AVWeb ? of the week

[wildblue 4]

http://www.avweb.com/qotw/qotwform.cgi?0127
Comments?
It's funny how a bunch of the pilots call us "crazy"... hey, when they develop a "reserve engine" for those things, I'll think pilots are less suicidal.

[Dutchboy 0]

I honestly think that they taught me skydiving was stupid as
as student pilot.
Some of the ignorant answers to these questions are really sad. It's amazing how little some of these guys know and how many of them think they own the air.
The Dutchboy
http://www.geocities.com/ppolstra

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

For those of you that read some or most of that stuff: The long-winded guy that spouted all the crap about making HALO jumps into "hot LZ's" in Viet Nam was completely full of shit. I have a complete listing of the history of military freefall in the Viet Nam era for anyone that might want to hear it. This guy wasn't one of the SIX guys that did it. I am also incredulous at the shit he was spouting about squares being developed specifically for SF and how they called them "paracommanders". What an idiot.
Chuck Blue
D-12501
2nd generation Special Forces guy and MFFJM (among other things).

[spectre230 0]

[mouth 0]

Key words.....idiot pilots

[PLFKING 3]

Hi guys --
Yes, some of these responses were ludicrous at best, but I think we should all take the time to read these comments. There is always a certain percentage of nutcases involved in any activity, but there were also some very valid concerns being addressed. I've personally seen recreational aircraft overfly the runway directly under a plane on jump-run, and I've heard some pretty lax "jumpers-away" announcements as well.
I personally think it would be a good idea for each airport to have an open-forum type of gathering (nothing as formal as a "meeting"), and invite divers, jump pilots, and general aviation pilots to sit down and discuss their viewpoints. Sure, there might be some occasional heated words, name-calling, and arguments, but we all have to share the same airspace, and a skydiver is always going to be the most vulnerable aspect of the equation -- a jumper is NEVER going to win a mid-air argument with an airplane.
Safety belongs in the forefront of everyone's mind.
Just my $0.02 (he said, climbing off his soapbox)

[cameramonkey 0]

Quote

a jumper is NEVER going to win a mid-air argument with an airplane.

Define the term "win". I seem to remember hearing several reports thru the years about a jumper striking a wing of an airplane in the wrong place at the wrong time. The jumpers survived (not well, but alive as in broken/severed limbs, paralysis, etc) but the plane stopped flying and killed the pilot because the force of said jumper removed said wing. causing the airplane to become VERY un-airworthy.
Am I crazy, or didnt several jumpers survive those types of encounters?
(yes, I know I'm crazy regardless)

[cameramonkey 0]

Just an interesting note... I do beleive the gentleman complaining about the jumpers punching clouds over Frankfort (second response from top) is the most avid person trying to close down Skydive Indiana for supposed safety reasons.(There's a reason the FAA didnt respond... there wasnt a safety issue)

[xybe 0]

Well the paracommanders were so secret that they LOOKED round to an untrained eye, but they were actually ZP 9 cell elliptical high-performance canopies.
South African ZP was also a secret project called F-111.

[xybe 0]

Why the conflict? Can't we all just get along?
Barra Jumping is a smallish (usually single plane) DZ in a busy airport (Jacarepauá) in Rio the Janeiro (Barra da Tijuca to be precise). Local air traffic is not usually a problem, the (parachute) landing area is a couple of miles off the runway (the ride in the Kombi back to the DZ is the scariest part of the jump ;)
Jacarepauá airport has quite decent helicopter traffic (helicabs) as well as fixed wing commuter flights from nearby São Paulo.
Jumps are suspended whenever airplanes from a larger airport might use the area, but usually local traffic is not a problem (except for festivals and the like).
A local JM commented that flying a jump plane is seen as a good way to accummulate a good takeoff/landing Vs hours of flight ratio by young pilots.
XYBe
Part-time whuffo
Edited by xybe on 7/9/01 08:16 PM.

[Macaulay 0]

I remember hearing about the jumper that struck the wing of that plane and brought it down. I thought that was the only recorded incident of a jumper striking a non-jump plane. I could be wrong. As far as who would "win" goes... it really depends on the type of aircraft and the type of canopy.
- Macaulay

[spectre230 0]

[PhillyKev 0]

Someone told me a story at XKeys the other day about a 737 coming in for landing at Philly flew over the dz between two tandems. They could feel the heat from the jets. One of the students didn't even notice...now that's amazing!!
cielos azules y cerveza fría
-Kevin

[chicagoskydiver 0]

Of course everyone knows about the recent accident in San Marcos,Texas where a jumper struck the prop of a twin otter (another skydiving aircraft). The old saying "look before you leap" applies here. While waiting for separation, we have to not only check the spot, but look for clouds and other aircraft! It's only prudent to know what you're jumping into.
Hackey

[Pammi 0]

Speaking of funny sites...Xybe, your's is hilarious! I love it! Welcome to the board :)
Pammi
Our webpage

[skymedic 0]

I know for sure there was a skydiver vs. airplane incident in 1998 where the skydiver lived(with a broke femur) and the plane that he hit went spiraling down and killed 4 occupants of the plane. he had hit the rear control surfaces. the skydiver ended up filing suit against the FAA, because ATC vectored this guy in to an active DZ and he won..
Marc

[wildblue 4]

Quote

Of course everyone knows about the recent accident in San Marcos,Texas where a jumper struck the prop of a twin otter (another skydiving aircraft). The old saying "look before you leap" applies here. While waiting for separation, we have to not only check the spot, but look for clouds and other aircraft! It's only prudent to know what you're jumping into.

