0
bodypilot90

Pilot flies under skydivers on final

Recommended Posts

I was at the dz the other day and the 1st load was landing when a pilot taking off turns and flies under canopies that are at 6-700 feet. I had thought it was a stupid skydiver stunt. I did not get the tail numbers but talking with our jump pilot he said someone reported leaving the pattern early to avoid skydivers. To me it look like he was aiming for a few of the aff staff.
They are going to have a chat with a FBO and see if we keep this from repeating. look out up there. :| This could have had a very bad ending. Has anyone seen this before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is more likely the pilot turned immediately after takeoff. That would put him below jumpers that aren't crossing the runway.

I personally stay away from the ends of the runway below '1000 for this reason. My under 1000' no-fly zone looks like a dumbbell with the handle centered on the runway and the circles at each end of the runway. It doesn't matter much that it would be the pilot's fault if he turned into you. You would still be dead.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> To me it look like he was aiming for a few of the aff staff.

More like he didn't see anyone. Many aircraft have very bad visibility looking up.

>To me it look like he was aiming for a few of the aff staff.

It happens occasionally at DZ's where they share the runway. It pays to keep one's head on a swivel to avoid issues like this. Remember, you both have a duty to avoid each other; you both have a right to be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"
Quote

... a pilot taking off turns and flies under canopies that are at 6-700 feet. ... someone reported leaving the pattern early to avoid skydivers. ...Has anyone seen this before?



.....................................................................

I see it a dozen times a day - on city streets. Some one does something dumb on your immediate left, so you jerk your car into the right-hand lane to avoid the idiot, but end up smacking into some-one minding their own business in the right-hand lane.

It is perfectly logical for a pilot - seeing a parachute near the end of the runway - to turn away from that parachute. Expecting him to see parachutes 600 feet straight above him is almost impossible, given the miserable upward visibility of most high-wing airplanes (e.g. Cessnas).

In conclusion, while trying to avoid one danger, the pilot inadvertently aimed towards another danger.

The best way to avoid recurrences, is for everyone to fly predictable patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Remember, you both have a duty to avoid each other; you both have a right to be there.



There exists very clear and concise right of way rules too.
The pilot of any aircraft has NO right to be in the airspace of a canopy. Ever.



Exactly. And there should be no reason, that the pilot can't wait for jumpers to be on the ground before take-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The pilot of any aircraft has NO right to be in the airspace of a canopy. Ever.



You are mostly correct.

FAA Part 91 Section 113 paragraph c:

An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.

You can't assume you always have the right of way since you can't be certain that the aircraft hasn't declared an emergency.

And to answer your next question - Yes I am being a dick since, to my knowledge, in the history of powered flight no aircraft in distress caused an injury or fatality to someone under canopy.

I think I'll still go with never assuming I have the right of way.
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The pilot of any aircraft has NO right to be in the airspace of a canopy. Ever.

Sure he does. The canopy has right of way, but there is no restrictions on where any airplane can be over a DZ. (Which is a good thing; an awful lot of DZ's would have to close otherwise.) If he wanted to he could fly right through a load of skydivers, just like you could, if you wanted to, jump right over a small aircraft 10,000 feet below you.

Needless to say, neither of those things is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....................................................................
Quote


I see it a dozen times a day - on city streets. Some one does something dumb on your immediate left, so you jerk your car into the right-hand lane to avoid the idiot, but end up smacking into some-one minding their own business in the right-hand lane.

It is perfectly logical for a pilot - seeing a parachute near the end of the runway - to turn away from that parachute. Expecting him to see parachutes 600 feet straight above him is almost impossible, given the miserable upward visibility of most high-wing airplanes (e.g. Cessnas).

In conclusion, while trying to avoid one danger, the pilot inadvertently aimed towards another danger.

The best way to avoid recurrences, is for everyone to fly predictable patterns.



This is the most likely explaination I can think of.

Remember there are student pilots in the same vicinity as out student parachutist.

Scary huh??

Also remember something else, Be prepared to explain whatever is necessary to the airport board when this pilot complains about "the stupid skydivers being in the way"

There are a few people out there that hate having skydivers on an airport and will use any incident to run them off.

I'm not being paranoid, It's happened before.
Take chances, just do it with all the information to make good decisions!!

Muff Brother# 2706 Dudeist Skydiver# 121.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Can you clearly and concisely quote the far that states parachutes have the right of way over planes?



You won't find such a specific regulation, but 105.5 applies:
Quote

§ 105.5 General.

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from an aircraft, if that operation creates a hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface.



I think Bill probably nailed the issue when he said many airplanes have poor forward visibility on the takeoff roll, and that's especially true when looking into the sun, or when the windscreen is pitted. Parachutes don't always show up very well at the far end of a runway, and at that point the pilot is just entering a high workload phase of flight. That's not an excuse, obviously pilots should be well trained and vigilant for parachutes especially at a dual use airport. I think working with the FBO to identify the pilot in question and then provide better overall training to the broader pilot population is the answer. Also consider that the pilot in question may have been a transient who didn't know about local jumpers.

I've also encountered pilots at airports with large jump planes who said they saw the jumpers and turned to avoid them, but then they are surprised to learn there could be as many as 40 jumpers, and seeing a few doesn't mean you have seen them all. Pilots understand that, and if we respect their rights to the airspace and understand they are usually trying to do the right thing, they will usually respect our efforts to coordinate and educate.

