Pilot flies under skydivers on final

[Throttlebender 0]

Definitely don't assume a pilot has done that.

I've got 5000 hrs and until I started diving two months ago, I will admit I never gave divers much thought. Sure I'd vector around an airport when I heard ATC call for jumpers at a particular time. And, I've landed and taken off on several while looking hard for landing canopies, but I never really "understood" til I was on the other side. I don't think most pilots realize just how strung out a run of divers can get and I've definitely seen some erratic patterns being flown.

It's good to learn:)

Life expands or contracts in proportion to one's courage. ~Anais Nin

[Phil1111 911]

Quote

Definitely don't assume a pilot has done that.
I don't think most pilots realize just how strung out a run of divers can get and I've definitely seen some erratic patterns being flown.

It's good to learn:)

Exactly. Most pilots assume that one, or one group of jumpers is all that will ever come out of a AC.

[andrew.pw 0]

I was on the ground for this one, but watched a helicopter fly directly through our DZ at about 1000-1200ft. The view from my friends camera at 2000ft was pretty scary (he was under canopy, and the helicopter flew directly underneath him).


Helicopters would be pretty unforgiving to fall through...

[freakflyer9999 1]

I learned to fly at the same municipal airport where my home DZ was located. I had my D License when I started my flight training, so I was familiar with jump operations.

I often heard the jump pilot announce jumpers away, but I have yet to see either a skydiver in freefall or an open canopy while flying in the area or pattern. Even if you know where to look jumpers are still difficult to see.

I did have one jumper land at mid runway just as I was touching down for landing. I immediately killed the engine and was able to stop the aircraft with approximately 50 feet to spare, but it was way too close. Unfortunately, she had put herself in a position where she had to choose landing in trees/fence or on the runway. We had a nice long discussion, the next time I saw her.

It would have been very unfortunate had I hit her with a spinning prop, but I would have walked away most likely unscathed. I doubt that the results would have been pretty for the jumper. The jumper is the one with the most at risk. It is really up to the jumper to take whatever precautions are needed to insure their own safety. Always, assume that the aircraft pilot can not see you, does not know that you are there and may turn at any time in any direction. This may not leave you many options at some airports. Fortunately, most of my jumps have been at airports in rural Texas with lots of landing options.

[bodypilot90 0]

I have been landing when ac are landing or taking off. I understand we all share the airport and the last thing any dz wants is bad feelings between others at the airport, They like our snack bar. But it was scary to watch and even more so for the guys under canopy. I don;t care who's in the "right" let's just be safe and I have a "no shit i was there story"

[billvon 2,400]

>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.

What FAR was the pilot violating in that case?

>It's incumbent upon the pilot to see and avoid descending parachutists.

It's also incumbent upon the parachutists to see and avoid departing aircraft. Thus the "seen and avoid" part of VFR flight.

[buff 0]

I think that this is applicable:

Sec. 91.113

Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.


(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories--
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
[(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.]
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to
make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.

It's called the Hillbilly Hop N Pop dude.
If you're gonna be stupid, you better be tough.
That's fucked up. Watermelons do not grow on trees! ~Skymama

[Phil1111 911]

Quote

>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.

What FAR was the pilot violating in that case?

>It's incumbent upon the pilot to see and avoid descending parachutists.

It's also incumbent upon the parachutists to see and avoid departing aircraft. Thus the "seen and avoid" part of VFR flight.

A FAA investigator has many "catch all" sections such as "Dangerous operation of a AC", Failing to ensure safe vertical or lateral distance to another AC, You assume that a FAR spells out a specific violation. Not so. A FAA "Letter of Investigation" may start out with a accusation of "Creating an Unsafe Condition" or make no reference to any specific FAR at all.

Specific FAR's would include but not be limited to:
91.13(a), and (b), 91.111(a), and 91.113(b),(d).

To suggest that an unpowered parachute with a level speed of 30kn's compares to a AC capable of climbing and using a radio to determine a safe takeoff time or time of arrival. None of which is available to a parachutist. Is silly.

Since this thread is in general reference to a AC flying under skydivers while under canopy. Consider all of the above quoted FARS to apply.

