair in Polk County, both men involved talked about the terrifying experience. "It's just hard to say what happened when it did and why," said Sharon Trembley, who piloted the plane and spoke exclusively with ...


pope  (D 19947)

Mar 9, 2014, 9:43 PM
Post #91 of 261 (1901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:
ryoder wrote:
Before throwing stones at the pilot, take a look at the airport.
It is just a grass strip, and the peas are right on the edge of it at the South East end: https://www.google.com/...5:0xd93f5abd765e6bc1

Are You sure that's the right airport? If so, the pilot chose to do T&Gs at an end of the runway, right where Skydivers were landing Crazy.
You could look at it that way.
But that's not really collectively taking responsibility for OURSELVES as pilots under canopy.
True, no one can see ALL other traffic while under canopy...but the burden of finding and avoiding ALL other objects is a skydivers job as much as it is any other pilot's job IMHO.
This accident was more the fault of the jumper, not the fixed wing pilot in my opinion, as he was landing directly in the path of the runway.
All this being said, I was not there and am not familiar with a/c ops at this airport, but it seems like a pretty basic rule; "To avoid traffic, don't play in it."


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 9, 2014, 10:51 PM
Post #92 of 261 (1864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

The pilot is the first person responsible for keeping his medical in date.
It is very difficult to blame airport management when a pilot failed to update his medical.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:03 PM
Post #93 of 261 (1855 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?


ryoder  (D 6663)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:17 PM
Post #94 of 261 (1847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

riggerrob wrote:
Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes.
See attached image.
The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.
Attachments: airport.jpg (162 KB)




Premier skydiverek  (C 41769)

Mar 10, 2014, 2:28 AM
Post #96 of 261 (1733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ryoder] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

ryoder wrote:
riggerrob wrote:
Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes.
See attached image.
The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?


(This post was edited by skydiverek on Mar 10, 2014, 2:29 AM)


RichM  (D 100226)

Mar 10, 2014, 3:05 AM
Post #97 of 261 (1709 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

mjosparky wrote:
Update on Skydivers/Jump School
Tee spoke to Cliff at the Jump School and invited them to our meeting but they declined. The pilot who did the low fly-bys over the houses is no longer with the Jump School. It was noted that most of the problems went with him. Many homeowners are concerned about safety issues regarding not enough radio announcements or jumpers away announcements. There have been a few incidents of poor communications between pilots. Tee will talk to Cliff or Bob about improving the number of times the announcements are given, talking to the tower and communicating with incoming/landing pilots.

Sparky
For a rep of the Jump School to decline to attend a meeting where berhaviour of the jump pilots was at question seems like a poor decision. It sounds like there is friction between the jump school and the airfield.

mjosparky wrote:
Issue eight: Skydivers/Jump School

Discussion about many of the homeowners concerns about the jump school planes:
flying low over the houses
radio announcements/jumpers away announcements
skydivers landing on and damaging houses
bad blood/threats
night jumps
using both ends of the runway
“Hot dog” flying style.



Sparky

Both quotes refer to home owners being concerned about not enough radio announcements. Do home owners really tune into the airfield frequency on their radios and monitor/log announcements? The local radio stations must be really dull :?


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:20 AM
Post #98 of 261 (1656 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomSpoon] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

TomSpoon wrote:
In reply to:
muff528 wrote:
airtwardo wrote:
Deja Vu ?

http://www.ntsb.gov/...v_id=83236&key=0

"PROBABLE CAUSE(S)
PILOT IN COMMAND - FAILED TO SEE OBJECTS OR OBSTRUCTIONS
PERSONNEL - MISCELLANEOUS-PERSONNEL: OTHER"

So, we are not "aircraft". We are "miscellaneous personnel: other"
SO in this very similar 1974 Akron NY incident the NTSB blamed the pilot saying he "failed to see". I wonder if they will be consistent 40 years later.

It's happened since then. Parkman 2003.

http://www.dropzone.com/...%20cleveland;#684207


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:32 AM
Post #99 of 261 (1646 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

The news article is updated with some video with the pilot and jumpers interviews.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/...lision-with-skydiver


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Mar 10, 2014, 4:33 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 5:19 AM
Post #100 of 261 (1575 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

In a decision just last week by an NTSB Administrative Law Judge (concerning the legality of commercial operation of drones) it was made clear that Advisory Circulars don't have any enforcement authority - they are just "advisory". FARs are legally enforceable.

There is no expectation that a pilot would read an AC related to skydiving. There is an expectation that a skydiver would have read FAR Part 105.

And, of course, a pilot is required to comply with medical certification requirements in FAR Part 61.23. The medical (all classes) includes vision testing.

Plenty of blame to go around in this incident.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 10, 2014, 5:32 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 5:30 AM
Post #101 of 261 (2141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Doug_Davis] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Doug_Davis wrote:

I dont trust people that old in Buicks, no way Id put them behind the yoke of an aircraft. Crazy

And I don't trust 19 year olds in Camaros.

However, I don't see age as an issue for flying as long as the individual can pass the flight review and medical.

Apparently this individual did not have a current medical. I wonder when his last flight review took place.


Cutaway68  (D 29478)

Mar 10, 2014, 5:52 AM
Post #102 of 261 (2092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydiverek] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

skydiverek wrote:
ryoder wrote:
riggerrob wrote:
Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes.
See attached image.
The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

From what I understand, it depends on where the buckets were placed on this particular day. If you go to Google maps, it looks like they are placed in line about half way between the shed and palm tree the day the images were taken.

(Sorry, I don't know how to save and post the image.)


Boogers

Mar 10, 2014, 6:45 AM
Post #103 of 261 (2004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skydiverek] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

skydiverek wrote:
ryoder wrote:
riggerrob wrote:
Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes.
See attached image.
The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?


Boogers

Mar 10, 2014, 6:48 AM
Post #104 of 261 (1995 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DAVE619] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

DAVE619 wrote:
why was the jumper so close to an active runway?

Because the parachute landing area is right next to the active runway. Look at the scale diagram on the aerial maps - the pea gravel is only about 200 feet from the edge of the runway.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 6:48 AM
Post #105 of 261 (1994 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
skydiverek wrote:
ryoder wrote:
riggerrob wrote:
Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes.
See attached image.
The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?

A 180 degree hook turn, to answer your question.


Boogers

Mar 10, 2014, 6:52 AM
Post #106 of 261 (1985 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NinerThreeKilo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

NinerThreeKilo wrote:
There is no debate here, if the pilot didn't have a medical he was not legally fit to be in that aircraft to begin with. PIC at fault

And also message #30:
Skydiverek wrote:
Maybe because he's 87 years old

The first part of your statement is true, however, that does not mean he is automatically at fault. Just because some paperwork isn't in order, or because he's old, doesn't mean that whatever happens is automatically his fault.

If a driver runs a red light and hits an 87-year-old pedestrian who is an illegal immigrant, does that make the accident the fault of the illegal immigrant because he's old and he shouldn't have been in the country to start with? Of course not.

I'm not trying to absolve this pilot of responsibility. But if he's guilty, it's not because he's 87 years old, nor because he didn't have a medical. It would be because he failed to see and avoid. And that can be done by anyone, regardless of age or medical status.

Let's not be so quick to judge based solely upon age or paperwork. Stick to objective analysis.


(This post was edited by Boogers on Mar 10, 2014, 6:57 AM)


Boogers

Mar 10, 2014, 7:01 AM
Post #107 of 261 (1965 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
Boogers wrote:
skydiverek wrote:
Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?

A 180 degree hook turn, to answer your question.

Right. And a very low hook turn at that. And we all know how bad a practice that is. This landing area doesn't seem to offer much other choice EXCEPT to cross the runway to get to the landing area, with winds from either the east or west.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 7:22 AM
Post #108 of 261 (1914 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
NinerThreeKilo wrote:
There is no debate here, if the pilot didn't have a medical he was not legally fit to be in that aircraft to begin with. PIC at fault

And also message #30:
Skydiverek wrote:
Maybe because he's 87 years old

The first part of your statement is true, however, that does not mean he is automatically at fault. Just because some paperwork isn't in order, or because he's old, doesn't mean that whatever happens is automatically his fault.

If a driver runs a red light and hits an 87-year-old pedestrian who is an illegal immigrant, does that make the accident the fault of the illegal immigrant because he's old and he shouldn't have been in the country to start with? Of course not.

I'm not trying to absolve this pilot of responsibility. But if he's guilty, it's not because he's 87 years old, nor because he didn't have a medical. It would be because he failed to see and avoid. And that can be done by anyone, regardless of age or medical status.

Let's not be so quick to judge based solely upon age or paperwork. Stick to objective analysis.

Having a 3rd Class medical is not exactly onerous or expensive IF you really are fit to fly. Nor is it just "paperwork".

The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.


DiverMike  (C 40024)

Mar 10, 2014, 7:47 AM
Post #109 of 261 (1874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

+1

To put it in perspective, IMHO flying with an out-of-date 3rd class medical is worse than jumping with an out-of-date reserve. Both are indefensible


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 8:31 AM
Post #110 of 261 (1768 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
Boogers wrote:
skydiverek wrote:
Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?

A 180 degree hook turn, to answer your question.

Right. And a very low hook turn at that. And we all know how bad a practice that is. This landing area doesn't seem to offer much other choice EXCEPT to cross the runway to get to the landing area, with winds from either the east or west.

Not a low hook. I fly a Stiletto 135 loaded 1.5:1 and comfortably make a 180 front riser turn at 350 feet.

Getting back to the topic (not crossing runways when geezer pilots are landing), it would also be possible at the airport in question to to fly a base leg parallel to and on the landing area side of the runway and then make a gentle 90 degree toggle turn to final at 100 feet or even a bit less to keep from over-shooting the target.

I'm sure some will take exception to the suggestion of a turn at 100 feet or lower, but properly done it is safe and it's an effective way to deal with tight landing areas.

**** Noobs, don't try that technique without first consulting an instructor or canopy coach. *****


grimmie  (D 18890)

Mar 10, 2014, 9:01 AM
Post #111 of 261 (1698 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

This incident just set airport access issues back into the dark ages. IMHO


Razormpc

Mar 10, 2014, 9:21 AM
Post #112 of 261 (1663 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

FAR 105.23, non-tower airports, cross over 2000' ABOVE traffic pattern altitude, avoid creating hazard to AIR TRAFFIC and PERSONS & PROPERTY on the ground! Says it all...


Boogers

Mar 10, 2014, 10:13 AM
Post #113 of 261 (1552 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

Yes, but that missing paperwork wouldn't be the cause of the accident. For example, it might be that his eyesight is poor and he doesn't see well, and that's why he didn't take the medical. But the poor eyesight would be the contributing cause to the accident, not the lack of some card in his wallet.


RogerRamjet  (D License)

Mar 10, 2014, 10:24 AM
Post #114 of 261 (1523 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

FlyingRon wrote:
Someone managed to piece together the individual stills and identify where on the field this actually happened. The early sketch I got from someone else was apparently wrong. The incident took place ahead of where the field would normally have had displaced the threshold with buckets (it's not clear if the buckets were in place in this incident, you can't see them in the accident pictures).

This would appear to be the normal jumper approach to the area where it crosses the runway ahead of the threshold. Still not ideal though it doesn't change what I suspect the ultimate blame will be "Mutual failure to see and avoid."

The DZO posted on Facebook that the collision took place 300 feet short of the runway. I can't tell from the photos how accurate that is, but the DZO there is a pretty straight shooter in my experience.


AnalMike  (D 32642)

Mar 10, 2014, 10:34 AM
Post #115 of 261 (1486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Razormpc] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Razormpc,
Just to note FAR 105.23(b) the section dealing with non-tower airports is independent of section (c) which is the 2000' clause.

Section (c) applies to the introductory statement of the FAR and therefore to ALL jumps regardless of what type of airport they are jumping over (towered vs. non). Just don't want people confusing the issue.

The real question is what is the airport's actual agreement with the skydiving group? Per the FAR, subsection (b) requires that prior approval must be obtained from management to allow operations onto the field. Presumably they've set some sort of guidelines that would tell us what the operations should be, which would tell us who was at "fault" a little better. Remember, the FAA will determine fault based on their rules and a civil lawsuit between parties will likely determine liability in a much different manner.

Just food for thought.


AHoyThere  (D 12622)

Mar 10, 2014, 10:38 AM
Post #116 of 261 (1474 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

It could also happen if the pilot forgot the last time he got the medical, and forgets to go in and get it renewed.

I don't think either the FAA nor the doctor's office are required to send out a reminder to the pilot to get his medical current.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 10:40 AM
Post #117 of 261 (1462 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
kallend wrote:
The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

Yes, but that missing paperwork wouldn't be the cause of the accident. For example, it might be that his eyesight is poor and he doesn't see well, and that's why he didn't take the medical. But the poor eyesight would be the contributing cause to the accident, not the lack of some card in his wallet.

Disagree.

