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



Channman  (C 36498)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:42 AM
Post #177 of 261 (1627 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

https://www.google.com/...,1100m/data=!3m1!1e3

Maybe this as already been posted if so...My Bad. Google view of airport from SkyVector.


format  (B 15348)

Mar 11, 2014, 9:05 AM
Post #178 of 261 (1588 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
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.
Oh, come on, had the parachutist not have been crossing the touch&go plane run - no accident would have happened


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 11, 2014, 9:38 AM
Post #179 of 261 (1527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:

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.

You are a victim of a specious argument. You are educated. I would have expected more from you.

And the jumper would have been hit by a pilot with a current medical. Your move...


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 11:50 AM
Post #180 of 261 (1361 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
kallend wrote:

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.

You are a victim of a specious argument. You are educated. I would have expected more from you.

And the jumper would have been hit by a pilot with a current medical. Your move...

Nonsense.

You ASSUME that all he'd done is forget some paperwork and was otherwise fine. There is no evidence to support that.

The FACT is that without the paperwork he shouldn't have been in the air at all.

If he was sitting on the ground (as he should have been) wishing he were in the air, the accident couldn't have happened.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 11:52 AM
Post #181 of 261 (1361 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
kallend wrote:

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.

You are a victim of a specious argument. You are educated. I would have expected more from you.

And the jumper would have been hit by a pilot with a current medical. Your move...

Would he?

That too is speculation -

I get what you're saying & why...but I agree with Doc, take the element out that shouldn't have been there and it's a non incident.

Now obviously it DID happen, and in the 'real world' we do have to contend with things like this.

And like the old commercial use to say 'you can be right...DEAD RIGHT'

One thing 'we' need to take away from this - aside from 'fly defensively'....It's kinda important to have your ducks in a row - just in case - you're involved in something unfortunate / unforeseen - especially when damage and or injury results.

Switch it around for a second, what if...the pilot were legal but the jumpers reserve was out of date, he pulled low & he blew a .09 on a breathalyzer? Again - had there been proper compliance - no conflict.

Obviously I'm not saying following the rules to the letter prevents accidents...just that when there IS one, NOT having everything in order turns the questionable or marginal calls - against you.

Because on the most basic level - you shouldn't have even BEEN there...CYA


diablopilot  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 11:54 AM
Post #182 of 261 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers 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

No stones, but...

1. It is the pilot's responsibility to insure the airspace is clear before rolling out for takeoff.

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

Unless there is something beyond what is visible in the photos, the pilot of the plane in this incident simply failed to see and avoid a less maneuverable craft.

Your post is inaccurate. The parachute is not defined as an aircraft. Landing aircraft (the airplane) has priority. For a jumper to land on the centerline of a runway is idiotic. The parachute is far more maneuverable than the airplane as defined by it's ability to change direction, and area needed for a safe landing.

Who was to blame in this incident? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CXVt2OpcGY


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 11:56 AM
Post #183 of 261 (1358 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

format wrote:
kallend wrote:
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.
Oh, come on, had the parachutist not have been crossing the touch&go plane run - no accident would have happened

Have I said otherwise? (See post #139, this thread).


Parachutist used poor judgment; pilot apparently committed an unlawful act AND used poor judgment.

Plenty of blame to go around but my guess is that the NTSB and FAA will come down really heavily on the pilot.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 11, 2014, 12:03 PM)


diablopilot  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 12:07 PM
Post #184 of 261 (1335 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

grimmie wrote:
This incident just set airport access issues back into the dark ages. IMHO

This. And anyone who can't see that the parachutist bears the brunt of the responsibility in this incident is helping to push skydivers off airports.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 12:48 PM
Post #185 of 261 (1295 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You ASSUME that all he'd done is forget some paperwork and was otherwise fine. There is no evidence to support that.

The FACT is that without the paperwork he shouldn't have been in the air at all.

If he was sitting on the ground (as he should have been) wishing he were in the air, the accident couldn't have happened.

And if I was under canopy landing there this accident would not have happened. That is my opinion that I value as FACT.

Regardless of whether the pilot had truly lost his medical and was landing in the displaced threshold, I still would not have landed right in front of him even though it was his fault for being there. To treat this as nothing more and to learn nothing as a skydiver because the pilot did not have a medical and that was the cause of the accident is insane. But you know what they say about insane people. They never think THEY actually are.

