Aircraft Pilots & Canopy Pilots Safely Sharing The Sky

[pyke 0]

I'm posting here to suggest something that I thought would be obvious given the nature of flying, and landing, but under the conditions operating today, around some of the busier airports - I recognize how unlikely it may seem. Our sport experienced a REAL TRAGEDY this weekend...so I'm posturing one viewpoint to prevent it from happening again (given the freak nature of this incident - I recognize it may never happen again, EVER)

Why do planes land WHILE canopies are in the air??

What I know of piloting - you're allowed to only have one plane one final descent at a time, right? (perhaps I'm wrong)

Given that once parachutes (parachutists) exit an aircraft - they are automatically on final descent - so why allow pilots to land while canopies are flying?

Where I'm coming from...
When I learned to skydive (in NZ), no planes landed while canopies were in the air...in fact, they would circle the run-way until the last canopy was down. Mind you - most places in NZ were smaller dzs and Cessnas are hard-pressed to land as fast as skydivers, but when it happened, or when tandems were in the air - they would circle. So, what kind of rule could exist for something like this to be avoided?


Counter-arguments...
*High altitude Hop n' Pops would certainly take longer for some of the faster planes to descend....something would need to be addressed there
*Birdman jumps can sometimes land at, or around the time of the airplane - I imagine lighter 'aircraft' (parachutes) would have the right of way.
*Tandem canopies often land after a plane...hmmm...more to think about


Anyway - those are my thoughts given the terrible news I heard this weekend....suggestions? insights? arguments? I'd be interested in hearing some other thoughts here - THANKS!

Kahurangi e Mahearangi,
Kiwi, RB #926, AFF-I, FAA Snr. Rigger, RN/BSN/Paramedic

[FrogNog 1]

Why do planes that have nothing to do with skydiving land and take off while canopies are in the air?

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[davelepka 4]

This has been suggested elswhere in regards to this incident.

The key factor here is that the canopy pilot has the most freedom of where they fly and land. AC are limited to a specific pattern for their intended runway, even more so on a controlled field.

Additionally, the canopy pilot can make changes to their flight plan at a much lower altitude than a pilot. At 100 ft or so, a canopy can make a flat turn, and land safely in an alternate location. An AC in a landing configuration at 100 ft. has very few options, asdie from adding power for a go-around, and slight degree of turn.

I'm not suggesting that AC pilots close their eyes, and fly their instruments down to the runway, but in the big picutre, it is YOUR job to stay out of their way. Given the outcome of this incident, this seems like the prudent thing to do anyway.

I do not have any information regarding this incident in perticular. There may have been extentuating circumstances which contributed to the outcome.

[MarkM 0]

I think changing anything would be over reacting. There are what, 15 million skydives in a year? 15 million instances of little planes(parachutes) landing in the same airspace as the larger planes. And this is the first instance of a canopy->plane collision we've had for as long anyone can remember.

So out of maybe 100 million - 150 million parachute landings we have this one instance of a collision. While Gus' accident is certainly tragic, it shouldn't overshadow that having parachutes operating in the vicinity of other planes has been historically very safe for all involved parties under our current guidelines and rules.

[billvon 2,433]

>Why do planes land WHILE canopies are in the air??

Because usually there's no reason not to.

>What I know of piloting - you're allowed to only have one plane one
>final descent at a time, right? (perhaps I'm wrong)

Nope. At busy airports it's normal to hear something like "46 quebec, turn your base, you are number four behind a Baron, S-turns approved."

>Given that once parachutes (parachutists) exit an aircraft - they are
> automatically on final descent - so why allow pilots to land while
> canopies are flying?

Why allow parachutes to land near the runway? Why allow more than one group out on a pass? (it would prevent some freefall collisions) Because in most cases it can be done safely.

[murps2000 86]

I think changing anything would be over reacting. There are what, 15 million skydives in a year? 15 million instances of little planes(parachutes) landing in the same airspace as the larger planes. And this is the first instance of a canopy->plane collision we've had for as long anyone can remember.

So out of maybe 100 million - 150 million parachute landings we have this one instance of a collision. While Gus' accident is certainly tragic, it shouldn't overshadow that having parachutes operating in the vicinity of other planes has been historically very safe for all involved parties under our current guidelines and rules.