Either he's unfit to fly medically, or unfit to fly because he's a scofflaw.

Either way, he shouldn't be PIC of an airplane.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 10:41 AM
Post #118 of 261 (1455 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AHoyThere] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

AHoyThere wrote:
kallend wrote:
The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

It could also happen if the pilot forgot the last time he got the medical, and forgets to go in and get it renewed.

So you're saying the reason could be a cognitive deficit? That's medically disqualifying too.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 10, 2014, 10:43 AM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 10, 2014, 11:02 AM
Post #119 of 261 (1419 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Razormpc] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Razormpc wrote:
FAR 105.23, [..] cross over 2000' ABOVE traffic pattern altitude, avoid creating hazard to AIR TRAFFIC and PERSONS & PROPERTY on the ground! Says it all...

Just a note on the 2000' thing:

At one point in this thread I also latched onto the 2000'-above-the-pattern statement in the FARs, wondering what the implication is for runways -- whether one technically has to fly 2000' above a runway because a runway could be part of a pattern, especially given that aircraft may do touch and goes or low passes.

Given the wording in AC105, quoted by Stratostar earlier, it appears that the FAA interprets its FARs as NOT requiring a high crossing of a runway:

Quote:
Areas such as RWS [runways], taxiways, clearways, and obstacle-free zones are not prohibited areas but should not be designated as a primary landing area and should be vacated as soon as practical. Flying a parachute over RWS at low altitudes should be avoided where possible.

While you can always argue about legal FAR requirements vs. non-regulatory guidance material, based on the FAA's statements, it is reasonable to believe that a low crossing of a runway with a parachute is legal although generally undesired.

The jumper in this case did appear to create a hazard by a low crossing of the runway, despite being in a tight squeeze as far as landable areas go, and despite the pilot's license issues.

(I think there are plenty of old guys out there who no longer have one or more of a license or medical or biennial flight review. It often seems to happen that they don't get noticed until there's an incident and somebody starts checking paperwork...)


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 10, 2014, 11:05 AM)


Channman  (C 36498)

Mar 10, 2014, 11:12 AM
Post #120 of 261 (1394 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I haven't read all the post on this incident...but with some awesome photo evidence it will be nice to see a follow up post on this incident once the FAA makes a ruling.

I think there is blame to be made against the pilot as well as the jumper. Published information was given and available for a PIC to properly conduct their flight in a safe manner and they may be held to account for the incident.

Also the jumper should have been more aware of the activities of air traffic in and around the landing area as it appears this is a active airport for more than just skydiving.

In the end, a miracle or what ever you choose to call it HAPPENED ON THIS DAY, AS NO ONE WAS KILLED.Angelic

Cheers to the photographer...for capturing an event that should be discussed in Parachutes magazine and future SAFETY DAYs at your local DZ.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Mar 10, 2014, 11:35 AM
Post #121 of 261 (1368 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There is obviously a see and avoid problem here. Most likely the NTSB (if there were such an investigation) will blame both parties as BOTH have such responsibility (unlike nautical rules of the road there is no "privileged vessel" in aviation). However, casting aspersions on FORMER VETERANS just because they've surveyed to old age is absolutely reprehensible.

While I agree that age alone is not necessarily a disqualifying factor, I'd argue that when a vehicle operator who is in an accident is 87 years old, due diligence requires that the age factor always at least be examined, at a threshold level, to either rule it in or rule it out - regardless of the currency of his last medical. His advanced age simply demands that level of initial scrutiny.

And his status as a veteran is really quite irrelevant to that.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Mar 10, 2014, 11:37 AM
Post #122 of 261 (1358 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Razormpc] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Razormpc wrote:
FAR 105.23, non-tower airports, cross over 2000' ABOVE traffic pattern altitude, avoid creating hazard to AIR TRAFFIC and PERSONS & PROPERTY on the ground! Says it all...
THAT rule is for flying over a non-participating airport (think cross country jumps), not one that has an established parachute landing area or even just the permission of the airport manager. Otherwise, how could you EVER land at your home DZ's airport? I've jumped over and landed on many, many airports, quite a few with no established DZ, just the manager's permission.


Channman  (C 36498)

Mar 10, 2014, 11:37 AM
Post #123 of 261 (1354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
Doug_Davis wrote:

I dont trust people that old in Buicks, no way Id put them behind the yoke of an aircraft. Crazy

And I don't trust 19 year olds in Camaros.

However, I don't see age as an issue for flying as long as the individual can pass the flight review and medical.

Apparently this individual did not have a current medical. I wonder when his last flight review took place.

No Medical, will not speak well for this pilot...I wonder what the Insurance company will have to say about this? Is the aircraft covered and any injuries received by the jumper covered under the policy. Just wondering how the insurance company policy is worded for someone operating an aircraft without a medical.

Several months ago I posted the "FAA Has a Heart"...in this case they just may lose their heart.Frown


(This post was edited by Channman on Mar 10, 2014, 12:41 PM)


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Mar 10, 2014, 11:39 AM
Post #124 of 261 (1348 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

mjosparky wrote:
(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground
See my above post. Does that make sense to you?


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Mar 10, 2014, 12:14 PM
Post #125 of 261 (1283 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

There is a bottom line here. For me it's that the jumper crossed low over the runway where aircraft could reasonably be expected to be, without adequately checking for traffic that should be expected to there. If I was the jumper, I would consider myself to be largely to blame. There are other contributing factors, but mostly it would be my fault.


chembree

Mar 10, 2014, 12:32 PM
Post #126 of 261 (1659 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Here is another video that was just recently released:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/24932237/2014/03/10/new-video-shows-skydiver-plane-collision

Notice that another jumper crosses the threshold moments before the collision. Hard to believe that a responsible pilot on final would not execute a go-around after seeing the first jumper.

Here is another interesting posting of the original pictures:

http://i.imgur.com/CQQPwRr.gif

Thanks for making this a clicky! How do you do that?


(This post was edited by chembree on Mar 10, 2014, 1:30 PM)


normiss  (D 28356)

Mar 10, 2014, 12:36 PM
Post #127 of 261 (1644 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chembree] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/...iver-plane-collision

Clicky.




theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 10, 2014, 12:47 PM
Post #129 of 261 (1602 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
kallend wrote:
The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

Yes, but that missing paperwork wouldn't be the cause of the accident. For example, it might be that his eyesight is poor and he doesn't see well, and that's why he didn't take the medical. But the poor eyesight would be the contributing cause to the accident, not the lack of some card in his wallet.

The FAA believes that not having the AROW on board of an aircraft makes it unable to leave the earth under it's own power.


This will potentially have a big impact on the work the EAA and AOPA are doing to loosen the requirement of the medical for more aircraft though.


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 10, 2014, 1:05 PM
Post #130 of 261 (1555 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
skydiverek wrote:
ryoder wrote:
riggerrob wrote:
Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes.
See attached image.
The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?

I wouldn't. I'd land where I determined it was safe, AFTER looking every-damn where for traffic - canopy or aircraft.


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 10, 2014, 1:10 PM
Post #131 of 261 (1545 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:

Not a low hook. I fly a Stiletto 135 loaded 1.5:1 and comfortably make a 180 front riser turn at 350 feet.

Getting back to the topic (not crossing runways when geezer pilots are landing), it would also be possible at the airport in question to to fly a base leg parallel to and on the landing area side of the runway and then make a gentle 90 degree toggle turn to final at 100 feet or even a bit less to keep from over-shooting the target.

I'm sure some will take exception to the suggestion of a turn at 100 feet or lower, but properly done it is safe and it's an effective way to deal with tight landing areas.

**** Noobs, don't try that technique without first consulting an instructor or canopy coach. *****

Now I love you! Same canopy, I've got no problem 'scrambling' on final, but I really don't want to have to. Tongue


fcajump  (D 15598)

Mar 10, 2014, 1:20 PM
Post #132 of 261 (1526 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlyingRon] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

FlyingRon wrote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft.

FAR section 1.1 - "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."


To the best of my knowledge, a parachute is a device, it is intended to be used for flight in the air. Therefore I would conclude that the FAA defines it as an aircraft, whether or not it explicitly lists it in the right-of-way listings.

JW


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 1:42 PM
Post #133 of 261 (1492 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Channman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Channman wrote:
kallend wrote:
Doug_Davis wrote:

I dont trust people that old in Buicks, no way Id put them behind the yoke of an aircraft. Crazy

And I don't trust 19 year olds in Camaros.

However, I don't see age as an issue for flying as long as the individual can pass the flight review and medical.

Apparently this individual did not have a current medical. I wonder when his last flight review took place.

No Medical, will not speak well for this pilot...I wonder what the Insurance company will have to say about this? Is the aircraft covered and any injuries received by the jumper covered under the policy. Just wondering how the insurance company policy is worded for someone operating an aircraft without a medical.

If his policy is like mine, it will be voided for a flagrant breach of the FARs.


Boogers

Mar 10, 2014, 1:44 PM
Post #134 of 261 (1486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

gowlerk wrote:
There is a bottom line here. For me it's that the jumper crossed low over the runway where aircraft could reasonably be expected to be, without adequately checking for traffic that should be expected to there. If I was the jumper, I would consider myself to be largely to blame. There are other contributing factors, but mostly it would be my fault.

Your statement seems to presume that the pilot has some right to be there, and that the skydiver does not. In fact, they both have a right to be there. Furthermore, the skydiver gets landing priority because he's unpowered and can't do a go-around like an airplane.

Can't your same logic be appliced to the pilot?

"The pilot landed on the runway where skydivers could reasonably be expected to be, without adequately checking for traffic that should be expected to be there. If I was the pilot, I would consider myself to be largely to blame."

That logic cuts both ways...


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Mar 10, 2014, 1:47 PM
Post #135 of 261 (1477 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RogerRamjet] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

RogerRamjet wrote:
FlyingRon wrote:
Someone managed to piece together the individual stills and identify where on the field this actually happened. The early sketch I got from someone else was apparently wrong. The incident took place ahead of where the field would normally have had displaced the threshold with buckets (it's not clear if the buckets were in place in this incident, you can't see them in the accident pictures).

This would appear to be the normal jumper approach to the area where it crosses the runway ahead of the threshold. Still not ideal though it doesn't change what I suspect the ultimate blame will be "Mutual failure to see and avoid."

The DZO posted on Facebook that the collision took place 300 feet short of the runway. I can't tell from the photos how accurate that is, but the DZO there is a pretty straight shooter in my experience.

Go to my post - number 71 page 3. Read it carefully and look through the pictures -
http://www.baynews9.com/...and_plane_crash.html

and Google map

https://www.google.com/...5:0xd93f5abd765e6bc1

It sounds as though you are saying they move the threshhold to different places whenever they choose. If so this does not make any sense what so ever.

Looking at the frames where the plane and jumper are coming to a stop you will notice two buckets in the background. Almost directly in line with the mail box I referenced in my other post. This tells me the collision took place just short of the threshold. Not 300 feet from it.

This is a small airport. 300 feet further northwest for the threshold removes 900 feet of usable runway. Again this does not make any sense.

Using the pictures, the Google view, and your own critical thinking skills, what conclusions do you make?

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 1:50 PM
Post #136 of 261 (1471 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fcajump] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

fcajump wrote:
FlyingRon wrote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft.

FAR section 1.1 - "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."


To the best of my knowledge, a parachute is a device, it is intended to be used for flight in the air. Therefore I would conclude that the FAA defines it as an aircraft, whether or not it explicitly lists it in the right-of-way listings.

JW

You would be wrong, then. (1) ultralights are clearly not defined as aircraft - read Part 103 very carefully, they do not have to comply with the general rules that apply to aircraft, and (2) an NTSB Administrative Law Judge made such a determination (not aircraft) just last week with respect to drones.


Boogers

Mar 10, 2014, 1:50 PM
Post #137 of 261 (1469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
Boogers wrote:
skydiverek wrote:
ryoder wrote:
riggerrob wrote:
Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes.
See attached image.
The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?

I wouldn't. I'd land where I determined it was safe, AFTER looking every-damn where for traffic - canopy or aircraft.

So you never consider it safe to cross a runway at any time?

And if not crossing the runway means that you have to land instead in a residential area with buildings, trees and powerlines, how safe is that?


(This post was edited by Boogers on Mar 10, 2014, 1:53 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 10, 2014, 1:57 PM
Post #138 of 261 (1456 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chembree] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chembree wrote:
Notice that another jumper crosses the threshold moments before the collision. Hard to believe that a responsible pilot on final would not execute a go-around after seeing the first jumper.

I see a parachute go by at the video time code of 02 seconds, one at 36 seconds, and the final one with the collision at 38 seconds.

While that gives 36 seconds from the first to the last, on my watch it is more like 18 seconds. While it could be a defective time code, I'm guessing by the speed of cars, chutes, and the plane all racing along, the video as shown to us is at something like twice normal speed.

Assuming the time code is correct:

If you are talking about the two second gap, that's almost nothing to react to.