Once the full scope of a violation has been ascertained by the investigator. Then you are charged. The BS that an investigator can put a pilot through is extensive and expensive. Most aviation attorneys won't even look at you without a $5000 retainer.

[riggerpaul 1]

The quoted regulation only applies to aircraft.

It is still not at all clear that parachutes are considered aircraft by the FAA.

One the one hand, parachutes seem to fall into the general definition of aircraft found in FAR 1.1.

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

But there are many many rules that apply to aircraft that do not seem to apply to parachutes.

This is not to say that pilots should not see and avoid parachutes. Of course they should, just as parachutists should see and avoid things they encounter in the air.

But bill's question was to point out which regulation was broken.

You say that 91.113 was violated.

But since it is not clear that a parachute is an aircraft, it is not clear that the incident in question constitutes a violation of 91.113.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

The quoted regulation only applies to aircraft.
It is still not at all clear that parachutes are considered aircraft by the FAA.

I don't understand why skydivers think their lives would be better of if they were more regulated by the FAA. There is more bad than good. Do you want to be subject to DOT drug-testing policies? How about 8 hours bottle to throttle? Class III Medicals?
I am happy flying a canopy without the government looking over my shoulder. The USPA is benevelant compared to the alternative.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[billvon 2,400]

>I think that this is applicable: Sec. 91.113

Well, except it doesn't mention parachutes, and parachutes are usually not considered airplanes.

I think a more relevant passage might be:

=================
Sec. 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.
=================

It would seem like the risk of collision would certainly be considered a hazard.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

The quoted regulation only applies to aircraft.
It is still not at all clear that parachutes are considered aircraft by the FAA.

I don't understand why skydivers think their lives would be better of if they were more regulated by the FAA. There is more bad than good. Do you want to be subject to DOT drug-testing policies? How about 8 hours bottle to throttle? Class III Medicals?
I am happy flying a canopy without the government looking over my shoulder. The USPA is benevelant compared to the alternative.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we want to be considered aircraft.

My point was only that the particular regulation that was mentioned is specifically intended to be about aircraft in relation to other aircraft.

Since parachutes don't appear to be aircraft, the regulation does not apply.

[kallend 1,625]

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.

But it is what the FAA says that counts, not what you say. Which FAR states that parachutes are aircraft when every time they are explicitly mentioned it is clear that they are subject to their own special rules?

...

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

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

>I think that this is applicable: Sec. 91.113

Well, except it doesn't mention parachutes, and parachutes are usually not considered airplanes.

I think a more relevant passage might be:

=================
Sec. 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.
=================

It would seem like the risk of collision would certainly be considered a hazard.

Well, there is ALWAYS a risk to persons/property on the ground and air traffic... Should we only do jumps over no-fly-zones, where there is no people/buildings/vehicles allowed anywhere near the LZ?

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[fcajump 153]

Quote

Well, there is ALWAYS a risk to persons/property on the ground and air traffic... Should we only do jumps over no-fly-zones, where there is no people/buildings/vehicles allowed anywhere near the LZ?

Be careful what (hypothetical) questions you ask... many NIBY pilots have been arguing this should be the case for years...

In the time I've been jumping, it seems that there have been about equal losses when plane meets jumper. It would be best to be a friendly ambassador for our sport in assisting the pilots understand where we might be... This is even more the case as we add wing suits, as the rule of thumb "upwind line of the airport and all should be down a couple minutes after 'jumpers away'" is not as true anymore.

JW
jumper/pilot

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

[Baksteen 84]

Quote

Quote

>I think that this is applicable: Sec. 91.113

Well, except it doesn't mention parachutes, and parachutes are usually not considered airplanes.

I think a more relevant passage might be:

=================
Sec. 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.
=================

It would seem like the risk of collision would certainly be considered a hazard.

Well, there is ALWAYS a risk to persons/property on the ground and air traffic... Should we only do jumps over no-fly-zones, where there is no people/buildings/vehicles allowed anywhere near the LZ?

That's what ATC in the Netherlands is slowly steering at, except they prefer that there would be simply no skydiving at all.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[Throttlebender 0]

You may be right. And truthfully, I'm too lazy to go look.

