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

craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:12 PM
Post #201 of 261 (1594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Well it is very nice to have some constructive input from someone in the know so we have a clearer view. Sorry it has to come with an attitude and defensiveness however. I have not responded to any of your posts(not sure I saw any) yet you act like I am trying to argue with you?? Great you have something to offer but sad it has to come at that price.

The reason I thought he was left of the center line is that there is a clear defined wear pattern in the grass. Both from aerial and from your buddies photos and he is clearly to the left of that line. So I was unaware that most of the planes were running on runway to the NE of the centerline and I apologize for assuming the most common path used was the centerline. That was 100% an assumption that could be made by others as well. That and the plane is yawing toward the wear pattern so it appeared headed that way. Even so the only reason I brought it up was that it could give pause for the low time jumper to take that out and land on the edge of runway if he felt it occupied. Tried to give him some excuse for making such decision. What was the winds like at the time?


But if the planes was in the center than my initial point that the side by road could have been an out remains.

So many questions people have asked so if you have all the answers that you want to share that would be great!

And yes it was actually the second pic that he is clearly looking not the first. Although it is hard to say in the first because he an quartering toward it and would not actually need to turn his head so that is unknown. What did he say?

What was his pattern if I was not correct? Find it hard to believe he turned right to final on that line and then corrected back to the left. If so he had all sorts of room to avoid that plane if he would have saw it. Why don't you answer the many question people have asked about his pattern rather than chastise my take on it and accuse me of wanting to argue with you? Do not mistake my earlier comments toward Kallend as wanting to argue. So not my intention.

I am sorry I have placed to much blame on the jumper here without your knowledge. I understand you may know him and this could cause defensiveness.


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 11, 2014, 7:19 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:14 PM
Post #202 of 261 (1586 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DBCOOPER] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

DBCOOPER wrote:
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.

But it wasn't an LSA, it was a violation, and the future hasn't arrived yet. Even if it arrives in the manner you expect (and that isn't certain) a pilot will still have to meet standards, just that an AME/MD won't have to certify it.

One still wonders WHY he didn't get a medical if he was actually fit to fly.


theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:40 PM
Post #203 of 261 (1533 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
Well it is very nice to have some constructive input from someone in the know so we have a clearer view. Sorry it has to come with an attitude and defensiveness however. I have not responded to any of your posts(not sure I saw any) yet you act like I am trying to argue with you??

Yet you're the one claiming the airplane is obviously far left of centerline and such.

craddock wrote:
The reason I thought he was left of the center line is that there is a clear defined wear pattern in the grass. Both from aerial and from your buddies photos and he is clearly to the left of that line. So I was unaware that most of the planes were running on runway to the NE of the centerline and I apologize for assuming the most common path used was the centerline. That was 100% an assumption that could be made by others as well. That and the plane is yawing toward the wear pattern so it appeared headed that way. Even so the only reason I brought it up was that it could give pause for the low time jumper to take that out and land on the edge of runway if he felt it occupied. Tried to give him some excuse for making such decision. What was the winds like at the time?

The wear pattern you're looking at and talking about is a drainage ditch between the runway and the taxiway/lz areas.

I took a snapshot of one of my landings there, you can see the ditch on the right of the runway and the centerline in the middle.

http://tinyurl.com/pdtl6jb

Yes I know I was a bit left but fear not, I landed in the center.

craddock wrote:
So many questions people have asked so if you have all the answers that you want to share that would be great!

I don't have all of the answers.

craddock wrote:
And yes it was actually the second pic that he is clearly looking not the first. Although it is hard to say in the first because he an quartering toward it and would not actually need to turn his head so that is unknown. What did he say?

I don't know what he said, dude just got taken out by an airplane and walked away without a scratch. He was back before the media showed up and we didn't feel the need to play 20 questions with him.

I'm not lashing out at you, I am just annoyed at all of the experts on here that 'know' the intricate details of what happened and the area based on some snap shots and google earth.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 11, 2014, 7:54 PM
Post #204 of 261 (1510 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

pchapman wrote:
[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.