Again this is not speakers corner. Stop trying to fight just to prove you are right. Everyone got YOUR point a long time ago, however you are struggling to get the theirs. For someone who has a goal to make him look smarter than the next....


edited to add. And you are no doubt thinking to yourself that others are so dumb or inferior they can not comprehend what your saying. What you fail to realize is that it is not really that hard to comprehend and people are getting your point. You can keep up the attitude and scoffing inside that they just don't get it but they do. Disagreeing with you that there is more important aspects to discuss does not mean people do not comprehend you or are saying you are wrong. Silly maybe.

I have jumped with an out of date reserve at many DZ's, sometimes with the DZO's knowledge. More than once I was told to pull my card out, out it in the truck and shut up. Twice the first time I was ever on the DZ and met the DZO. I should not have been there but I didn't get hit by a plane because I was. And then they changed the rules later anyway regarding dates. I have pencil packed. Didn't get hit by a plane.
But I think everyone does get your point as it is overly simple but they just want to have a more educated discussion to how this could be prevented


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 11, 2014, 1:30 PM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 1:56 PM
Post #186 of 261 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Regardless of whether the pilot had truly lost his medical and was landing in the displaced threshold, I still would not have landed right in front of him because it was his fault for being there. To treat this as nothing more and to learn nothing as a skydiver because the pilot did not have a medical and that was the cause of the accident is insane.

I wouldn't have landed there either - nor would most any experienced jumper.

I'm kind of envisioning the skydiver found himself in a corner and started running out of options before realizing they were necessary...things like 'experience', 'anticipation', 'learning curve'...all come to mind.

In the video interview he states he made certain maneuvers to insure he wasn't hit by the prop...should have been doing THAT 500' higher, but ok.

Same interview has the pilot saying he 'saved his life' by quick maneuvering etc...yeah ok maybe.

There are tons of 'links in the chain' of disaster that if broken would have prevented this...but again, on the most basic of levels, if the pilot had not been at the controls, as dictated by regulation - there's no chain period.

Again...just speculating - but 'old guy' without a current medical for whatever reason, takes the bird up on a bright & sunny for few orbits around the patch, out in podunk where traffic is near zip - what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Well...THIS can.

And again - there IS much to learn from 'every' aspect of the incident.

From 'our' perspective, ya gotta be aware what's going on around you & anticipate well ahead. From a physics standpoint, 'we' usually lose all 'ties' at the 'same place & time' thing.

But no question in MY mind anyway...the guy not in compliance with federal regulation started the ball rolling when he opened the hangar & fired up the Cessna.

I'm a fairly competent pilot, but not current & no medical...so it's simple, I don't fly...it stupid to take the chance.

I too have jumped with an out of date reserve...doesn't make one 'less safe' on a skill level - however it DOES say something about the person in regard to attitude for observing the 'rules'.

More often than not it's no big deal - but when an issue does come up, it just better to be in the green on everything...stupid to take the chance.

So...yup, either person could / should have avoided the collision.
Easier for the jumper to do so looking down than the driver of a high wing in motion, close to the ground - looking ahead (not up).

And I agree with Diablo -this one will sting 'us' more than 'them'. We're ALL lucky no one was killed!


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Mar 11, 2014, 2:22 PM)


grimmie  (D 18890)

Mar 11, 2014, 2:58 PM
Post #187 of 261 (1135 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Yup, my phone rang off the hook yesterday. Airport management, local pilots...lots of explaining.Mad


grue  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 3:04 PM
Post #188 of 261 (1126 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida? [In reply to] Can't Post

diablopilot wrote:
grimmie wrote:
This incident just set airport access issues back into the dark ages. IMHO

This. And anyone who can't see that the parachutist bears the brunt of the responsibility in this incident is helping to push skydivers off airports.

I think this is going to be a case of "jumper is more to blame, but the brunt of the system is going to fall on the pilot"


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 3:17 PM
Post #189 of 261 (1116 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:

And if I was under canopy landing there this accident would not have happened. That is my opinion that I value as FACT.

Bit of a skygod attitude there, Chief. I think we all can name a bunch of dead skydivers who had "it can't happen to me" attitudes. Some of them used to post right here.


(This post was edited by kallend on Mar 11, 2014, 3:59 PM)


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 3:59 PM
Post #190 of 261 (1078 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:

Bit of a skygod attitude there, Chief. I think we all name a bunch of dead skydivers who had "it can't happen to me" attitudes. Some of them used to post here.

Perhaps it is arrogant. But it is a bit different than Roger letting me swoop the unlit object riddled swimming/retention pond at 11 pm. I can expect an attitude for that one. This jumper stared right at a plane during his final approach and elected to pull off the ultimate "object fixation" example. And then just to make sure he flew half brakes during the final stretch to make sure he didn't get out of the way. I have done a lot worse things to be called a skygod than stating with confidence that it is my opinion that I would chose a different course of actions than to fly into an airplane traveling down the runway.