Time to maybe start advancing the throttle, but when one is about to start the flare, getting closer to stall speed and close to the ground, you don't have the speed to maneuver much at all.

If you are talking about the 36 second gap, seeing a jumper go by doesn't mean there have to be more. Yet it would be an indication that "jumpers have just been or are still in the air", and a reason to look out. 36 seconds is plenty of time between a landing parachute and the airplane, so no reason to decide to go around.

The video evidence of other jumpers suggests:

a) There was parachute traffic landing over half a minute before the collision, that would help a pilot on final approach think about watching out for other parachutes.

b) There is no reason to suppose that the pilot seeing the first videoed jumper would induce the him to go around.

c) It now means TWO jumpers either didn't see the plane or didn't appreciate its speed. Mr.-36-seconds had a close call -- I wouldn't normally try to fly in front of a landing airplane when it was only about 2-3 seconds from hitting me.


How about distances involved, for the point in time where the "02 second" jumper crosses the runway?

For the hell of it, a few hopefully plausible calculations:

Let's say the wind component down the runway was fairly light, and the approach speed on the C-170 was kept at a low 60 mph. When that first jumper went by 36 seconds before the collision, the airplane would have been about 3100 feet back, about one whole runway length.

If the winds were light, and the plane descending at 600 fpm, the pilot would be 360' up, on final approach.

As for the two last jumpers to land, when the pilot was about 3200' out from the touchdown area, they might be off to the side, slightly above the horizon relative to the airplane (if descending faster than 600 fpm, which is quite likely), say 1300' away from the runway, if they were flying 30 mph ground speed towards the LZ (maybe with a little headwind because of the landing direction.) Their angle off to the side from the pilot's view of the runway would be about 23 degrees. [Which alternatively is 67 degrees off to the side for the jumpers.] If they were on essentially a collision course the whole way, the angle of course would be little changing.

Not saying this is exactly how it was, but it gives a plausible scenario, just to give a feel for what could have been happening.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 10, 2014, 2:12 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 1:57 PM
Post #139 of 261 (1453 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
gowlerk wrote:
There is a bottom line here. For me it's that the jumper crossed low over the runway where aircraft could reasonably be expected to be, without adequately checking for traffic that should be expected to there. If I was the jumper, I would consider myself to be largely to blame. There are other contributing factors, but mostly it would be my fault.

Your statement seems to presume that the pilot has some right to be there, and that the skydiver does not. In fact, they both have a right to be there. Furthermore, the skydiver gets landing priority because he's unpowered and can't do a go-around like an airplane.

Can't your same logic be appliced to the pilot?

"The pilot landed on the runway where skydivers could reasonably be expected to be, without adequately checking for traffic that should be expected to be there. If I was the pilot, I would consider myself to be largely to blame."

That logic cuts both ways...

The pilot had no right to be there on account of not having a current medical (FAR Part 61).

The parachutist is obliged to operate without causing a hazard to air traffic (FAR Part 105).

Both are obliged to "see and avoid".

Blame applies all around.


Doug_Davis  (B 40488)

Mar 10, 2014, 2:06 PM
Post #140 of 261 (1427 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gowlerk] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

gowlerk wrote:
There is a bottom line here. For me it's that the jumper crossed low over the runway where aircraft could reasonably be expected to be,

How many times must people post that this is not what happened? Just curious.
The jumper was not over the runway according to both the DZO and other local jumpers there. The pilot had crossed into an exclusionary area normally used as a taxiway according to locals.


fcajump  (D 15598)

Mar 10, 2014, 2:09 PM
Post #141 of 261 (1418 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
fcajump wrote:
FlyingRon wrote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft.

FAR section 1.1 - "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."


To the best of my knowledge, a parachute is a device, it is intended to be used for flight in the air. Therefore I would conclude that the FAA defines it as an aircraft, whether or not it explicitly lists it in the right-of-way listings.

JW

You would be wrong, then. (1) ultralights are clearly not defined as aircraft - read Part 103 very carefully, they do not have to comply with the general rules that apply to aircraft, and (2) an NTSB Administrative Law Judge made such a determination (not aircraft) just last week with respect to drones.

Actually, having just reread 103, I see nothing that precludes them from being an "aircraft". There are a number of additional specifications to delineate them from any other aircraft (size/weight/intended purpose/etc). And there are specifications as to where/when/how/by whom these specific aircraft called "ultralight vehicles" may be operated. But nowhere in 103 does it exclude the ultralight from being an aircraft.

The fact that the FAR HAS a section that clarifies what an ultralight vehicle is and how it is operated further demonstrates that the FAA DOES consider it an aircraft under the definition in section 1.1 (which is applicable to all sections of the FAR).

The drone issue is one of jurisdiction, not definition. The FAA still considers that it is still an (unmanned) aircraft. Whether they have the jurisdiction to regulate the operation of such an aircraft is what the judge has thrown into question.

JW


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Mar 10, 2014, 2:25 PM
Post #142 of 261 (1387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Doug_Davis] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The jumper was not over the runway according to both the DZO and other local jumpers there. The pilot had crossed into an exclusionary area normally used as a taxiway according to locals.

You can split hairs about if the end of the runway is a taxi-way or a runway proper, but either way anyone crossing there should expect to need to watch for approaching aircraft every time they do so. It's an airport, cross flight paths carefully. Or don't and blame someone else for the inevitable accident. BTW, the jumper hasn't blamed the pilot as far as I know, but lots of dizzy posters would like to.


(This post was edited by gowlerk on Mar 10, 2014, 2:26 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 10, 2014, 2:42 PM
Post #143 of 261 (1349 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Doug_Davis] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Doug_Davis wrote:
The jumper was not over the runway according to both the DZO and other local jumpers there. The pilot had crossed into an exclusionary area normally used as a taxiway according to locals.

A fair point to bring up.

But airplanes don't magically teleport onto the end of a runway.

While I don't know what the pilots locally understand, this is what I see: The collision point outside the buckets, past the end of the runway:

a) is along the extended runway centerline

b) is physically indistinguishable from the runway at this airfield

c) has no apparent physical hazards or surface limitations but is apparently used to help pilots pick a conservative approach over hazards outside the airport boundary

d) from the grass wear, might very well have commonly be used as the touchdown area by many pilots


If you fly your parachute in at low altitude, just before the end of a runway (whether it was 50 ft or 300 ft, which seems a bit much on the map) -- you can expect airplanes to fly through that very point in the air!


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 2:43 PM
Post #144 of 261 (1346 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fcajump] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

fcajump wrote:
kallend wrote:
fcajump wrote:
FlyingRon wrote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft.

FAR section 1.1 - "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."


To the best of my knowledge, a parachute is a device, it is intended to be used for flight in the air. Therefore I would conclude that the FAA defines it as an aircraft, whether or not it explicitly lists it in the right-of-way listings.

JW

You would be wrong, then. (1) ultralights are clearly not defined as aircraft - read Part 103 very carefully, they do not have to comply with the general rules that apply to aircraft, and (2) an NTSB Administrative Law Judge made such a determination (not aircraft) just last week with respect to drones.

Actually, having just reread 103, I see nothing that precludes them from being an "aircraft". There are a number of additional specifications to delineate them from any other aircraft (size/weight/intended purpose/etc). And there are specifications as to where/when/how/by whom these specific aircraft called "ultralight vehicles" may be operated. But nowhere in 103 does it exclude the ultralight from being an aircraft.

The fact that the FAR HAS a section that clarifies what an ultralight vehicle is and how it is operated further demonstrates that the FAA DOES consider it an aircraft under the definition in section 1.1 (which is applicable to all sections of the FAR).

The drone issue is one of jurisdiction, not definition. The FAA still considers that it is still an (unmanned) aircraft. Whether they have the jurisdiction to regulate the operation of such an aircraft is what the judge has thrown into question.

JW

Suggest you read the judge's ruling carefully. He very specifically stated that the catch-all FAR91.13 that applies to ALL aircraft doesn't apply to drones, or paper planes, or balsa gliders, all of which could be considered to be described by FAR1.1.

There is not one single instance in all the FARs that states that parachutes are aircraft.

And IF parachutes were aircraft they and their operators would have to comply with ALL of FAR Part 91 (see FAR91.1(a)), since they aren't specifically exempted like ultralight vehicles. That would include airworthiness certificates (91.203), instruments (91.205) etc. AND with certification requirements:
FAR §61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:

(1) Has in the person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization—

(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with §61.19;


On the whole, I don't think any of us want parachutes to be defined as "aircraft" for the purposes of the FARs.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 10, 2014, 3:07 PM)


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 2:49 PM
Post #145 of 261 (1335 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
fcajump wrote:
FlyingRon wrote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft.

FAR section 1.1 - "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."


To the best of my knowledge, a parachute is a device, it is intended to be used for flight in the air. Therefore I would conclude that the FAA defines it as an aircraft, whether or not it explicitly lists it in the right-of-way listings.

JW

You would be wrong, then. (1) ultralights are clearly not defined as aircraft - read Part 103 very carefully, they do not have to comply with the general rules that apply to aircraft, and (2) an NTSB Administrative Law Judge made such a determination (not aircraft) just last week with respect to drones.

So if some flying craft are not aircraft, would the non-aircraft pilot not be subject to FAR enforcement for FAR infractions? Just curious.

John, we can argue legal definitions all day, but my original point was about yielding right-of-way. I have had numerous conversations with different FAA guys over the years about conflicts between planes and canopies and in each case the feds said the plane should yield because it is powered and thus is the more maneuverable of the two.

Call it a plane, a canopy, or a bird. According to the feds I have spoken with, the least maneuverable (FAR term or not) is said to have the right-of-way.

Disclaimer: If that is incorrect, it wouldn't be the first - or 100th - time I've received incorrect information from a fed.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 10, 2014, 2:53 PM
Post #146 of 261 (1316 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
kallend wrote:
fcajump wrote:
FlyingRon wrote:
Again, a skydiver is NOT an aircraft.

FAR section 1.1 - "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."


To the best of my knowledge, a parachute is a device, it is intended to be used for flight in the air. Therefore I would conclude that the FAA defines it as an aircraft, whether or not it explicitly lists it in the right-of-way listings.

JW

You would be wrong, then. (1) ultralights are clearly not defined as aircraft - read Part 103 very carefully, they do not have to comply with the general rules that apply to aircraft, and (2) an NTSB Administrative Law Judge made such a determination (not aircraft) just last week with respect to drones.

So if some flying craft are not aircraft, would the non-aircraft pilot not be subject to FAR enforcement for FAR infractions? Just curious.

John, we can argue legal definitions all day, but my original point was about yielding right-of-way. I have had numerous conversations with different FAA guys over the years about conflicts between planes and canopies and in each case the feds said the plane should yield because it is powered and thus is the more maneuverable of the two.

Call it a plane, a canopy, or a bird. According to the feds I have spoken with, the least maneuverable (FAR term or not) is said to have the right-of-way.

Disclaimer: If that is incorrect, it wouldn't be the first - or 100th - time I've received incorrect information from a fed.

Parachutes are specifically covered by FAR105. The right-of-way rules in 91.113 don't mention unpowered parachutes at all. They DO mention powered parachutes, so it's not like the FAA forgot about parachutes altogether.

The problem with drones is that the FAA has fumbled the ball and there are currently NO regulations that apply to them (or model aircraft); ONLY an Advisory Circular (AC91-57) that has no regulatory teeth. The judge last week made this very clear.

FAA is under the gun from Congress to fix this, but so far has bumbled around for over 7 years doing essentially nothing.

See also the FAA Modernization Act 2012 sections 331-336.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 10, 2014, 3:10 PM)


pBASEtobe

Mar 10, 2014, 3:16 PM
Post #147 of 261 (1241 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
2. The least maneuverable craft has the right-of-way.

FYI, This isn't always the case in aviation. It doesn't apply in this situation but per Part 103, ultralights "shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft".


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 10, 2014, 3:25 PM
Post #148 of 261 (1222 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

For gods sake. Your arguing who is wrong in a court of law and most people here are just trying to figure out what happened and who screwed up with their flying skills so they can learn something so this does not happen to them. I have met a few people in my entire life that have to be right about everything all the time and are smarter than everyone. You always treat your opinions as fact regardless how opinionated they are. One of the few that would would never EVER say something like IMO or IMHO because to you anything you say is fact. In this case you are correct from a technical standpoint but your are bringing it up when people are trying to figure out patterns regardless of whether someone was licensed. The point of this forum is not to argue who will win a lawsuit but to learn how to prevent this from happening. The skydiver messed up here big time. No legality issues of the pilot will change what is to be learned here. You are arguing with people about things they are not trying to argue about and have made some flat out rude and condescending posts here. This is not Speaker Corner where your sole goal is to be superior and treat others with sarcastic remarks to try and portray them as inferior to you.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 3:36 PM
Post #149 of 261 (1205 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pBASEtobe] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

pBASEtobe wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
2. The least maneuverable craft has the right-of-way.