Numerous points made by craddock in his analysis are lacking in substantiation. He claims the jumper was looking at the approaching plane from the first photo in the photo series when he couldn't possibly know if the jumper was looking at he plane or something else. He claims the jumper had time to make an avoidance maneuver when he doesn't know for sure exactly when the jump actually recognized the conflict - and on, and on.

From those points he then draws a conclusion about what the jumper should have done and further uses those conclusions to explain how he would have done things differently to avoid the collision.

I won't spend the time creating a chronology all of his ludicrous points, but suffice to say that his logic is based on a very subjective opinion of the incident.

Craddock, if you want to be taken seriously here among your peers, I offer a suggestion that you discern the difference between your perception of the facts and...the facts.


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:09 PM
Post #205 of 261 (1497 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:
pchapman wrote:
[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.

Numerous points made by craddock in his analysis are lacking in substantiation. He claims the jumper was looking at the approaching plane from the first photo in the photo series when he couldn't possibly know if the jumper was looking at he plane or something else. He claims the jumper had time to make an avoidance maneuver when he doesn't know for sure exactly when the jump actually recognized the conflict - and on, and on.

From those points he then draws a conclusion about what the jumper should have done and further uses those conclusions to explain how he would have done things differently to avoid the collision.

I won't spend the time creating a chronology all of his ludicrous points, but suffice to say that his logic is based on a very subjective opinion of the incident.

Craddock, if you want to be taken seriously here among your peers, I offer a suggestion that you discern the difference between your perception of the facts and...the facts.

Kallend got me fired up so I had to take the other side. Not to worried if you take me serious. But the jumper is flying 45 across the runway in the direction toward the plane and you are right. It is a possibility I would freeze and fly right into it myself. Hard to say. Jumper himself said he was trying to get small to get speed but when he balled up he went into half brakes as well. Just pointed silly stuff out and that everyone saying he crossed perpendicular are not correct. I do not feel that is a theory as the is footage from multiple angles that show he was not crossing it at a 90. Sorry I offend you. I am multitasking and following this here and on POA so maybe it was there that the claims of 90 come in I don't recall. But I do feel the jumper could have done a better job to avoid it. Obviously many on here disagree. No biggie. If the pilot had a medical it never would have happened. That is the lesson to be learned according to Kallend so let's just go with that then.

Be safe!


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:26 PM
Post #206 of 261 (1473 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

theonlyski wrote:

The wear pattern you're looking at and talking about is a drainage ditch between the runway and the taxiway/lz areas.

I took a snapshot of one of my landings there, you can see the ditch on the right of the runway and the centerline in the middle.

http://tinyurl.com/pdtl6jb

Yes I know I was a bit left but fear not, I landed in the center.

Just to be clear then you are saying this wear pattern in this pic after he spun to the right is a drainage ditch? Again sorry but you can see how that reasonably looks like the centerline.
Again, since the plane in the earlier pics appears to be at least a plane width closer to the road than where it ended I was just trying to give some possible explanation why he MIGHT not have had an out to land that side of the runway in HIS mind. Like which way is he going to go. I was trying to find a way to not pass judgment on what the jumper absolutely should have done if because maybe the plane drifted off centerline and jumper froze for a second. You have cleared up that that is not a possibility. I am sorry a passed judgment that the jumper could have avoided this. But if it is any conciliation at least we got you to offer some explanation to what other have been asking. Sure like to know the pattern even if of the guy in front of him.

Good luck down there. Hope everything works out.
Attachments: 3366416_G.jpg (114 KB)


craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 11, 2014, 8:39 PM
Post #207 of 261 (1459 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:


From those points he then draws a conclusion about what the jumper should have done and further uses those conclusions to explain how he would have done things differently to avoid the collision.

Just to be clear. Are you saying you would not have done anything different to avoid the collision?

But I have said he could have turned in sooner. I also said he maybe could have continued his base leg out and landed on the side of runway. Then questioned if he could make that quick decision because I thought the pilot was left of center and maybe that messed with the jumpers decision making. Not a real firm conclusion. But those conclusions helped me make the conclusion to explain I would do what exactly? Not land on an active runway without making sure it was clear? Is that really so much of a leap? Many people on here don't think they would land on an active runway without making sure it was clear. I am not alone

And also there was some sarcasm in a few posts that you may have missed that was caused an earlier run in with the Professor. At least one other thought I was serious about my pilot comment that was sarcasm based on Kallends opinion. Sometimes one needs to just throw out enough theories and someone with more info will finally shed some light on it to clear it up. I am not so worried about my image that I can't take one for the team. I have seen worse than my opinions.


