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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 Next page Last page  View All

gowlerk  (C 3196)

Mar 9, 2014, 8:14 AM
Post #26 of 261 (4782 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 (4720 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 (4683 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 (4633 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 (4563 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 (4508 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 (4508 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 (4449 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 (4440 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 (4391 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 (4381 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 (4333 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 (4325 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 (4317 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 (4297 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 (4279 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 (4266 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 (4265 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 (4241 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 (4229 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 (4216 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 (4161 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 (4143 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 (4136 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 (4062 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


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)