FYI, This isn't always the case in aviation. It doesn't apply in this situation but per Part 103, ultralights "shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft".

Based on your statement I guess you're saying that an ultralight is less maneuverable yet is still required to yield? I wouldn't consider an ultralight less maneuverable than any other powered aircraft and given the very slow forward speed and miniscule distance required in one to make an evasive turn, I'd say they are more maneuverable than most "regular" planes.

In conversations I've had with feds they were referring to maneuverable as in powered, non-powered, and balloons. Those are the categories that FAR's cover for right-of-way. The feds I have spoken to say a skydiver under canopy is viewed - in the common sense department - as a non-powered craft, even though we aren't classified as aircraft by definition.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 3:39 PM
Post #150 of 261 (1196 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
The skydiver messed up here big time.

Did you mean "The skydiver messed up here big time - IMO"?

Wink


charliemike

Mar 10, 2014, 3:50 PM
Post #151 of 261 (1840 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Next time you are on a converging path with a 2000 pound hunk of metal swinging machetes just keep telling yourself YOU have the right of way! Most fixed wing traffic patterns are very predictable, stay the hell away from them.


pBASEtobe

Mar 10, 2014, 3:52 PM
Post #152 of 261 (1830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

pBASEtobe wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
2. The least maneuverable craft has the right-of-way. In this case that was the parachute.

FYI, This isn't always the case in aviation. It doesn't apply in this situation but per Part 103, ultralights "shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft".

chuckakers wrote:
Based on your statement I guess you're saying that an ultralight is less maneuverable yet is still required to yield?
Nope, just stating a fact that FAR Part 103 says ultralights must yield to all aircraft, nothing more.
chuckakers wrote:
I wouldn't consider an ultralight less maneuverable than any other powered aircraft and given the very slow forward speed and miniscule distance required in one to make an evasive turn, I'd say they are more maneuverable than most "regular" planes.
This doesn't jive with what you said in your original post. Your original post said the parachute is the least maneuverable and would have the right of way.

At any rate, I was just making a statement that there is no rule that least maneuverable flying anything has the right of way. It's generally understood (i.e. unwritten rule) that that SHOULD be the case, by no actual rule.




Premier cpoxon  (D 11665)
Moderator
Mar 10, 2014, 3:56 PM
Post #154 of 261 (1812 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chembree] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chembree wrote:
Here is another video that was just recently released:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/...iver-plane-collision

Despite the number of times they repeated it, did they ever show the whole clip at the correct speed (let alone without the unnecessary circular highlight)? Crazy


Quote:
Here is another interesting posting of the original pictures:

http://i.imgur.com/CQQPwRr.gif

This is a far better visualisation, and credit where credit is due, thanks to Reddit user joetromboni.






PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:11 PM
Post #157 of 261 (1763 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
For gods sake. Your arguing who is wrong in a court of law and most people here are just trying to figure out what happened and who screwed up with their flying skills so they can learn something so this does not happen to them. I have met a few people in my entire life that have to be right about everything all the time and are smarter than everyone. You always treat your opinions as fact regardless how opinionated they are. One of the few that would would never EVER say something like IMO or IMHO because to you anything you say is fact. In this case you are correct from a technical standpoint but your are bringing it up when people are trying to figure out patterns regardless of whether someone was licensed. The point of this forum is not to argue who will win a lawsuit but to learn how to prevent this from happening. The skydiver messed up here big time. No legality issues of the pilot will change what is to be learned here. You are arguing with people about things they are not trying to argue about and have made some flat out rude and condescending posts here. This is not Speaker Corner where your sole goal is to be superior and treat others with sarcastic remarks to try and portray them as inferior to you.

You'll get no argument from me on that Tongue...

Back on-topic: I haven't seen this point mentioned here. Has Anyone heard how many jumps this guy has? Is He just off AFF, or a <100 jump Newbie?


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:19 PM
Post #158 of 261 (1742 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:
craddock wrote:
For gods sake. Your arguing who is wrong in a court of law and most people here are just trying to figure out what happened and who screwed up with their flying skills so they can learn something so this does not happen to them. I have met a few people in my entire life that have to be right about everything all the time and are smarter than everyone. You always treat your opinions as fact regardless how opinionated they are. One of the few that would would never EVER say something like IMO or IMHO because to you anything you say is fact. In this case you are correct from a technical standpoint but your are bringing it up when people are trying to figure out patterns regardless of whether someone was licensed. The point of this forum is not to argue who will win a lawsuit but to learn how to prevent this from happening. The skydiver messed up here big time. No legality issues of the pilot will change what is to be learned here. You are arguing with people about things they are not trying to argue about and have made some flat out rude and condescending posts here. This is not Speaker Corner where your sole goal is to be superior and treat others with sarcastic remarks to try and portray them as inferior to you.

You'll get no argument from me on that Tongue...

Back on-topic: I haven't seen this point mentioned here. Has Anyone heard how many jumps this guy has? Is He just off AFF, or a <100 jump Newbie?

In one news report it said something like 150.


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:33 PM
Post #159 of 261 (1702 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post


"In one news report it said something like 150."


Was that verified? Over how many years? Currency?


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:39 PM
Post #160 of 261 (1684 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

That 2,000 foot requirement was primarily written for transient airplanes that are not planing to land ... at the airport in question.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:48 PM
Post #161 of 261 (1681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I disagree.
Ultralights are still expected to follow the right of way to less manuverable flying machines like: parachutes, free balloons, banner-towing airplanes, tow-planes closely followed by gliders, military tankers refuelling fighterplanes, etc.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Mar 10, 2014, 5:47 PM
Post #162 of 261 (1613 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Big thing in my mind. Our DZ has lanes of traffic in the landing area, just like Eloy. You go one way or the other, preplanned. If there's a crosswind, you suck it up, cupcake, and land one way or the other, preplanned. Or you can head 400 yards out to the student field and do what you want.

Should this DZ establish two landing directions, parallel to the runway, with a pattern away from the runway?


AnalMike  (D 32642)

Mar 10, 2014, 6:24 PM
Post #163 of 261 (1551 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

John I was thinking the same thing. I would personally be nervous as hell everytime I had to cross that runway centerline (extended or not). I think this keeps the risk of these accidents from happening on the lower end of the spectrum.


champu  (D 28302)

Mar 10, 2014, 6:51 PM
Post #164 of 261 (1516 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
skydiverek wrote:
ryoder wrote:
riggerrob wrote:
Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes.
See attached image.
The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?

I would fly a left hand pattern and land parallel to the runway towards the Southeast with a quartering headwind.

If the wind was out of the North I would fly a right hand pattern and land parallel to the runway towards the Northwest with a quartering headwind.

If the wind was out of the West I would fly a right hand pattern with a nice long base leg (to keep my downwind leg away from the runway) and land along the North edge of the landing area towards the West.

If the wind was out of the South I would fly a left hand pattern with a nice long base leg (to keep my downwind leg away from the approach to the runway) and land along the East edge of the landing area towards the South.

As an alternative (if it was easier to enforce and depending on what the winds most commonly do) I would also consider just sticking to one of the first two for all conditions.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 6:57 PM
Post #165 of 261 (1504 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:

"In one news report it said something like 150."


Was that verified? Over how many years? Currency?

As I said, it came from a news report. I cannot speak to the accuracy or specificity of the statement.


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Mar 11, 2014, 1:58 AM
Post #166 of 261 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
kuai43 wrote:
That canopy has far more maneuverability than the Cessna that short on final.

They were both on short final.

That said, a jumper under canopy only has left, right and down, and at a low altitude the left and right will cause a "down" that might not be survivable.

There are _two_ toggles which work down to ground level when you don't yank one at a time.

Jumpers who can't handle that under their current canopy need progressively bigger ones until they get with the program or arrive at student size at which point a remedial course is in order.


(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Mar 11, 2014, 1:58 AM)


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 11, 2014, 2:59 AM
Post #167 of 261 (1270 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

DrewEckhardt wrote:
chuckakers wrote:
kuai43 wrote:
That canopy has far more maneuverability than the Cessna that short on final.

They were both on short final.

That said, a jumper under canopy only has left, right and down, and at a low altitude the left and right will cause a "down" that might not be survivable.

There are _two_ toggles which work down to ground level when you don't yank one at a time.

Jumpers who can't handle that under their current canopy need progressively bigger ones until they get with the program or arrive at student size at which point a remedial course is in order.

Long swoops not withstanding, exactly how could a jumper make an avoidance maneuver at ground level?


(This post was edited by chuckakers on Mar 11, 2014, 3:17 AM)


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 11, 2014, 3:28 AM
Post #168 of 261 (1243 views)
Shortcut
Re: [charliemike] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

charliemike wrote:
Next time you are on a converging path with a 2000 pound hunk of metal swinging machetes just keep telling yourself YOU have the right of way! Most fixed wing traffic patterns are very predictable, stay the hell away from them.

^^This^^


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 11, 2014, 4:26 AM
Post #169 of 261 (1215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

OK, Thanks. It sounds like a couple of people here know jumpers @that DZ.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:25 AM
Post #170 of 261 (1163 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
For gods sake. Your arguing who is wrong in a court of law and most people here are just trying to figure out what happened and who screwed up with their flying skills so they can learn something so this does not happen to them. I have met a few people in my entire life that have to be right about everything all the time and are smarter than everyone. You always treat your opinions as fact regardless how opinionated they are. One of the few that would would never EVER say something like IMO or IMHO because to you anything you say is fact. In this case you are correct from a technical standpoint but your are bringing it up when people are trying to figure out patterns regardless of whether someone was licensed. The point of this forum is not to argue who will win a lawsuit but to learn how to prevent this from happening. The skydiver messed up here big time. No legality issues of the pilot will change what is to be learned here. You are arguing with people about things they are not trying to argue about and have made some flat out rude and condescending posts here. This is not Speaker Corner where your sole goal is to be superior and treat others with sarcastic remarks to try and portray them as inferior to you.

Nice rant. Now, which of my statements was factually inaccurate?






craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:39 AM
Post #173 of 261 (1033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:

Long swoops not withstanding, exactly how could a jumper make an avoidance maneuver at ground level?

I think what he is saying is that even at tree top level he could have turned that canopy by a braked turn. Would have had to sink it in at that point. Many people don't learn these skills. In full flight at the beginning there is some airspeed to work with. Talk about object fixation. This jumper is looking at the plane in the first photo and it appears the did a left hand turn to final so he was staring straight at it before the turn to final. At the last second there is not much he could do but certainly deciding to flair right in front of the airplane was not the best approach. Jumper claims in an interview that he is trying to get small to gain speed. But then why in the Hell is he in Half brakes right in front of the plane!!! He failed to turn away(or more likely failed to turn his Base leg into his final which would have made this nothing but a further walk to landing area) and then is trying to get small but is flying in brakes?

I suspect that because he was following the other jumper who also messed up that clouded his judgement. Perhaps the other jumper was more experienced and he got focused on tailing him in rather than thinking for himself. Be interesting to know the level and qualifications of that jumper. Was that jumper an instructor. Because that jumper missed getting hit by 2 whole seconds


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 11, 2014, 7:49 AM
Post #174 of 261 (1011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Take all of your "rants" on the FAR's to General Skydiving from now on.

Any additional conversation on if a parachute is or is not an aircraft or trying to be armchair FSDO's and trying to argue the FAR's will result in the posts being removed.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:25 AM
Post #175 of 261 (968 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PhreeZone wrote:
Take all of your "rants" on the FAR's to General Skydiving from now on.

Any additional conversation on if a parachute is or is not an aircraft or trying to be armchair FSDO's and trying to argue the FAR's will result in the posts being removed.

Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.

That is a FACT.




Channman  (C 36498)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:42 AM
Post #177 of 261 (1662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

https://www.google.com/...,1100m/data=!3m1!1e3

Maybe this as already been posted if so...My Bad. Google view of airport from SkyVector.


format  (B 15348)

Mar 11, 2014, 9:05 AM
Post #178 of 261 (1623 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.
That is a FACT.
Oh, come on, had the parachutist not have been crossing the touch&go plane run - no accident would have happened


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 11, 2014, 9:38 AM
Post #179 of 261 (1562 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:

Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.

That is a FACT.

You are a victim of a specious argument. You are educated. I would have expected more from you.

And the jumper would have been hit by a pilot with a current medical. Your move...


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 11:50 AM
Post #180 of 261 (1396 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
kallend wrote:

Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.

That is a FACT.

You are a victim of a specious argument. You are educated. I would have expected more from you.

And the jumper would have been hit by a pilot with a current medical. Your move...

Nonsense.

You ASSUME that all he'd done is forget some paperwork and was otherwise fine. There is no evidence to support that.

The FACT is that without the paperwork he shouldn't have been in the air at all.