While your point is valid from the standpoint of common sense, this incident appears to be highly visible, at least for the time being. Overreaction may very well occur. I know a skydiver who works for the FAA, and he has stated that his superiors have expressed concern over the close proximity of parachute landing areas to runways at many airports. According to him, the FAA has heard complaints from airport managers regarding canopies and air traffic before. I expect he is hearing an earfull from his boss this morning.

No advisory circular or FAR exists which states how far away from runways a landing area needs to be. In fact the only reference I have found is AC 90-66A, which is dated 8/26/93, and doesn't directly address it. It contains one paragraph that I see as pertaining to this incident:

"When a drop zone has been established on an airport, parachutists are expected to land within the drop zone. At airports that have not established drop zones, parachutists should avoid landing on runways, taxiways, aprons, and their associated safety areas. Pilots and parachutists should both be aware of the limited flight performane of parachutes, and take steps to avoid any potential conflicts between aircraft and parachute operations."

In addition, appendix 3, which is attached to this AC, gives the impression that parachutists could be scattered all around the airport during operations, and that potential conflicts could occur. This appendix is dated, and it is innaccurate in that it doesn't take into account the effect winds have on opening points (i.e. the spot), or the fact that parachutists open in a rough line as determined by jump run.

As far as right of way, common sense would seem to dictate that parachutists should have it over powered aircraft. In Far 91.113, however, which addresses right of way, parachutists are not mentioned in the pecking order.

I'm sure the FAA will investigate this incident, and it will be very interesting to see what conclusions they come to.

[DBCOOPER 1]

Quote

Why do planes that have nothing to do with skydiving land and take off while canopies are in the air?

Because the world doesn't revolve around skydiving.We share the airspace.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[pyke 0]

Quote

>What I know of piloting - you're allowed to only have one plane one
>final descent at a time, right? (perhaps I'm wrong)

Nope. At busy airports it's normal to hear something like "46 quebec, turn your base, you are number four behind a Baron, S-turns approved."

yes, but billvon, isn't that strictly to enter your base leg, not your final? base leg is the downwind leg of your approach - where you should be flying away from (and directly at) canopies?? And, if traffic control is approving landings close together - wouldn't it pay to have someone in manifest on the radio telling the pilot they're clear to set up, but there's approx. X minutes until all canopies are down - to space landings??

Quote

>Given that once parachutes (parachutists) exit an aircraft - they are
> automatically on final descent - so why allow pilots to land while
> canopies are flying?

Why allow parachutes to land near the runway? Why allow more than one group out on a pass? (it would prevent some freefall collisions) Because in most cases it can be done safely.

True - and up until now it has been done safely.

I agree with the previous mentions of "doing something now is too early", but I postured the idea early to generate discussion - and perhaps collectively develop a safe "standard" for canopies and AC.

Great insight, THANKS bv!!

Kahurangi e Mahearangi,
Kiwi, RB #926, AFF-I, FAA Snr. Rigger, RN/BSN/Paramedic

[billvon 2,433]

>yes, but billvon, isn't that strictly to enter your base leg, not your final?
>base leg is the downwind leg of your approach - where you should be
>flying away from (and directly at) canopies??

There are five main parts of the pattern at airports - departure (obvious) crosswind (the first turn after departure) downwind (flying downwind parallel to the runway) base (flying towards the final leg) and final, where you're headed straight towards the runway in preparation to land. Often, the tower will "call your base" to allow for separation, but once you turn base you're pretty much committed to turning final. Once on final you can do S-turns or 360's if needed (and if approved) to get more separation, but that can hose the pilots behind you.

>And, if traffic control is approving landings close together - wouldn't it
>pay to have someone in manifest on the radio telling the pilot they're
>clear to set up, but there's approx. X minutes until all canopies are
>down - to space landings??

It's all what you want to spend money on vs risk. This accident, as someone else pointed out, is a 20 million to 1 chance occurrence. Considering that there are several close calls _a_day_ in the landing area of large DZ's, it would make more sense to put that person out in the landing area where he or she can do more good.