I don't think that incident can really apply here. The jumper that hit the plane in that case was almost last out for a large (30 way?) formation. Everyone can't stop and look in that case.

[chicagoskydiver 0]

I'm not saying that everyone in a large group should stop and look before exiting...that would obviously not be practical. However, common sense dictates that the person at the door or the first to climb out should be looking before the group exits. The jumper I refered to earlier was in the middle of the lineup on a big way involving two jump planes, a king air and an otter. The jumpers at the door should ABSOLUTELY have had visual contact with that otter! They would have seen that the planes were in the wrong configuration and aborted the exit. The otter was behind and below the king air. The point is, someone should be looking before every exit.
Hackey

[PhreeZone 15]

The only problem is that On climb out I've heard they were in the right config. The Otter slowed more then the king air and the King Air passed the Otter as jumpers were leaving. The problem comes when you put differently matched planes in formations with other planes. If it was a Porter and King Air the King air would stall just trying to fly at the crusing speed of the Porter. The stall speed of a Porter is less then 40 knots. I know that Beech 18s need at least 50 knots to get the tail off the ground on take off. A Porter is climbing at that speed! Just something to keep in mind.
Whoa... That was cool!

[Merrick 0]

The way I understand it (this particular incident) is that, as jumpers exited the leading plane the pilot didn't adjust for the weight shift (i.e. his plane getting lighter) & kept flying at the same speed. by the time the last jumper (Blue ones Michele Thibaudeau) exited the leading plane had over taken the trailing plane, thus... the incident at hand! I'm sure the FIRST person out of the plane actually did look... they probably looked at the spot and for other aircraft. True, this accident could have been avoided if one of the last few jumpers would have just stopped & taken the time to look before they exited..... however, how many of you have ever been at the back of the lineup in a big-way? I'm sure there are several of you, but tell me... do you actually have the time (or the balance) to look around as you're tumbling out the door right on top of the jumper in front of you? I guess my point is that I believe that it was 99.9% pilot & organization error. You may think I'm wrong, which is fine, cuz this topic has already been beaten to death on here, but while I know that each & every one of us are responsible for our own lives & looking out for ourselves, I don't think she was responsible for her own death.
"If words were wisdom, I'd be talkin' even more.."

[chicagoskydiver 0]

Sounds like you hit the nail right on the head! Obviously, I didn't have all my facts straight because I didn't realize that the planes came into that configuration after exit. But I think you're absolutely right....the real problem here was mismatched aircrafts and possibly lack of pilot communication. The most important thing with incidents like these is that we do a careful and thoughtful analysis of the root causes, so we can prevent incidents like that in the future. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
Blue Skies!!
Hackey

[Grogs 0]

Quote

True, this accident could have been avoided if one of the last few jumpers would have just stopped & taken the time to look before they exited..... however, how many of you have ever been at the back of the lineup in a big-way? I'm sure there are several of you, but tell me... do you actually have the time (or the balance) to look around as you're tumbling out the door right on top of the jumper in front of you?

No, you don't have the time. I've been 12th out the door of a King Air, and at that point you're probably 4-5 seconds behind the base, even if you're just pushing on the container of the person in front of you. If everyone in the big-way stopped and glanced around for even a second, the last person probably wouldn't make it in at all, or at least not with any working altitude left. That particular accident was a tragedy certainly, but I don't think there was anything the skydivers on the plane could have been expected to do differently to prevent it.

[Grogs 0]

Here's my favorite quote from your 'HALO Hero' Chuck:

Quote

I find it interesting that civilian parachute training typically consists of 2-3 hours of "ground instruction," after which a student makes his first jump. In Airborne School (Army), students undergo three weeks of intensive training, with no actual jumps until the third week. Despite this intensive training, I have seen far too many well qualified jumpers "bounce."

I really find that interesting and quite a bit amusing too, especially since I've had those "3 weeks of intense training" at Fort Benning myself. It was definitely intense, my knees have never hurt me so badly in my life. The real kicker in my mind though is we spent 3 weeks training for a parachute jump where we jump out of the airplane, have the static line open for you, and float down to wherever the wind takes you. Actually, come to think of it, 90% of the training in the first 2 weeks was how to do a PLF, and for good reason - I hit like a sack of potatoes every time I landed. Anyway, I'm not knocking Airborne school, just comparing the 2.

[quade 3]

Marc --
Close but no cigar.
This is the NTSB report on the 1993 incident;
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X13693&key=1
And here is the "Full Narrative" version;
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X13693&ntsbno=BFO94FA015&akey=1
Paul
futurecam.com/skydive.html

[skymedic 0]

quade, I will do some digging here I know it was in FLYING magazine in early 99. so give me a day or two.
marc
Marc