When I was S&TA at The Ranch I developed a handout that we distributed to all the area FBO's that helped pilots know who and where we were, how active our operation was, and how to locate us. I've put a copy in my Dropbox available at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4033049/Ranch%20Pilot%20Caution%20Updated%202007.pdf. The original had a second page with scans of the sectional and enroute charts with our location clearly marked. I also did some pilot outreach with presentations at pilot seminars and fly-in events. Pilots are really focused on safety, just as skydivers are, and they genuinely appreciate training efforts. DZO's are welcome to steal the handout idea and customize the language for their own operation.
Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

The pilot of any aircraft has NO right to be in the airspace of a canopy. Ever.



You are mostly correct.

FAA Part 91 Section 113 paragraph c:

An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.

You can't assume you always have the right of way since you can't be certain that the aircraft hasn't declared an emergency.

And to answer your next question - Yes I am being a dick since, to my knowledge, in the history of powered flight no aircraft in distress caused an injury or fatality to someone under canopy.

I think I'll still go with never assuming I have the right of way.



aren't all parachute jumps considered emergency landings? if so who gets the right of way?
"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NOTAM or NoTAM is the quasi-acronym for a "Notice To Airmen". NOTAMs are created and transmitted by government agencies under guidelines specified by Annex 15: Aeronautical Information Services of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. A NOTAM is filed with an aviation authority to alert aircraft pilots of any hazards en route or at a specific location. The authority in turn provides a means of disseminating relevant NOTAMs to pilots.

NOTAMs are issued (and reported) for a number of reasons, such as:

* hazards such as air-shows, parachute jumps, kite flying, rocket launches, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

aren't all parachute jumps considered emergency landings?



It's a question of the intent behind the language, not just the raw language itself. Landing a parachute after an emergency bailout from a distressed aircraft would probably be considered an emergency landing. An intended deployment of a parachute as part of a skydive would not be an emergency, even though it is obviously a matter of great urgency (considering the alternative). Thus, the landing of a skydiving canopy, having been intended, would usually not be an emergency under normal circumstances.

I'd think (presume?) that skydiving parachute landings would probably be in the same category as unpowered glider and paraglider landings, since there is no opportunity for a powered go-around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It happens occasionally at DZ's where they share the runway. It pays to keep one's head on a swivel to avoid issues like this. Remember, you both have a duty to avoid each other; you both have a right to be there.



Just seemed odd that if he had followed the normal fight pattern he would have been well clear of landing canopies. The skydivers did see and aviod the aircraft. At 500 feet it's good we have a big landing area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

aren't all parachute jumps considered emergency landings?



It's a question of the intent behind the language, not just the raw language itself. Landing a parachute after an emergency bailout from a distressed aircraft would probably be considered an emergency landing. An intended deployment of a parachute as part of a skydive would not be an emergency, even though it is obviously a matter of great urgency (considering the alternative). Thus, the landing of a skydiving canopy, having been intended, would usually not be an emergency under normal circumstances.

I'd think (presume?) that skydiving parachute landings would probably be in the same category as unpowered glider and paraglider landings, since there is no opportunity for a powered go-around.


andy you summed up what i was trying to say.

sorry everyone for the poor wording, i just didn't know how to explain it any better.

and bowling sucks;)
"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I'd think (presume?) that skydiving parachute landings would probably be in the same category as unpowered glider and paraglider landings, since there is no opportunity for a powered go-around.



I wouldn't presume anything with respect to the FARs. I can't find anything in the FARs stating that parachutes have right of way over anything.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

NOTAM or NoTAM is the quasi-acronym for a "Notice To Airmen". NOTAMs are created and transmitted by government agencies under guidelines specified by Annex 15: Aeronautical Information Services of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. A NOTAM is filed with an aviation authority to alert aircraft pilots of any hazards en route or at a specific location. The authority in turn provides a means of disseminating relevant NOTAMs to pilots.

NOTAMs are issued (and reported) for a number of reasons, such as:

* hazards such as air-shows, parachute jumps, kite flying, rocket launches, etc.



Yep... and we have pilots fly though our 40 year running, NOTAM'ed weekly airshow anyway. Sometimes the FED on the field gets their tail number, sometimes he doesn't. One turned to narrowly avoid our jumper and found himself flying between two formation flights of 4 biplanes. I am hoping he had to change his shorts... because many of us on the ground did...

JW
Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps it falls under any "aircraft" that is lower and/or slower and closer to the airport having the right of way.

Now are parachutists considered "aircraft" at this point?.......I would say yes.



Aviation authorities(FAA,EASA,etc.) recognize hot air balloons, sailplanes, aircraft, helicopters, etc. In general the lower and/or unpowered machine has the right of way. After that a machine landing has the right of way over one taking off.

A AC passing under a parachute at a airport where a NOTAM is in effect could be subject to an investigation by the FAA if a complaint was made. A AC has every equal right to land or take-off at a airport where parachuting activities is underway. It's incumbent upon the pilot to see and avoid descending parachutists. Just as it's the duty of a parachutist to avoid the runways.

At an uncontrolled airport most pilots would contact the jump plane and/or other aircraft to discuss departure/arrival intentions to avoid potential conflicts. PRIOR to departure or arrival.

Don't necessarily assume any pilot has done this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0