If he was sitting on the ground (as he should have been) wishing he were in the air, the accident couldn't have happened.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 11:52 AM
Post #181 of 261 (1396 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
kallend wrote:

Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.

That is a FACT.

You are a victim of a specious argument. You are educated. I would have expected more from you.

And the jumper would have been hit by a pilot with a current medical. Your move...

Would he?

That too is speculation -

I get what you're saying & why...but I agree with Doc, take the element out that shouldn't have been there and it's a non incident.

Now obviously it DID happen, and in the 'real world' we do have to contend with things like this.

And like the old commercial use to say 'you can be right...DEAD RIGHT'

One thing 'we' need to take away from this - aside from 'fly defensively'....It's kinda important to have your ducks in a row - just in case - you're involved in something unfortunate / unforeseen - especially when damage and or injury results.

Switch it around for a second, what if...the pilot were legal but the jumpers reserve was out of date, he pulled low & he blew a .09 on a breathalyzer? Again - had there been proper compliance - no conflict.

Obviously I'm not saying following the rules to the letter prevents accidents...just that when there IS one, NOT having everything in order turns the questionable or marginal calls - against you.

Because on the most basic level - you shouldn't have even BEEN there...CYA


diablopilot  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 11:54 AM
Post #182 of 261 (1394 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
ryoder wrote:
Before throwing stones at the pilot, take a look at the airport.
It is just a grass strip, and the peas are right on the edge of it at the South East end: https://www.google.com/...5:0xd93f5abd765e6bc1

No stones, but...

1. It is the pilot's responsibility to insure the airspace is clear before rolling out for takeoff.

2. The least maneuverable craft has the right-of-way. In this case that was the parachute.

Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.

Your post is inaccurate. The parachute is not defined as an aircraft. Landing aircraft (the airplane) has priority. For a jumper to land on the centerline of a runway is idiotic. The parachute is far more maneuverable than the airplane as defined by it's ability to change direction, and area needed for a safe landing.

Who was to blame in this incident? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CXVt2OpcGY


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 11:56 AM
Post #183 of 261 (1393 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

format wrote:
kallend wrote:
Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.
That is a FACT.
Oh, come on, had the parachutist not have been crossing the touch&go plane run - no accident would have happened

Have I said otherwise? (See post #139, this thread).


Parachutist used poor judgment; pilot apparently committed an unlawful act AND used poor judgment.

Plenty of blame to go around but my guess is that the NTSB and FAA will come down really heavily on the pilot.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 11, 2014, 12:03 PM)


diablopilot  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 12:07 PM
Post #184 of 261 (1370 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

grimmie wrote:
This incident just set airport access issues back into the dark ages. IMHO

This. And anyone who can't see that the parachutist bears the brunt of the responsibility in this incident is helping to push skydivers off airports.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 12:48 PM
Post #185 of 261 (1330 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You ASSUME that all he'd done is forget some paperwork and was otherwise fine. There is no evidence to support that.

The FACT is that without the paperwork he shouldn't have been in the air at all.

If he was sitting on the ground (as he should have been) wishing he were in the air, the accident couldn't have happened.

And if I was under canopy landing there this accident would not have happened. That is my opinion that I value as FACT.

Regardless of whether the pilot had truly lost his medical and was landing in the displaced threshold, I still would not have landed right in front of him even though it was his fault for being there. To treat this as nothing more and to learn nothing as a skydiver because the pilot did not have a medical and that was the cause of the accident is insane. But you know what they say about insane people. They never think THEY actually are.

Again this is not speakers corner. Stop trying to fight just to prove you are right. Everyone got YOUR point a long time ago, however you are struggling to get the theirs. For someone who has a goal to make him look smarter than the next....


edited to add. And you are no doubt thinking to yourself that others are so dumb or inferior they can not comprehend what your saying. What you fail to realize is that it is not really that hard to comprehend and people are getting your point. You can keep up the attitude and scoffing inside that they just don't get it but they do. Disagreeing with you that there is more important aspects to discuss does not mean people do not comprehend you or are saying you are wrong. Silly maybe.

I have jumped with an out of date reserve at many DZ's, sometimes with the DZO's knowledge. More than once I was told to pull my card out, out it in the truck and shut up. Twice the first time I was ever on the DZ and met the DZO. I should not have been there but I didn't get hit by a plane because I was. And then they changed the rules later anyway regarding dates. I have pencil packed. Didn't get hit by a plane.
But I think everyone does get your point as it is overly simple but they just want to have a more educated discussion to how this could be prevented


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 11, 2014, 1:30 PM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 1:56 PM
Post #186 of 261 (1229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Regardless of whether the pilot had truly lost his medical and was landing in the displaced threshold, I still would not have landed right in front of him because it was his fault for being there. To treat this as nothing more and to learn nothing as a skydiver because the pilot did not have a medical and that was the cause of the accident is insane.

I wouldn't have landed there either - nor would most any experienced jumper.

I'm kind of envisioning the skydiver found himself in a corner and started running out of options before realizing they were necessary...things like 'experience', 'anticipation', 'learning curve'...all come to mind.

In the video interview he states he made certain maneuvers to insure he wasn't hit by the prop...should have been doing THAT 500' higher, but ok.

Same interview has the pilot saying he 'saved his life' by quick maneuvering etc...yeah ok maybe.

There are tons of 'links in the chain' of disaster that if broken would have prevented this...but again, on the most basic of levels, if the pilot had not been at the controls, as dictated by regulation - there's no chain period.

Again...just speculating - but 'old guy' without a current medical for whatever reason, takes the bird up on a bright & sunny for few orbits around the patch, out in podunk where traffic is near zip - what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Well...THIS can.

And again - there IS much to learn from 'every' aspect of the incident.

From 'our' perspective, ya gotta be aware what's going on around you & anticipate well ahead. From a physics standpoint, 'we' usually lose all 'ties' at the 'same place & time' thing.

But no question in MY mind anyway...the guy not in compliance with federal regulation started the ball rolling when he opened the hangar & fired up the Cessna.

I'm a fairly competent pilot, but not current & no medical...so it's simple, I don't fly...it stupid to take the chance.

I too have jumped with an out of date reserve...doesn't make one 'less safe' on a skill level - however it DOES say something about the person in regard to attitude for observing the 'rules'.

More often than not it's no big deal - but when an issue does come up, it just better to be in the green on everything...stupid to take the chance.

So...yup, either person could / should have avoided the collision.
Easier for the jumper to do so looking down than the driver of a high wing in motion, close to the ground - looking ahead (not up).

And I agree with Diablo -this one will sting 'us' more than 'them'. We're ALL lucky no one was killed!


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 11, 2014, 2:22 PM)


grimmie  (D 18890)

Mar 11, 2014, 2:58 PM
Post #187 of 261 (1170 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Yup, my phone rang off the hook yesterday. Airport management, local pilots...lots of explaining.Mad


grue  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 3:04 PM
Post #188 of 261 (1161 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

diablopilot wrote:
grimmie wrote:
This incident just set airport access issues back into the dark ages. IMHO

This. And anyone who can't see that the parachutist bears the brunt of the responsibility in this incident is helping to push skydivers off airports.

I think this is going to be a case of "jumper is more to blame, but the brunt of the system is going to fall on the pilot"


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 3:17 PM
Post #189 of 261 (1151 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:

And if I was under canopy landing there this accident would not have happened. That is my opinion that I value as FACT.

Bit of a skygod attitude there, Chief. I think we all can name a bunch of dead skydivers who had "it can't happen to me" attitudes. Some of them used to post right here.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 11, 2014, 3:59 PM)


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 3:59 PM
Post #190 of 261 (1113 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:

Bit of a skygod attitude there, Chief. I think we all name a bunch of dead skydivers who had "it can't happen to me" attitudes. Some of them used to post here.

Perhaps it is arrogant. But it is a bit different than Roger letting me swoop the unlit object riddled swimming/retention pond at 11 pm. I can expect an attitude for that one. This jumper stared right at a plane during his final approach and elected to pull off the ultimate "object fixation" example. And then just to make sure he flew half brakes during the final stretch to make sure he didn't get out of the way. I have done a lot worse things to be called a skygod than stating with confidence that it is my opinion that I would chose a different course of actions than to fly into an airplane traveling down the runway.

The jumper got sucked in by the jumper he was following. I wonder if the one right ahead would have extended his base leg out and just paralleled runway do you think the 2nd one would have still chose to turn right into the path of the plane? Or if they were going to cross they may as well done it early and went for the peas. Unexcusable to make that final turn in right there. Just to avoid a walk? Good thing the pilot was at fault or the jumper might actually feel bad about it.


SoCalJumper  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 4:08 PM
Post #191 of 261 (1097 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I am wondering if a plane moving at tree top level fast off in the distance is even visible to a jumper as if he is looking down at 1,000 feet.

No discussion is even mentioned about an incoming plane closing fast.

I would not be surprised if that was a very hard thing to see. Low and coming at you fast.

at 1500 feet a plane even if it is seen and appears to be going in one direction were it to turn and then converge on an intended lading point used by two different pilots may be difficult to see.

also what if it is traveling in a straight line at a low attitude directly at the point of this incident, how visible is it really?


(This post was edited by SoCalJumper on Mar 11, 2014, 4:13 PM)


jclalor  (B 33202)

Mar 11, 2014, 4:58 PM
Post #192 of 261 (1040 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess this illustrates exactly what happens when a canopy accidentally deploys and snags on the plane.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:08 PM
Post #193 of 261 (1020 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SoCalJumper] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

SoCalJumper wrote:
I am wondering if a plane moving at tree top level fast off in the distance is even visible to a jumper as if he is looking down at 1,000 feet.

No discussion is even mentioned about an incoming plane closing fast.

I would not be surprised if that was a very hard thing to see. Low and coming at you fast.

at 1500 feet a plane even if it is seen and appears to be going in one direction were it to turn and then converge on an intended lading point used by two different pilots may be difficult to see.

also what if it is traveling in a straight line at a low attitude directly at the point of this incident, how visible is it really?


Pilot 'trick' ~ relax your eyes so that you're not focusing hard on any one object or area...kind of take in the whole 'big picture' - almost like looking at a landscape painting in it's entirety.

Then allow you eyes to focus in on the 'things that are different' as in things moving.

With a little practice you can go back & forth between the 'two modes' pretty fast. Once you get the hang of it, you will start to quickly have your attention drawn to cars on the road, trains on a track, aircraft moving below and off in the distance.

I don't have the greatest eyesight anymore but I can see birds flying below me from 2 grand - the movement draws the attention.

It's a skill - it can be learned and sharpened.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:13 PM
Post #194 of 261 (1016 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SoCalJumper] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

SoCalJumper wrote:
I am wondering if a plane moving at tree top level fast off in the distance is even visible to a jumper as if he is looking down at 1,000 feet.

No discussion is even mentioned about an incoming plane closing fast.

I would not be surprised if that was a very hard thing to see. Low and coming at you fast.

at 1500 feet a plane even if it is seen and appears to be going in one direction were it to turn and then converge on an intended lading point used by two different pilots may be difficult to see.

also what if it is traveling in a straight line at a low attitude directly at the point of this incident, how visible is it really?

From my point of view it doesn't really matter if he saw it looking down from 1000 ft much less 1500. But the first photo shows the jumper finishing a left hand turn at low altitude. And to top it off he is looking at the plane in the photo. He is not flying perpendicuar to the runway like so many others have mentioned. The camera is not shooting ACROSS the runway straight at all and many skydivers on here have had problems realizing where they are in regards to the threshold and that he actually had quite a bit of elememt to his flight down the runway. If that carmera turned 90 to runway for a shot it would be well behind where the plane is in the third picture. Imagine a line from pov toward road behind aircraft and look at canopy direction compared to that line. Makes me wonder how some people can spot(or helps me understand just how they spot) This guy is Not flying perpendicular at all! And at 1500 ft he may be more worried about other canopies than for that airplane but he is on final looking right at it he just flew into it!

Now someone can question my take on the jumpers pattern but even if that is just a left hand correction and he was on a longer final he is still quartering across the runway at BEST. The video also shows that all three jumpers came across at an angle so they didn't even have to swivel there head much to see it. I would say he was closer to parallel in his crossing than to perpendicular. But regardless of how much there is no doubt that he was closer to west than NW as has been implyed


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 11, 2014, 5:16 PM)


SoCalJumper  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:43 PM
Post #195 of 261 (970 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
he just flew into it!


ok

Point I'm trying to make is a factual recreation of exactly what happened, not what these pictures showed what happened.

Both failed to see and avoid.

What I'd like it to know more and that is my point of view.


(This post was edited by SoCalJumper on Mar 11, 2014, 5:43 PM)


DBCOOPER  (D 24112)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:55 PM
Post #196 of 261 (945 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

If it was a LSA there would have been no violation concerning his medical. In the near future there won't be a need for a medical to fly that plane.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 6:07 PM
Post #197 of 261 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SoCalJumper] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

 After going back to look at planes yaw in relation to runway it also shows that the plane was well off the center of the runway and was correcting back before impact. That plane is close to the road and has a fair amount of rudder into it. It was yawing back toward the runway and didn't leave much room for the jumper on that side at all for an out.