The jumper got sucked in by the jumper he was following. I wonder if the one right ahead would have extended his base leg out and just paralleled runway do you think the 2nd one would have still chose to turn right into the path of the plane? Or if they were going to cross they may as well done it early and went for the peas. Unexcusable to make that final turn in right there. Just to avoid a walk? Good thing the pilot was at fault or the jumper might actually feel bad about it.


SoCalJumper  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 4:08 PM
Post #191 of 261 (1062 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I am wondering if a plane moving at tree top level fast off in the distance is even visible to a jumper as if he is looking down at 1,000 feet.

No discussion is even mentioned about an incoming plane closing fast.

I would not be surprised if that was a very hard thing to see. Low and coming at you fast.

at 1500 feet a plane even if it is seen and appears to be going in one direction were it to turn and then converge on an intended lading point used by two different pilots may be difficult to see.

also what if it is traveling in a straight line at a low attitude directly at the point of this incident, how visible is it really?


(This post was edited by SoCalJumper on Mar 11, 2014, 4:13 PM)


jclalor  (B 33202)

Mar 11, 2014, 4:58 PM
Post #192 of 261 (1005 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess this illustrates exactly what happens when a canopy accidentally deploys and snags on the plane.


airtwardo  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:08 PM
Post #193 of 261 (985 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SoCalJumper] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

SoCalJumper wrote:
I am wondering if a plane moving at tree top level fast off in the distance is even visible to a jumper as if he is looking down at 1,000 feet.

No discussion is even mentioned about an incoming plane closing fast.

I would not be surprised if that was a very hard thing to see. Low and coming at you fast.

at 1500 feet a plane even if it is seen and appears to be going in one direction were it to turn and then converge on an intended lading point used by two different pilots may be difficult to see.

also what if it is traveling in a straight line at a low attitude directly at the point of this incident, how visible is it really?


Pilot 'trick' ~ relax your eyes so that you're not focusing hard on any one object or area...kind of take in the whole 'big picture' - almost like looking at a landscape painting in it's entirety.

Then allow you eyes to focus in on the 'things that are different' as in things moving.

With a little practice you can go back & forth between the 'two modes' pretty fast. Once you get the hang of it, you will start to quickly have your attention drawn to cars on the road, trains on a track, aircraft moving below and off in the distance.

I don't have the greatest eyesight anymore but I can see birds flying below me from 2 grand - the movement draws the attention.

It's a skill - it can be learned and sharpened.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:13 PM
Post #194 of 261 (981 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SoCalJumper] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

SoCalJumper wrote:
I am wondering if a plane moving at tree top level fast off in the distance is even visible to a jumper as if he is looking down at 1,000 feet.

No discussion is even mentioned about an incoming plane closing fast.

I would not be surprised if that was a very hard thing to see. Low and coming at you fast.

at 1500 feet a plane even if it is seen and appears to be going in one direction were it to turn and then converge on an intended lading point used by two different pilots may be difficult to see.

also what if it is traveling in a straight line at a low attitude directly at the point of this incident, how visible is it really?

From my point of view it doesn't really matter if he saw it looking down from 1000 ft much less 1500. But the first photo shows the jumper finishing a left hand turn at low altitude. And to top it off he is looking at the plane in the photo. He is not flying perpendicuar to the runway like so many others have mentioned. The camera is not shooting ACROSS the runway straight at all and many skydivers on here have had problems realizing where they are in regards to the threshold and that he actually had quite a bit of elememt to his flight down the runway. If that carmera turned 90 to runway for a shot it would be well behind where the plane is in the third picture. Imagine a line from pov toward road behind aircraft and look at canopy direction compared to that line. Makes me wonder how some people can spot(or helps me understand just how they spot) This guy is Not flying perpendicular at all! And at 1500 ft he may be more worried about other canopies than for that airplane but he is on final looking right at it he just flew into it!

Now someone can question my take on the jumpers pattern but even if that is just a left hand correction and he was on a longer final he is still quartering across the runway at BEST. The video also shows that all three jumpers came across at an angle so they didn't even have to swivel there head much to see it. I would say he was closer to parallel in his crossing than to perpendicular. But regardless of how much there is no doubt that he was closer to west than NW as has been implyed


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 11, 2014, 5:16 PM)


SoCalJumper  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:43 PM
Post #195 of 261 (935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
he just flew into it!


ok

Point I'm trying to make is a factual recreation of exactly what happened, not what these pictures showed what happened.

