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 10 11 Next page Last page  View All

chembree

Mar 10, 2014, 12:32 PM
Post #126 of 261 (1696 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 (1681 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 (1639 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 (1592 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 (1582 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 (1563 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 (1529 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 (1523 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 (1514 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 (1508 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 (1506 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 (1493 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 (1490 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 (1464 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 (1455 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 (1424 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 (1386 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 (1383 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 ž61.3 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 authorizationŚ

(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with ž61.19;


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 (1372 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 (1353 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 (1278 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 (1259 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 (1242 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 (1233 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


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)