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 11, 2014, 8:47 PM)


grue  (D License)

Mar 11, 2014, 9:00 PM
Post #208 of 261 (1418 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airborne82nd] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's an interesting concept:

The pilot is going to get reamed by the FAA for not having appropriate paperwork, that's almost a foregone conclusion. This may or may not invalidate any insurance he has on the aircraft.

However, in the end, with the jumper being considered by many to be the root cause of the accident, will the USPA 3P liability insurance cover the aircraft, or will they use the same reasoning to deny coverage? If a car was illegally driven to a dropzone and someone swoops into it, is that still covered?


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 11, 2014, 9:12 PM
Post #209 of 261 (1408 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
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.

And you assume that the reason the pilot didn't see and avoid the jumper is due to a non-current medical. As you say, 'there is no evidence to support that', ergo your argument is attractively specious. Theoretically, it could have been any pilot. The jumper had the responsibility to land OFF the runway.

1) The jumper's chosen landing pattern had him landing right on the centerline of the runway.
2) The jumper had a clear view of any traffic, canopy or aircraft.
3) There were alternative landing options for the jumper and none for the pilot.

None of the above have anything to do with a current medical. Once again, your move, 'professor'.




theonlyski  (D License)

Mar 12, 2014, 4:08 AM
Post #211 of 261 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kuai43] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kuai43 wrote:
3) There were alternative landing options for the jumper and none for the pilot.

I almost just choked on my breakfast. Please tell me you're not serious.Crazy


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Mar 12, 2014, 5:08 AM)


kuai43  (C License)

Mar 12, 2014, 5:33 AM
Post #212 of 261 (1220 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

theonlyski wrote:
kuai43 wrote:
3) There were alternative landing options for the jumper and none for the pilot.

I almost just choked on my breakfast. Please tell me you're not serious.Crazy

Nice substantive reply. Crazy I suppose you're implying that he could make a go around. Or are you saying he could divert to 34L?

The Cessna pilot was on an organized pattern final. The jumper intruded by not being situationally-aware, freezing up, or not having the skills to avoid landing on the runway.

Good luck with your Fruit Loops. Wink


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Mar 12, 2014, 6:13 AM
Post #213 of 261 (1161 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
chuckakers wrote:


From those points he then draws a conclusion about what the jumper should have done and further uses those conclusions to explain how he would have done things differently to avoid the collision.

Just to be clear. Are you saying you would not have done anything different to avoid the collision?

Nope. I'm suggesting that you draw some pretty damning conclusions from nothing more than a few photographs that don't paint the situation in its entirely.

For example you insist that the jumper was looking at the aircraft long before the collision and then use that assumption to explain how you would have done things differently. Well Skippy you don't know that the jumper was looking at the plane. It is entirely possible that he was looking at something else or "looking" at the plane without "seeing" it. A plane coming directly at someone has a very small visual signature and little if any perceived movement that make it difficult or impossible to make out, especially when it's at nearly ground level against a cluttered background. Other factors include the jumper's eyesight, color perception, and a variety of things that you have absolutely no details about, making it virtually impossible to draw the conclusions you have drawn with any accuracy.

That's just one of several comments you have made that you can not substantiate, yet you state them as fact and use them to pick the guy to pieces.

Things can be vastly different when you're the cowboy in the saddle. Might want to consider that before you throw other people under the herd.


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 12, 2014, 7:04 AM
Post #214 of 261 (1119 views)
Shortcut
Re: [craddock] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

craddock wrote:
If the pilot had a medical it never would have happened. That is the lesson to be learned according to Kallend so let's just go with that then.

Be safe!

