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

AirCav  (D 3888)

Mar 9, 2014, 11:28 AM
Post #51 of 261 (2916 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 (2913 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 (2906 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 (2892 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 (2875 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 (2872 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 (2846 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 (2817 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 (2773 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 (2756 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 (2744 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 (2711 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 (2673 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 (2661 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 (2625 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 (2623 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 (2571 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 (2542 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 (2499 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 (2481 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 (2480 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 (2393 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 (2338 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 (2280 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 (2228 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)


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)