Life expands or contracts in proportion to one's courage. ~Anais Nin

[jaffo 0]

I was curious about this thread after watching a helo cross through the DZ yesterday.

My next door neighbor is one of the most senior FAA inspectors in Texas and I wanted to get his take on this.

He said that the FAA would treat the Parachute as a glider or non-powered aircraft in this situation. He said that due to the NOTAM he would violate the pilot based on FAR 91.13.

He also went on that there is no definate way this would be handled and that ultimately the Judge (or FAA version of a judge, I can't remember what he called them) would make the ultimate decision.

He also said the pilot would be allowed to present a defence. And the pilot's attorney would argue 91.185 which allows a pilot to break any rule in the FARs in an immediate action situation to ensure the safety of his aircraft.

He would argue that due to the percieved presence of a canopy in his way, he made evasive action as he judged necessary.

He was very clear that most sitations are not spelled out exactly in the FARs and it is open to interpretations.

Ryder

Take chances, just do it with all the information to make good decisions!!

Muff Brother# 2706 Dudeist Skydiver# 121.5

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

I was curious about this thread after watching a helo cross through the DZ yesterday.

My next door neighbor is one of the most senior FAA inspectors in Texas and I wanted to get his take on this.

He said that the FAA would treat the Parachute as a glider or non-powered aircraft in this situation. He said that due to the NOTAM he would violate the pilot based on FAR 91.13.

He also went on that there is no definate way this would be handled and that ultimately the Judge (or FAA version of a judge, I can't remember what he called them) would make the ultimate decision.

He also said the pilot would be allowed to present a defence. And the pilot's attorney would argue 91.185 which allows a pilot to break any rule in the FARs in an immediate action situation to ensure the safety of his aircraft.

He would argue that due to the percieved presence of a canopy in his way, he made evasive action as he judged necessary.

He was very clear that most sitations are not spelled out exactly in the FARs and it is open to interpretations.

Ryder

91.13 is the catchall the FAA uses when they can't find any other reason for a violation.

...

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

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Should we only do jumps over no-fly-zones, where there is no people/buildings/vehicles allowed anywhere near the LZ?

and how would I do my cross-city wingsuit flights then ??

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

aren't all parachute jumps considered emergency landings?

If you really feel that way, maybe you should take up bowling.

Nice. Really, really nice.
A good example of an, well, let's say, unhelpful response.
On behalf of all young jumpers everywhere, I salute your willingness to help them out.

And that's how I feel.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,400]

>Well, there is ALWAYS a risk to persons/property on the ground and air
>traffic.

Agreed. So it is our job to minimize or eliminate that hazard to the best of our ability. Ways to do that include:

-clearing your airspace before jumping
-maintaining radio communications with ATC/the ground
-jumping over unpopulated areas
-landing in open areas without people in them

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

>Well, there is ALWAYS a risk to persons/property on the ground and air
>traffic.

Agreed. So it is our job to minimize or eliminate that hazard to the best of our ability. Ways to do that include:

-clearing your airspace before jumping
-maintaining radio communications with ATC/the ground
-jumping over unpopulated areas
-landing in open areas without people in them

I agree with you. I wasn't trying to say that we need to start jumping over barron land with a no fly zone around us. I believe that proper training on everyones part will go very far in keeping us safe. Some things like:

- Briefing pilots who will also be using the airport about jump operations (I know its filed in the NOTAM, but it wouldn't hurt)
- The landing pattern expected by jumpers
- The pattern expected by the jump aircraft
- Letting the jumpers know that there is another aircraft expected in the area (its alot easier to spot something if you know there is something there to spot)
- Having the pilots explain to the jumpers the pattern for take off/landing at that airport. (ie pattern entry for an approaching aircraft will be at approx this location, at approx this elevation, left/right hand pattern.)
Maybe even once jumpers are away, keep any other a/c from taking off until all jumpers are in a safe pattern.

Sure, half of that is a bit redundant, but you just do it when the jumper comes and gets his dz brief (or the pilot comesand takes a look around the airport), and every safety day.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message