Incorrect. My statement was that if the pilot without a medical had stayed on the ground like he should have done, it would never have happened.




gunpaq  (D 11214)

Mar 12, 2014, 8:53 AM
Post #216 of 261 (1023 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe this has already been answered:

Was the pilot in questioned based at that particular airport and were there scheduled parachute operations being conducted at this particular airport?

The other question is where exactly were the plane and parchutist location/s at point of impact? Did the impact occur over the runway or to the side and off the runway?

Just a few questions I had about the incident.

We had on occassion pilots flying into our airport for touch and goes during parachute operations which was all very legal, etc., hoewever a good many of these pilots were oblivious to the fact that there were pacrachute operation being conducted even though the drop zone was charted and a daily NOTAM filed. Fortunately we never had an incident or a nearum-scarum.




craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 12, 2014, 9:14 AM
Post #218 of 261 (999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gunpaq] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

gunpaq wrote:
Maybe this has already been answered:

Was the pilot in questioned based at that particular airport and were there scheduled parachute operations being conducted at this particular airport?

other question is where exactly were the plane and parchutist location/s at point of impact? Did the impact occur over the runway or to the side and off the runway?

The
Just a few questions I had about the incident.

To your first question yes to both. Sharon(pilot) was a local there and this airport had skydive operations.

To your second the collision occurred over the displaced threshold. I had judged he was a little off center line(not that I was intending to implying blame only to say it MAY have complicated jumpers decisions) but was quickly and harshly corrected that the wear pattern in the pictures in actually a drainage ditch in what can be mistaken for the runway?




craddock  (D 22750)

Mar 12, 2014, 10:00 AM
Post #220 of 261 (938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:

.

For example you insist that the jumper was looking at the aircraft long before the collision and then use that assumption to explain how you would have done things differently. Well Skippy you don't know that the jumper was looking at the plane. It is entirely possible that he was looking at something else or "looking" at the plane without "seeing" it. A plane coming directly at someone has a very small visual signature and little if any perceived movement that make it difficult or impossible to make out, especially when it's at nearly ground level against a cluttered background. Other factors include the jumper's eyesight, color perception, and a variety of things that you have absolutely no details about, making it virtually impossible to draw the conclusions you have drawn with any accuracy.

That's just one of several comments you have made that you can not substantiate, yet you state them as fact and use them to pick the guy to pieces.

Things can be vastly different when you're the cowboy in the saddle. Might want to consider that before you throw other people under the herd.

I was going to correct you that I never said "saw" but then reread your post and realized you made my point for me.

When I saw the pictures and video and realized he was not crossing at a 90 like I had read several times, the VERY first thing that popped into my head was a boating accident here last year. A woman was standing on an aluminum canopy/deck of a pontoon and hit her head on a high bridge sending her to the hospital. When in talking with the owner I asked him what way she was facing. I found out she hit her forehead and was standing that direction. My rely was "Oh, so the same direction her eyes were facing"

Thank you for your explanation on how hard it is to see planes. With Demos and Base jumps and a few parties/events as an exception, most of my canopy landings are next to an active runway. This is not an unusual thing (in my mind) to have to make sure it is clear before crossing. And I certainly have opted to crosswind along side at one time or another.

It seems some Skydivers think they own the airport. Listen I was not trying to argue. I used words like my opinion, In my mind, in my eyes. I have put forth an opinion in part hoping to force it to be corrected. When my opinion is not liked or appreciated I get accused of arguing. I was really only arguing with Kallend earlier. I am now going to come across arguing with you put only trying to defend my position that you attacked. A lot of worthless posts by me now as a result. I have side by side poster paper printed photos that I used to look at angles and simply shared that info as so many acted like he was crossing the runway perpendicular(x) when in fact he had quite an element to the y which means he was damn near looking at it and should have seen it. Not like he had to turn his head to see it as if it was coming the opposite direction . And when you cross a runway low you look first.