Both failed to see and avoid.

What I'd like it to know more and that is my point of view.


(This post was edited by SoCalJumper on Mar 11, 2014, 5:43 PM)


DBCOOPER  (D 24112)

Mar 11, 2014, 5:55 PM
Post #196 of 261 (910 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

If it was a LSA there would have been no violation concerning his medical. In the near future there won't be a need for a medical to fly that plane.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 6:07 PM
Post #197 of 261 (904 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SoCalJumper] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

 After going back to look at planes yaw in relation to runway it also shows that the plane was well off the center of the runway and was correcting back before impact. That plane is close to the road and has a fair amount of rudder into it. It was yawing back toward the runway and didn't leave much room for the jumper on that side at all for an out.

Plane did a right 180 into a handstand and still landed well left of the runway. Unsure

Old man was not fit to fly after all. See Kallend, it was only a matter of time before I came around


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 6:40 PM
Post #198 of 261 (869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
From my point of view it doesn't really matter if he saw it looking down from 1000 ft much less 1500. But the first photo shows the jumper finishing a left hand turn at low altitude. And to top it off he is looking at the plane in the photo.

That depends on which photo in the series you started with, the first one or two in the full series the jumper was not looking at the plane. It wasn't until the second or third that he looked over and you can see him bracing for impact. We had to zoom in on the photos and I know they were of the highest quality of the pictures out there... as the guy that took them was showing them to me on his computer while everyone was waiting on the feds to show up.

craddock wrote:
He is not flying perpendicuar to the runway like so many others have mentioned. The camera is not shooting ACROSS the runway straight at all and many skydivers on here have had problems realizing where they are in regards to the threshold and that he actually had quite a bit of elememt to his flight down the runway. If that carmera turned 90 to runway for a shot it would be well behind where the plane is in the third picture. Imagine a line from pov toward road behind aircraft and look at canopy direction compared to that line. Makes me wonder how some people can spot(or helps me understand just how they spot) This guy is Not flying perpendicular at all! And at 1500 ft he may be more worried about other canopies than for that airplane but he is on final looking right at it he just flew into it!

Now someone can question my take on the jumpers pattern but even if that is just a left hand correction and he was on a longer final he is still quartering across the runway at BEST. The video also shows that all three jumpers came across at an angle so they didn't even have to swivel there head much to see it. I would say he was closer to parallel in his crossing than to perpendicular. But regardless of how much there is no doubt that he was closer to west than NW as has been implyed

I have no need to question your take on the jumpers pattern, no point in arguing it either. Some people just like to argue for the sake of wanting to be right.

craddock wrote:
After going back to look at planes yaw in relation to runway it also shows that the plane was well off the center of the runway and was correcting back before impact. That plane is close to the road and has a fair amount of rudder into it. It was yawing back toward the runway and didn't leave much room for the jumper on that side at all for an out.

Plane did a right 180 into a handstand and still landed well left of the runway. Unsure


That's another interesting take.

http://tinyurl.com/pq8ooop

Look at the photo, the buckets on the left side are the threshold markers for the left side of the runway. His engine and prop hit maybe just right of the center line with the fuselage coming to rest on the right side of the center line.


But what do I know? I was at the accident site, talked to the witnesses and being a pilot and skydiver myself, I agreed with the assessment of what happened and what the investigators came up with.


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Mar 11, 2014, 7:15 PM)


pchapman  (D 1014)

Mar 11, 2014, 6:50 PM
Post #199 of 261 (843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

[Edit: @ craddock, to make that clear]

I'm not sure whether your photo analysis is correct that the pilot was far off the center line of the runway on approach, nor that he landed "well left of the runway". Huh? He was somewhere right in the middle of it, although somewhere right of centerline, as far as I can tell in a few minutes of looking at the photos.

Fair bit of rudder? Huh? You see it for 1 photo before hitting the jumper, and it doesn't look particularly deflected.

But either way, who cares?

There is no requirement to land along the center of a runway and no fault or liability exists due to not doing so. Even if by good airmanship, it is normal to try for the center line.

Any deviation from perfect procedures does not somehow make someone unworthy to fly.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Mar 11, 2014, 6:53 PM)


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:07 PM
Post #200 of 261 (815 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

I was only saying it would possibly give the jumper(low exerience) some pause on a decision if the plane was edging closer to the road when looking for an out. Not that he had no right to be there.

Good god Unsure

And you missed Kallends comments if you didn't get the sarcasm


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)