Plane did a right 180 into a handstand and still landed well left of the runway. Unsure

Old man was not fit to fly after all. See Kallend, it was only a matter of time before I came around


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 6:40 PM
Post #198 of 261 (904 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
From my point of view it doesn't really matter if he saw it looking down from 1000 ft much less 1500. But the first photo shows the jumper finishing a left hand turn at low altitude. And to top it off he is looking at the plane in the photo.

That depends on which photo in the series you started with, the first one or two in the full series the jumper was not looking at the plane. It wasn't until the second or third that he looked over and you can see him bracing for impact. We had to zoom in on the photos and I know they were of the highest quality of the pictures out there... as the guy that took them was showing them to me on his computer while everyone was waiting on the feds to show up.

craddock wrote:
He is not flying perpendicuar to the runway like so many others have mentioned. The camera is not shooting ACROSS the runway straight at all and many skydivers on here have had problems realizing where they are in regards to the threshold and that he actually had quite a bit of elememt to his flight down the runway. If that carmera turned 90 to runway for a shot it would be well behind where the plane is in the third picture. Imagine a line from pov toward road behind aircraft and look at canopy direction compared to that line. Makes me wonder how some people can spot(or helps me understand just how they spot) This guy is Not flying perpendicular at all! And at 1500 ft he may be more worried about other canopies than for that airplane but he is on final looking right at it he just flew into it!

Now someone can question my take on the jumpers pattern but even if that is just a left hand correction and he was on a longer final he is still quartering across the runway at BEST. The video also shows that all three jumpers came across at an angle so they didn't even have to swivel there head much to see it. I would say he was closer to parallel in his crossing than to perpendicular. But regardless of how much there is no doubt that he was closer to west than NW as has been implyed

I have no need to question your take on the jumpers pattern, no point in arguing it either. Some people just like to argue for the sake of wanting to be right.

craddock wrote:
After going back to look at planes yaw in relation to runway it also shows that the plane was well off the center of the runway and was correcting back before impact. That plane is close to the road and has a fair amount of rudder into it. It was yawing back toward the runway and didn't leave much room for the jumper on that side at all for an out.

Plane did a right 180 into a handstand and still landed well left of the runway. Unsure


That's another interesting take.

http://tinyurl.com/pq8ooop

Look at the photo, the buckets on the left side are the threshold markers for the left side of the runway. His engine and prop hit maybe just right of the center line with the fuselage coming to rest on the right side of the center line.


But what do I know? I was at the accident site, talked to the witnesses and being a pilot and skydiver myself, I agreed with the assessment of what happened and what the investigators came up with.


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Mar 11, 2014, 7:15 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 11, 2014, 6:50 PM
Post #199 of 261 (878 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

[Edit: @ craddock, to make that clear]

I'm not sure whether your photo analysis is correct that the pilot was far off the center line of the runway on approach, nor that he landed "well left of the runway". Huh? He was somewhere right in the middle of it, although somewhere right of centerline, as far as I can tell in a few minutes of looking at the photos.

Fair bit of rudder? Huh? You see it for 1 photo before hitting the jumper, and it doesn't look particularly deflected.

But either way, who cares?

There is no requirement to land along the center of a runway and no fault or liability exists due to not doing so. Even if by good airmanship, it is normal to try for the center line.

Any deviation from perfect procedures does not somehow make someone unworthy to fly.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 11, 2014, 6:53 PM)


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:07 PM
Post #200 of 261 (850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I was only saying it would possibly give the jumper(low exerience) some pause on a decision if the plane was edging closer to the road when looking for an out. Not that he had no right to be there.

Good god Unsure

And you missed Kallends comments if you didn't get the sarcasm


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:12 PM
Post #201 of 261 (1595 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Well it is very nice to have some constructive input from someone in the know so we have a clearer view. Sorry it has to come with an attitude and defensiveness however. I have not responded to any of your posts(not sure I saw any) yet you act like I am trying to argue with you?? Great you have something to offer but sad it has to come at that price.

The reason I thought he was left of the center line is that there is a clear defined wear pattern in the grass. Both from aerial and from your buddies photos and he is clearly to the left of that line. So I was unaware that most of the planes were running on runway to the NE of the centerline and I apologize for assuming the most common path used was the centerline. That was 100% an assumption that could be made by others as well. That and the plane is yawing toward the wear pattern so it appeared headed that way. Even so the only reason I brought it up was that it could give pause for the low time jumper to take that out and land on the edge of runway if he felt it occupied. Tried to give him some excuse for making such decision. What was the winds like at the time?


But if the planes was in the center than my initial point that the side by road could have been an out remains.

So many questions people have asked so if you have all the answers that you want to share that would be great!

And yes it was actually the second pic that he is clearly looking not the first. Although it is hard to say in the first because he an quartering toward it and would not actually need to turn his head so that is unknown. What did he say?

What was his pattern if I was not correct? Find it hard to believe he turned right to final on that line and then corrected back to the left. If so he had all sorts of room to avoid that plane if he would have saw it. Why don't you answer the many question people have asked about his pattern rather than chastise my take on it and accuse me of wanting to argue with you? Do not mistake my earlier comments toward Kallend as wanting to argue. So not my intention.

I am sorry I have placed to much blame on the jumper here without your knowledge. I understand you may know him and this could cause defensiveness.


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 11, 2014, 7:19 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:14 PM
Post #202 of 261 (1587 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DBCOOPER] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

DBCOOPER wrote:
If it was a LSA there would have been no violation concerning his medical. In the near future there won't be a need for a medical to fly that plane.

But it wasn't an LSA, it was a violation, and the future hasn't arrived yet. Even if it arrives in the manner you expect (and that isn't certain) a pilot will still have to meet standards, just that an AME/MD won't have to certify it.

One still wonders WHY he didn't get a medical if he was actually fit to fly.


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:40 PM
Post #203 of 261 (1534 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
Well it is very nice to have some constructive input from someone in the know so we have a clearer view. Sorry it has to come with an attitude and defensiveness however. I have not responded to any of your posts(not sure I saw any) yet you act like I am trying to argue with you??

Yet you're the one claiming the airplane is obviously far left of centerline and such.

craddock wrote:
The reason I thought he was left of the center line is that there is a clear defined wear pattern in the grass. Both from aerial and from your buddies photos and he is clearly to the left of that line. So I was unaware that most of the planes were running on runway to the NE of the centerline and I apologize for assuming the most common path used was the centerline. That was 100% an assumption that could be made by others as well. That and the plane is yawing toward the wear pattern so it appeared headed that way. Even so the only reason I brought it up was that it could give pause for the low time jumper to take that out and land on the edge of runway if he felt it occupied. Tried to give him some excuse for making such decision. What was the winds like at the time?

The wear pattern you're looking at and talking about is a drainage ditch between the runway and the taxiway/lz areas.

I took a snapshot of one of my landings there, you can see the ditch on the right of the runway and the centerline in the middle.

http://tinyurl.com/pdtl6jb

Yes I know I was a bit left but fear not, I landed in the center.

craddock wrote:
So many questions people have asked so if you have all the answers that you want to share that would be great!

I don't have all of the answers.

craddock wrote:
And yes it was actually the second pic that he is clearly looking not the first. Although it is hard to say in the first because he an quartering toward it and would not actually need to turn his head so that is unknown. What did he say?

I don't know what he said, dude just got taken out by an airplane and walked away without a scratch. He was back before the media showed up and we didn't feel the need to play 20 questions with him.

I'm not lashing out at you, I am just annoyed at all of the experts on here that 'know' the intricate details of what happened and the area based on some snap shots and google earth.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:54 PM
Post #204 of 261 (1511 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

pchapman wrote:
[Edit: @ craddock, to make that clear]

I'm not sure whether your photo analysis is correct that the pilot was far off the center line of the runway on approach, nor that he landed "well left of the runway". Huh? He was somewhere right in the middle of it, although somewhere right of centerline, as far as I can tell in a few minutes of looking at the photos.

Fair bit of rudder? Huh? You see it for 1 photo before hitting the jumper, and it doesn't look particularly deflected.

But either way, who cares?

There is no requirement to land along the center of a runway and no fault or liability exists due to not doing so. Even if by good airmanship, it is normal to try for the center line.

Any deviation from perfect procedures does not somehow make someone unworthy to fly.

Numerous points made by craddock in his analysis are lacking in substantiation. He claims the jumper was looking at the approaching plane from the first photo in the photo series when he couldn't possibly know if the jumper was looking at he plane or something else. He claims the jumper had time to make an avoidance maneuver when he doesn't know for sure exactly when the jump actually recognized the conflict - and on, and on.

From those points he then draws a conclusion about what the jumper should have done and further uses those conclusions to explain how he would have done things differently to avoid the collision.

I won't spend the time creating a chronology all of his ludicrous points, but suffice to say that his logic is based on a very subjective opinion of the incident.

Craddock, if you want to be taken seriously here among your peers, I offer a suggestion that you discern the difference between your perception of the facts and...the facts.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:09 PM
Post #205 of 261 (1498 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
pchapman wrote:
[Edit: @ craddock, to make that clear]

I'm not sure whether your photo analysis is correct that the pilot was far off the center line of the runway on approach, nor that he landed "well left of the runway". Huh? He was somewhere right in the middle of it, although somewhere right of centerline, as far as I can tell in a few minutes of looking at the photos.

Fair bit of rudder? Huh? You see it for 1 photo before hitting the jumper, and it doesn't look particularly deflected.

But either way, who cares?

There is no requirement to land along the center of a runway and no fault or liability exists due to not doing so. Even if by good airmanship, it is normal to try for the center line.

Any deviation from perfect procedures does not somehow make someone unworthy to fly.

Numerous points made by craddock in his analysis are lacking in substantiation. He claims the jumper was looking at the approaching plane from the first photo in the photo series when he couldn't possibly know if the jumper was looking at he plane or something else. He claims the jumper had time to make an avoidance maneuver when he doesn't know for sure exactly when the jump actually recognized the conflict - and on, and on.

From those points he then draws a conclusion about what the jumper should have done and further uses those conclusions to explain how he would have done things differently to avoid the collision.

I won't spend the time creating a chronology all of his ludicrous points, but suffice to say that his logic is based on a very subjective opinion of the incident.

Craddock, if you want to be taken seriously here among your peers, I offer a suggestion that you discern the difference between your perception of the facts and...the facts.

Kallend got me fired up so I had to take the other side. Not to worried if you take me serious. But the jumper is flying 45 across the runway in the direction toward the plane and you are right. It is a possibility I would freeze and fly right into it myself. Hard to say. Jumper himself said he was trying to get small to get speed but when he balled up he went into half brakes as well. Just pointed silly stuff out and that everyone saying he crossed perpendicular are not correct. I do not feel that is a theory as the is footage from multiple angles that show he was not crossing it at a 90. Sorry I offend you. I am multitasking and following this here and on POA so maybe it was there that the claims of 90 come in I don't recall. But I do feel the jumper could have done a better job to avoid it. Obviously many on here disagree. No biggie. If the pilot had a medical it never would have happened. That is the lesson to be learned according to Kallend so let's just go with that then.

Be safe!


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:26 PM
Post #206 of 261 (1474 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

theonlyski wrote:

The wear pattern you're looking at and talking about is a drainage ditch between the runway and the taxiway/lz areas.

I took a snapshot of one of my landings there, you can see the ditch on the right of the runway and the centerline in the middle.

http://tinyurl.com/pdtl6jb

Yes I know I was a bit left but fear not, I landed in the center.

Just to be clear then you are saying this wear pattern in this pic after he spun to the right is a drainage ditch? Again sorry but you can see how that reasonably looks like the centerline.
Again, since the plane in the earlier pics appears to be at least a plane width closer to the road than where it ended I was just trying to give some possible explanation why he MIGHT not have had an out to land that side of the runway in HIS mind. Like which way is he going to go. I was trying to find a way to not pass judgment on what the jumper absolutely should have done if because maybe the plane drifted off centerline and jumper froze for a second. You have cleared up that that is not a possibility. I am sorry a passed judgment that the jumper could have avoided this. But if it is any conciliation at least we got you to offer some explanation to what other have been asking. Sure like to know the pattern even if of the guy in front of him.

Good luck down there. Hope everything works out.
Attachments: 3366416_G.jpg (114 KB)


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:39 PM
Post #207 of 261 (1460 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:


From those points he then draws a conclusion about what the jumper should have done and further uses those conclusions to explain how he would have done things differently to avoid the collision.

Just to be clear. Are you saying you would not have done anything different to avoid the collision?