I have stated my opinion is that he was to focused on the jumper he was following rather than to make his own decisions and in part that that other jumper led the lower experienced jumper into it possibly(possibly means my opinion in this case Not fact). I am sorry you do not like that opinion and claim that I think of it as FACT to argue. At this point we are just wasting space and it is fine that you disagree with others opinions. We do not all have to agree. I have contributed to the wastefulness by responding to your argument and am part of the problem as a result. You do not feel it was the jumpers fault. That is fine. I do. That is not fine but alright. It will not let me edit at this point. Sorry. Oh and I do think the pilots was at fault here. Before you assume as fact I don't. But this is a skydiving forum and we can only change our element so no lesson to be learned by not taking responsibility as a jumper. Like driving a motorcycle. Expect no one to see you and you might not get run over as easy. Don't put yourself in someones blind spot even though it is legal.

Now I will get back to Pprune.org on a good discussion with varying opinions about MH370 where everyone welcomes the differing opinions out there. Even on POA with the exception of their version of the Professor people are allowed to voice an opinion. Oh an onlyski if you read this can you point on the arial photo were your buddy was standing when he took pictures. It is for my own use. I have a good idea but it could help me to correct an angle if I am wrong. You can PM and I will leave it off this forum if you wish


(This post was edited by craddock on Mar 12, 2014, 10:10 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Mar 12, 2014, 10:53 AM
Post #221 of 261 (896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Boogers 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.

There have been plenty of other airplane/skydiver collisons that happened with properly certified pilots.

So that is no magic talisman that protects them from screwing up.

That is a FACT.

He was properly certified. He just shouldn't have been "exercising the privileges" (FAA-speak) of his certificate. He was screwing up the instant he took off, and for the entire flight.

Hard to have a mid-air when you're on the ground, like this pilot should have been.


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






teason  (D 18902)

Mar 12, 2014, 12:51 PM
Post #224 of 261 (792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
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.

I'm not sure about the US but in Canada there is a clear hierarchy as to who has the right of way in the air. Parachutes have the right of way over an aircraft because an aircraft can control altitude while a parachute cannot. Parachutes cannot abort landings.

Looking at the pics, it seems that the incident happened at the approach. When a parachute is high over a plane on approach it is difficult to see, especially over a built up area. Also, this jumpers final was over road and power lines, making it more distracting and reducing awareness. (Not to mention wrong, but that's another part of the issue)
The pilot would've been in a much better position to see the jumper and perform a go around but failed to do so. It is his responsibility to be aware of the notams at any airport he flies to and should've been on the lookout for parachutes.

But it isn't quite so cut and dry...

Did the pilot have a current flight supplement(or whatever the US equivalent is)? Old supplements can give outdated frequencies.
Does the airstrip allow NORDO (no radio)?
Was the jump pilot transmitting to area traffic?
Does the pilot suffer from macular degeneration? (Common for people of that age and not always tested for on medicals)
what is the DZ's policy for approaches over the runway (if any)?

Pilots choosing to land at an active DZ simply MUST be on the ball. Sure, the skydiver landing on the runway is a no no and he violated the policies in place at practically every DZ I've ever been too.
However.
Most near collisions I've seen have been from midfield down winds. It's the moment when an established pilot procedure puts a plane closest to jumpers while at 1000'. It's why we are so strict with patterns at our DZ; not all pilots have sufficient awareness and it falls on the jumpers to ensure that they're away for air traffic. They may have the right of way but being "dead right" is not an advisable course of action.

As a skydiver, I'm interested in what the jumper did wrong so that I may train my jumpers better. As a DZO, I want to know what the pilot did wrong so that I can help the local flying community stay safe.

I see them both at fault but I believe that the pilot is legally at fault. Or at least he would be in Canada; in spite of the glaring mistake the jumper made.

Even a car must yield to a jaywalker.


champu  (D 28302)

Mar 12, 2014, 12:57 PM
Post #225 of 261 (781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Non-Injury - Tampa FL - 8 March 2014 (Airplane hits jumper) [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
My statement was that if the pilot without a medical had stayed on the ground like he should have done, it would never have happened.

You're absolutely correct, but at the expense of your statement being useful.

People don't get hit by a plane because on one occasion they screw up and cross an active runway too low. People get hit by a plane because their jump to jump routine for a particular dropzone (endorsed by the dropzone or otherwise) is to fly patterns that result in them crossing the runway too low enough times for it to eventually catch up with them. Circumstantially removing the one instance where it does catch up to them would not actually solve the underlying problem.


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)