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

 

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

charliemike

Mar 10, 2014, 3:50 PM
Post #151 of 261 (1808 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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


pBASEtobe

Mar 10, 2014, 3:52 PM
Post #152 of 261 (1798 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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

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

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




Premier cpoxon  (D 11665)
Moderator
Mar 10, 2014, 3:56 PM
Post #154 of 261 (1780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chembree] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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

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


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

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

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






PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:11 PM
Post #157 of 261 (1731 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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

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


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:19 PM
Post #158 of 261 (1710 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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

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

In one news report it said something like 150.


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:33 PM
Post #159 of 261 (1670 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post


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


Was that verified? Over how many years? Currency?


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:39 PM
Post #160 of 261 (1652 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Mar 10, 2014, 4:48 PM
Post #161 of 261 (1649 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Mar 10, 2014, 5:47 PM
Post #162 of 261 (1581 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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


AnalMike  (D 32642)

Mar 10, 2014, 6:24 PM
Post #163 of 261 (1519 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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


champu  (D 28302)

Mar 10, 2014, 6:51 PM
Post #164 of 261 (1484 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 10, 2014, 6:57 PM
Post #165 of 261 (1472 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

PiLFy wrote:

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


Was that verified? Over how many years? Currency?

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


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Mar 11, 2014, 1:58 AM
Post #166 of 261 (1260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

They were both on short final.

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

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

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


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


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 11, 2014, 2:59 AM
Post #167 of 261 (1238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

They were both on short final.

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

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

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

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


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


airdvr  (D 10977)

Mar 11, 2014, 3:28 AM
Post #168 of 261 (1211 views)
Shortcut
Re: [charliemike] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

^^This^^


PiLFy  (A License)

Mar 11, 2014, 4:26 AM
Post #169 of 261 (1183 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:25 AM
Post #170 of 261 (1131 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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






craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:39 AM
Post #173 of 261 (1001 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:

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

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

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


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Mar 11, 2014, 7:49 AM
Post #174 of 261 (979 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:25 AM
Post #175 of 261 (936 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

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

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

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

That is a FACT.


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

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)