But I have said he could have turned in sooner. I also said he maybe could have continued his base leg out and landed on the side of runway. Then questioned if he could make that quick decision because I thought the pilot was left of center and maybe that messed with the jumpers decision making. Not a real firm conclusion. But those conclusions helped me make the conclusion to explain I would do what exactly? Not land on an active runway without making sure it was clear? Is that really so much of a leap? Many people on here don't think they would land on an active runway without making sure it was clear. I am not alone

And also there was some sarcasm in a few posts that you may have missed that was caused an earlier run in with the Professor. At least one other thought I was serious about my pilot comment that was sarcasm based on Kallends opinion. Sometimes one needs to just throw out enough theories and someone with more info will finally shed some light on it to clear it up. I am not so worried about my image that I can't take one for the team. I have seen worse than my opinions.


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 11, 2014, 8:47 PM)


grue  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 9:00 PM
Post #208 of 261 (1419 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's an interesting concept:

The pilot is going to get reamed by the FAA for not having appropriate paperwork, that's almost a foregone conclusion. This may or may not invalidate any insurance he has on the aircraft.

However, in the end, with the jumper being considered by many to be the root cause of the accident, will the USPA 3P liability insurance cover the aircraft, or will they use the same reasoning to deny coverage? If a car was illegally driven to a dropzone and someone swoops into it, is that still covered?


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 11, 2014, 9:12 PM
Post #209 of 261 (1409 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
kuai43 wrote:
kallend wrote:

Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.

That is a FACT.

You are a victim of a specious argument. You are educated. I would have expected more from you.

And the jumper would have been hit by a pilot with a current medical. Your move...

Nonsense.

You ASSUME that all he'd done is forget some paperwork and was otherwise fine. There is no evidence to support that.

The FACT is that without the paperwork he shouldn't have been in the air at all.

If he was sitting on the ground (as he should have been) wishing he were in the air, the accident couldn't have happened.

And you assume that the reason the pilot didn't see and avoid the jumper is due to a non-current medical. As you say, 'there is no evidence to support that', ergo your argument is attractively specious. Theoretically, it could have been any pilot. The jumper had the responsibility to land OFF the runway.

1) The jumper's chosen landing pattern had him landing right on the centerline of the runway.
2) The jumper had a clear view of any traffic, canopy or aircraft.
3) There were alternative landing options for the jumper and none for the pilot.

None of the above have anything to do with a current medical. Once again, your move, 'professor'.




theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 12, 2014, 4:08 AM
Post #211 of 261 (1276 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
3) There were alternative landing options for the jumper and none for the pilot.

I almost just choked on my breakfast. Please tell me you're not serious.Crazy


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Mar 12, 2014, 5:08 AM)


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 12, 2014, 5:33 AM
Post #212 of 261 (1221 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

theonlyski wrote:
kuai43 wrote:
3) There were alternative landing options for the jumper and none for the pilot.

I almost just choked on my breakfast. Please tell me you're not serious.Crazy

Nice substantive reply. Crazy I suppose you're implying that he could make a go around. Or are you saying he could divert to 34L?

The Cessna pilot was on an organized pattern final. The jumper intruded by not being situationally-aware, freezing up, or not having the skills to avoid landing on the runway.

Good luck with your Fruit Loops. Wink


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 12, 2014, 6:13 AM
Post #213 of 261 (1162 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
chuckakers wrote:


From those points he then draws a conclusion about what the jumper should have done and further uses those conclusions to explain how he would have done things differently to avoid the collision.

Just to be clear. Are you saying you would not have done anything different to avoid the collision?

Nope. I'm suggesting that you draw some pretty damning conclusions from nothing more than a few photographs that don't paint the situation in its entirely.

For example you insist that the jumper was looking at the aircraft long before the collision and then use that assumption to explain how you would have done things differently. Well Skippy you don't know that the jumper was looking at the plane. It is entirely possible that he was looking at something else or "looking" at the plane without "seeing" it. A plane coming directly at someone has a very small visual signature and little if any perceived movement that make it difficult or impossible to make out, especially when it's at nearly ground level against a cluttered background. Other factors include the jumper's eyesight, color perception, and a variety of things that you have absolutely no details about, making it virtually impossible to draw the conclusions you have drawn with any accuracy.

That's just one of several comments you have made that you can not substantiate, yet you state them as fact and use them to pick the guy to pieces.

Things can be vastly different when you're the cowboy in the saddle. Might want to consider that before you throw other people under the herd.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 12, 2014, 7:04 AM
Post #214 of 261 (1120 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
If the pilot had a medical it never would have happened. That is the lesson to be learned according to Kallend so let's just go with that then.

Be safe!

Incorrect. My statement was that if the pilot without a medical had stayed on the ground like he should have done, it would never have happened.




gunpaq  (D 11214)

Mar 12, 2014, 8:53 AM
Post #216 of 261 (1024 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe this has already been answered:

Was the pilot in questioned based at that particular airport and were there scheduled parachute operations being conducted at this particular airport?

The other question is where exactly were the plane and parchutist location/s at point of impact? Did the impact occur over the runway or to the side and off the runway?

Just a few questions I had about the incident.

We had on occassion pilots flying into our airport for touch and goes during parachute operations which was all very legal, etc., hoewever a good many of these pilots were oblivious to the fact that there were pacrachute operation being conducted even though the drop zone was charted and a daily NOTAM filed. Fortunately we never had an incident or a nearum-scarum.




craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 12, 2014, 9:14 AM
Post #218 of 261 (1000 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gunpaq] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

gunpaq wrote:
Maybe this has already been answered:

Was the pilot in questioned based at that particular airport and were there scheduled parachute operations being conducted at this particular airport?

other question is where exactly were the plane and parchutist location/s at point of impact? Did the impact occur over the runway or to the side and off the runway?

The
Just a few questions I had about the incident.

To your first question yes to both. Sharon(pilot) was a local there and this airport had skydive operations.

To your second the collision occurred over the displaced threshold. I had judged he was a little off center line(not that I was intending to implying blame only to say it MAY have complicated jumpers decisions) but was quickly and harshly corrected that the wear pattern in the pictures in actually a drainage ditch in what can be mistaken for the runway?




craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 12, 2014, 10:00 AM
Post #220 of 261 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:

.

For example you insist that the jumper was looking at the aircraft long before the collision and then use that assumption to explain how you would have done things differently. Well Skippy you don't know that the jumper was looking at the plane. It is entirely possible that he was looking at something else or "looking" at the plane without "seeing" it. A plane coming directly at someone has a very small visual signature and little if any perceived movement that make it difficult or impossible to make out, especially when it's at nearly ground level against a cluttered background. Other factors include the jumper's eyesight, color perception, and a variety of things that you have absolutely no details about, making it virtually impossible to draw the conclusions you have drawn with any accuracy.

That's just one of several comments you have made that you can not substantiate, yet you state them as fact and use them to pick the guy to pieces.

Things can be vastly different when you're the cowboy in the saddle. Might want to consider that before you throw other people under the herd.

I was going to correct you that I never said "saw" but then reread your post and realized you made my point for me.

When I saw the pictures and video and realized he was not crossing at a 90 like I had read several times, the VERY first thing that popped into my head was a boating accident here last year. A woman was standing on an aluminum canopy/deck of a pontoon and hit her head on a high bridge sending her to the hospital. When in talking with the owner I asked him what way she was facing. I found out she hit her forehead and was standing that direction. My rely was "Oh, so the same direction her eyes were facing"

Thank you for your explanation on how hard it is to see planes. With Demos and Base jumps and a few parties/events as an exception, most of my canopy landings are next to an active runway. This is not an unusual thing (in my mind) to have to make sure it is clear before crossing. And I certainly have opted to crosswind along side at one time or another.

It seems some Skydivers think they own the airport. Listen I was not trying to argue. I used words like my opinion, In my mind, in my eyes. I have put forth an opinion in part hoping to force it to be corrected. When my opinion is not liked or appreciated I get accused of arguing. I was really only arguing with Kallend earlier. I am now going to come across arguing with you put only trying to defend my position that you attacked. A lot of worthless posts by me now as a result. I have side by side poster paper printed photos that I used to look at angles and simply shared that info as so many acted like he was crossing the runway perpendicular(x) when in fact he had quite an element to the y which means he was damn near looking at it and should have seen it. Not like he had to turn his head to see it as if it was coming the opposite direction . And when you cross a runway low you look first.

I have stated my opinion is that he was to focused on the jumper he was following rather than to make his own decisions and in part that that other jumper led the lower experienced jumper into it possibly(possibly means my opinion in this case Not fact). I am sorry you do not like that opinion and claim that I think of it as FACT to argue. At this point we are just wasting space and it is fine that you disagree with others opinions. We do not all have to agree. I have contributed to the wastefulness by responding to your argument and am part of the problem as a result. You do not feel it was the jumpers fault. That is fine. I do. That is not fine but alright. It will not let me edit at this point. Sorry. Oh and I do think the pilots was at fault here. Before you assume as fact I don't. But this is a skydiving forum and we can only change our element so no lesson to be learned by not taking responsibility as a jumper. Like driving a motorcycle. Expect no one to see you and you might not get run over as easy. Don't put yourself in someones blind spot even though it is legal.

Now I will get back to Pprune.org on a good discussion with varying opinions about MH370 where everyone welcomes the differing opinions out there. Even on POA with the exception of their version of the Professor people are allowed to voice an opinion. Oh an onlyski if you read this can you point on the arial photo were your buddy was standing when he took pictures. It is for my own use. I have a good idea but it could help me to correct an angle if I am wrong. You can PM and I will leave it off this forum if you wish


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 12, 2014, 10:10 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 12, 2014, 10:53 AM
Post #221 of 261 (897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers wrote:
kallend wrote:
Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.
That is a FACT.

There have been plenty of other airplane/skydiver collisons that happened with properly certified pilots.

So that is no magic talisman that protects them from screwing up.

That is a FACT.

He was properly certified. He just shouldn't have been "exercising the privileges" (FAA-speak) of his certificate. He was screwing up the instant he took off, and for the entire flight.

Hard to have a mid-air when you're on the ground, like this pilot should have been.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 12, 2014, 11:03 AM)






teason  (D 18902)

Mar 12, 2014, 12:51 PM
Post #224 of 261 (793 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Landing aircraft (the airplane) has priority. For a jumper to land on the centerline of a runway is idiotic. The parachute is far more maneuverable than the airplane as defined by it's ability to change direction, and area needed for a safe landing.

I'm not sure about the US but in Canada there is a clear hierarchy as to who has the right of way in the air. Parachutes have the right of way over an aircraft because an aircraft can control altitude while a parachute cannot. Parachutes cannot abort landings.

Looking at the pics, it seems that the incident happened at the approach. When a parachute is high over a plane on approach it is difficult to see, especially over a built up area. Also, this jumpers final was over road and power lines, making it more distracting and reducing awareness. (Not to mention wrong, but that's another part of the issue)
The pilot would've been in a much better position to see the jumper and perform a go around but failed to do so. It is his responsibility to be aware of the notams at any airport he flies to and should've been on the lookout for parachutes.

But it isn't quite so cut and dry...

Did the pilot have a current flight supplement(or whatever the US equivalent is)? Old supplements can give outdated frequencies.
Does the airstrip allow NORDO (no radio)?
Was the jump pilot transmitting to area traffic?
Does the pilot suffer from macular degeneration? (Common for people of that age and not always tested for on medicals)
what is the DZ's policy for approaches over the runway (if any)?

Pilots choosing to land at an active DZ simply MUST be on the ball. Sure, the skydiver landing on the runway is a no no and he violated the policies in place at practically every DZ I've ever been too.
However.
Most near collisions I've seen have been from midfield down winds. It's the moment when an established pilot procedure puts a plane closest to jumpers while at 1000'. It's why we are so strict with patterns at our DZ; not all pilots have sufficient awareness and it falls on the jumpers to ensure that they're away for air traffic. They may have the right of way but being "dead right" is not an advisable course of action.

As a skydiver, I'm interested in what the jumper did wrong so that I may train my jumpers better. As a DZO, I want to know what the pilot did wrong so that I can help the local flying community stay safe.

I see them both at fault but I believe that the pilot is legally at fault. Or at least he would be in Canada; in spite of the glaring mistake the jumper made.

Even a car must yield to a jaywalker.


champu  (D 28302)

Mar 12, 2014, 12:57 PM
Post #225 of 261 (782 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
My statement was that if the pilot without a medical had stayed on the ground like he should have done, it would never have happened.

You're absolutely correct, but at the expense of your statement being useful.

People don't get hit by a plane because on one occasion they screw up and cross an active runway too low. People get hit by a plane because their jump to jump routine for a particular dropzone (endorsed by the dropzone or otherwise) is to fly patterns that result in them crossing the runway too low enough times for it to eventually catch up with them. Circumstantially removing the one instance where it does catch up to them would not actually solve the underlying problem.


Channman  (C 36498)

Mar 12, 2014, 1:12 PM
Post #226 of 261 (1361 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

"...was landing in the displaced threshold..."

