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

kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 9, 2014, 3:45 PM
Post #76 of 261 (2566 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 (2556 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 (2536 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 (2522 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 (2454 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 (2449 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 (2373 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 (2303 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 airports 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 (2281 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 (2194 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 (2151 views)
Shortcut
Post deleted by TomSpoon [In reply to]

 


FlyingRon

Mar 9, 2014, 8:04 PM
Post #87 of 261 (2098 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 (2097 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 (2077 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 (1993 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 - ‎27 minutes ago‎



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 (1906 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 (1869 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 (1860 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 (1852 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 (1738 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 (1714 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 (1661 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 (1651 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 (1580 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)


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)