I wasn't aware this incident occurred within the displaced threshold, which is commonly used for takeoff and or roll out after landing. I posted a photo previously of the airpark but don't recall any markings or cones designating this area. I'll have to take a new look at it.

In any event, I suppose the DZ has a designated flight pattern for their jumpers. I know that several flight schools located at Houston Southwest (KAXH) give their students instruction of remaining clear of Skydive Spaceland (TE88) and are also told to monitor Houston Approach 134.45 for DZ activity when flying in the area.

I wonder what the DZ could do maybe with the help of the FAA, to notify and help educate local pilots about the dangers of operating in and around Drop Zones. Instructors could do a better job of helping to educate new pilots concerning DZ locations and not to fly through them just because you can. I've had to pull early due to a P4 Lancair fly into my path at roughly 4,000' directly over the DZ. Damn thing is I knew the guy as he keeps his airplane at the same hanger I fly tail wheels.

I suppose the important thing is no one was killed or seriously injured and will have the opportunity to learn from this incident and hopefully not repeat it.












craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 12, 2014, 2:03 PM
Post #232 of 261 (1266 views)
Shortcut
Re: [teason] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

teason wrote:
It is his responsibility to be aware of the notams at any airport he flies to and should've been on the lookout for parachutes.

But it isn't quite so cut and dry...

Did the pilot have a current flight supplement(or whatever the US equivalent is)? Old supplements can give outdated frequencies.

This pilot was local to this airport. (not trying to be rude trying to keep word count down Wink)




DBCOOPER  (D 24112)

Mar 12, 2014, 5:08 PM
Post #234 of 261 (1096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
One still wonders WHY he didn't get a medical if he was actually fit to fly.

Probably had something wrong with him that might medically disqualify him. If you don't get a medical you can't get disqualified and you can still fly light sport. You can be disqualified and still be fit to fly, you just have to jump thru a lot of hoops at your expense to get Kansas City to sprinkle holy water on it. Saying he didn't have a medical caused this incident could be true. Saying whoever spotted the load caused the accident could be just as true. Or for that matter if the jump pilot slept for 30 more seconds that day it never would have happened. Personally I don't think the pilot caused this incident, he just gambled and lost, and the insurance company probably won.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 12, 2014, 5:52 PM
Post #235 of 261 (1069 views)
Shortcut
Re: [teason] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

teason wrote:
I'm not sure about the US but in Canada there is a clear hierarchy as to who has the right of way in the air. Parachutes have the right of way over an aircraft because an aircraft can control altitude while a parachute cannot.

I believe that is entirely incorrect.
If you have better information, I am quite willing to be corrected.

This is just the same as the case for the USA: I quite agree with your feelings -- many of us instinctively feel that it should be the case, that parachutes have more limited options in where they can go, and so most aircraft should make way for us.

While it may be good airmanship to take into account the capabilities of others sharing the air, nowhere is it written into law.

The aerial right of way in Canada is in CAR 602.19.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/...part6/602.htm#602_19

As in the US rules, a variety of different aircraft are mentioned, but parachutes are not aircraft, and are never specifically mentioned.

Parachutes simply do not exist in the US and Canadian right of way rules. (As I mentioned way back in this long thread, I found that Aussie and NZ right of way rules do include parachutes.)


teason  (D 18902)

Mar 12, 2014, 6:56 PM
Post #236 of 261 (1023 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Hmmm, I'll double check. I'm sure I read it; I recall it listed hang gliders and balloons in the mix.
Thanks Peter


teason  (D 18902)

Mar 12, 2014, 7:02 PM
Post #237 of 261 (1018 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Local pilot, eh?
That's even more disconcerting. :(


teason  (D 18902)

Mar 12, 2014, 7:07 PM
Post #238 of 261 (1012 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Didn't find the Canadian stuff (getting late and the baby's fussing)

But here:
91.113
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories—
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

Conversation with our hang gliding instructor some years back mentioned that para gliders are considered gliders and parachutes fit it that category as well.

Not an official ruling but I believe there may be precedent somewhere for it.

:)

Edited to add
CAR 602.19 out lines right of way. Gliders yield to balloons, powered aircraft yield to gliders.
(Couldn't cut and past the section for some reason.)

The confusion comes from defining a parachute as a glider.


(This post was edited by teason on Mar 12, 2014, 7:31 PM)


ufk22  (D 16168)

Mar 13, 2014, 6:36 AM
Post #239 of 261 (862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Definition of displaced threshold on a runway
"A displaced threshold is a runway threshold located at a point other than the physical beginning or end of the runway. The portion of the runway so displaced may be used for takeoff but not for landing. Landing aircraft may use the displaced area on the opposite end for roll out.

Most often the offset threshold is in place to give arriving aircraft clearance over an obstruction while still allowing departing aircraft the maximum amount of runway available. A displaced threshold may also be introduced if a beginning section of the runway is no longer able to sustain the continuous impact from landing aircraft. Aircraft are expected to land beyond the displaced threshold. Departing aircraft are permitted to use the displaced section of the runway for takeoffs or landing rollouts because those aircraft are not impacting the runway with the force of a landing aircraft."

My take on this (I'm not a local)...
The pilot was local and should have known where the end of the runway is.
The plane was ascending when he hit the parachute. If the pilot was landing past the marked threshold, he would have been descending. The pilot was landing way too short, actually landing far short of the end of the runway. If he had been at the proper altitude to land beyond the threshold, he would have safely passed over the parachute.
Pilot error (whether his medical was current or not).


(This post was edited by ufk22 on Mar 13, 2014, 8:43 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 13, 2014, 9:05 AM
Post #240 of 261 (781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [teason] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

teason wrote:
Didn't find the Canadian stuff (getting late and the baby's fussing)

But here:
91.113
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories—
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

Conversation with our hang gliding instructor some years back mentioned that para gliders are considered gliders and parachutes fit it that category as well.

Not an official ruling but I believe there may be precedent somewhere for it.

...

The confusion comes from defining a parachute as a glider.

Powered parachutes are specifically included. Parachutes (unpowered) are not.

I think it dangerous to assume that (unpowered) parachutes are included but omitted from mention by some sort of oversight, when they have a separate section of the FARS dedicated just to parachute operations.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 13, 2014, 9:07 AM)


teason  (D 18902)

Mar 13, 2014, 9:26 AM
Post #241 of 261 (781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Hope I wasn't misunderstood.

I'm not pointing towards powered parachutes and saying that's us, merely showing that the right of way goes to balloons, unpowered then powered. Parachutes are the closest to gliders in this hierarchy as they constitute unpowered flight.

Reading the pilot forums, the majority seem to share this perspective.

I was reacting to Diablo's stance that the aircraft had the right of way. The perspective isn't supported but the rather the opposite is indicated.

Powered flight yields to all other traffic. A parachute is unpowered ergo has the right of way. If, however, the pilot was unable to yield the right of way then he would not be at fault e.g. Cut off by a low turning parachute or any other situation that the few seconds of images do not show.

A friend of mine once hit a pedestrian and killed him. The man walked out from between parked cars straight into her path. She didn't have any time to stop. Yes pedestrians (just like parachutists)technically have the right of way but it's not always as cut and dry.

There's always a chain. I'm sure there are multiple issues that lead to this. Pilot forums seem to be bothered by the fact that the pilot did multiple touch and goes while skydiving activities were going on. It's the same offense that we skydivers have when we speculate about the final being over an active runway. A common sense no-no.


diablopilot  (D License)

Mar 13, 2014, 9:35 AM
Post #242 of 261 (770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [teason] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 13, 2014, 9:52 AM
Post #243 of 261 (750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [teason] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think anyone else misunderstood it. Don't worry


ufk22  (D 16168)

Mar 13, 2014, 9:56 AM
Post #244 of 261 (745 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.
The fact that there are laws against jaywalking doesn't mean that cars have the right to run down pedestrians, but that whole discussion can go on without me.
In this case, the parachutist was NOT flying over or landing on the runway. He was landing past the legal end of the runway and was low enough that the plane should has passed over the top of him if the pilot was observing the marked threshold.


Boogers

Mar 13, 2014, 10:06 AM
Post #245 of 261 (718 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
Boogers wrote:
kallend wrote:
Boogers wrote:
kallend wrote:
Had the pilot been following the law he wouldn't have been in the air in the first place and no accident would have happened.
That is a FACT.

There have been plenty of other airplane/skydiver collisons that happened with properly certified pilots.

So that is no magic talisman that protects them from screwing up.

That is a FACT.

He was properly certified. He just shouldn't have been "exercising the privileges" (FAA-speak) of his certificate. He was screwing up the instant he took off, and for the entire flight.

Hard to have a mid-air when you're on the ground, like this pilot should have been.

With an expired medical, he was not "properly certified".

Per the FAA's web site his airman certificate has not been revoked and there's no expiration date. His medical expired in February 2012 so he was not authorized to "exercise the privileges" of his certificate per FAR Part 63.23. You can look up the exact wording for yourself.

I don't need to look it up - you just made my own argument for me. Without the valid medical, the certificate does not authorize him to fly. Therefore, he's not properly certificated. You have to possess BOTH documents - they go together.

Claiming that this pilot is properly certificated to fly, is like saying that a drunk driver who has been ordered by a judge not to drive a car, is still a "properly licensed driver", because the expiration date on his license hasn't been reached yet.

It's playing word games, to avoid admitting the truth.


Boogers

Mar 13, 2014, 10:11 AM
Post #246 of 261 (712 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

diablopilot wrote:
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.

So how is it that all these hundreds of drop zones in American manage to operate legally, all in close proximity to runways, which require parachutists to cross over them at "low" altitudes?

There must be something wrong with your theory...

Are you sure you're not misinterpreting that "2,000 feet" rule, which applies only to crossing airports OTHER THAN ones where parachute operations occur?


(This post was edited by Boogers on Mar 13, 2014, 10:14 AM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 13, 2014, 1:29 PM
Post #247 of 261 (625 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ufk22] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

ufk22 wrote:
The pilot was landing way too short, actually landing far short of the end of the runway. If he had been at the proper altitude to land beyond the threshold, he would have safely passed over the parachute.
Pilot error (whether his medical was current or not).

We'll never know whether the pilot would have touched down past the threshold. Remember, an airplane is a bit like a good swooper: The C-170 could be 5' off the ground, 400' from the end of the runway, and still touch down on the runway.

And because the displaced threshold was not likely there due to different weight bearing capacity or surface, and only due to obstacle clearance reasons, I bet that local pilots don't treat the runway end markings as a mandatory requirement. It may not be legally required. If the land owner allowed it, any strip of grass could be used for takeoffs and landings. That's as best I know, unless there's some regulation I don't know about.


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 13, 2014, 1:38 PM
Post #248 of 261 (610 views)
Shortcut
Re: [teason] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

teason wrote:
I'm not pointing towards powered parachutes and saying that's us, merely showing that the right of way goes to balloons, unpowered then powered. Parachutes are the closest to gliders in this hierarchy as they constitute unpowered flight.

Reading the pilot forums, the majority seem to share this perspective.

I agree that while pilots may share this perspective, and many skydivers will too, I do not see any legal support. Many of us do agree that it is good aviation practice to take into account the needs and capabilities of others in the air.

But legally, skydivers aren't mentioned. (In the US or Canadian rules, which are written much the same.) A "glider" is a certain class of aircraft, requiring certain certifications, instruments, and a glider pilot license (The actual terminology for the license differs slightly in the US vs. Canada.) A glider doesn't include a hang-glider, or a paraglider, both of which have their own specific rules.

It's not like I knew all this off by heart -- I had to do a bunch of digging in the rules too, to try to understand what's actually in the rules, not just what we think is in there.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 13, 2014, 1:42 PM
Post #249 of 261 (601 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

pchapman wrote:

And because the displaced threshold was not likely there due to different weight bearing capacity or surface, and only due to obstacle clearance reasons

Are skydivers under canopy considered obstacles (since they are not considered aircraft)? Wink


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 13, 2014, 1:43 PM)


teason  (D 18902)

Mar 13, 2014, 1:57 PM
Post #250 of 261 (581 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It's not like I knew all this off by heart -- I had to do a bunch of digging in the rules too, to try to understand what's actually in the rules, not just what we think is in there.

I agree, the regs are quite vague. The fact is that parachutes are not specifically mentioned in either US or Canada. The spirit is, however, quite clear. Unfortunately without an official precedent to cite it can't be considered as anything more than conjecture in this forum.

I think that with the spirit being powered aircraft yield to non powered, a non powered parachute would have the right of way over a powered aircraft.

Certainly a powered parachute with an engine failure would get priority (as per the regs) and isn't that basically what we are?

Again, it's not spelled out but I believe it's implicit.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 13, 2014, 2:42 PM
Post #251 of 261 (1713 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 (1627 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 (968 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 (942 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 (940 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 (899 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 (788 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 (621 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 (578 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 (508 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.



Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)