That being said, most larger DZ's do have someone on the radio with the pilot. At Skydive Arizona it's usually Brian, at Perris it's usually Dan or Tim. They exchange information about the spot, people landing out, the next load etc.

>I agree with the previous mentions of "doing something now is too
>early", but I postured the idea early to generate discussion - and
>perhaps collectively develop a safe "standard" for canopies and AC.

I suspect that this incident will spur a lot of discussion between pilots, DZO managers, instructors etc which is good. I would be careful to avoid quick fixes, though - they can often do more harm than good. Imagine, if you will, having a high opening and then finding yourself above an aircraft that's circling waiting for everyone to land. Wouldn't you rather have him on the ground if that happened?

[pyke 0]

Quote

There are five main parts of the pattern at airports - departure (obvious) crosswind (the first turn after departure) downwind (flying downwind parallel to the runway) base (flying towards the final leg) and final, where you're headed straight towards the runway in preparation to land. Often, the tower will "call your base" to allow for separation, but once you turn base you're pretty much committed to turning final. Once on final you can do S-turns or 360's if needed (and if approved) to get more separation, but that can hose the pilots behind you.

you're right - I got confused with my terminology there. Thanks for the clarification...duly noted. I was thinking in terms of base, approach, final. (again - not a pilot)


and yes, I would rather have a plane on the ground - sometimes - if I could see it.
I guess what I was getting at with my suggestion is that if you can't see me, and I can't see you - then I take comfort in the fact that we aren't going to be close on landing.

Anyway - I appreciate your responses...they've provided me with more things to consider in my own argument...as well as shed light to new challenges to canopies and AC 'sharing' the air.

Let's just all continue to be SAFE out there!!

Kahurangi e Mahearangi,
Kiwi, RB #926, AFF-I, FAA Snr. Rigger, RN/BSN/Paramedic

[phoenixlpr 0]

I think we don`t need any new process. I`d like to know who has failed to follow the existing ones.

I had jumps at several airport where under 300m the runway was a no fly zone for us. We shared airspace with gliders, hang gliders, para-gliders too without any conflict.I was almost hit by a glider rolling after landing on a taxiway, but it could have been my own stupid fault.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

While your point is valid from the standpoint of common sense, this incident appears to be highly visible, at least for the time being. Overreaction may very well occur. I know a skydiver who works for the FAA, and he has stated that his superiors have expressed concern over the close proximity of parachute landing areas to runways at many airports. According to him, the FAA has heard complaints from airport managers regarding canopies and air traffic before. I expect he is hearing an earfull from his boss this morning.

Canopies and air traffic or freefallers and air traffic? All you have to do with canopies is move the LZ off the DZ and bus them back and forth. It's a PITA for the DZ to bus people in from the landing area, but it's usually doable if it comes down to that.

Now I know at Pahokee FL we had all sorts of air traffic issues due to planes flying over the airport because of a beacon there. It wasn't at all uncommon for a load to go around once or twice due to air traffic and I believe air traffic is the reason why that airport won't allow a DZ to operate from there today.

[rhino 0]

Bottom line.. I do TONS of high altitude hop-n-pops.. I know where the plane is at all times.. I know how long it takes for him to get to the ground vs how long it takes me. I know how long with different pilots. My life depends on it. I do not count on the pilot seeing me. i do not count on any pilot seeing me. I assume every plane in the air wants to kill me and I look out as best I can. when landing in proximity of the plane he has right of way. I will not land ANYWHERE he will either fly or Taxi when he is near the ground. I'll land in the student area or beyond. even from 14k I normally beat him down.. Mullins always beats me..

It is the pilots job to watch out for me but ultimately my ass is in my own hands based off of where I fly in proximity to that aircraft and it's airspace.

If you don't want to land there don't fly over it. If you don't want to hit it.. Don't fly in the same airspace or time that it does.

I do high alti hop-n-pops for a number of reasons.. I don't have to compete for airspace with other canopies.. when I pull high the pilot knows how high. I have a clean runway on landing. The piliot can warn other air traffic that their is an open canopy at 14k under xyz airfield and look out for me.. I've had Mullins go between me and another aircraft to get his attention. Very impressive.. It helps to keep the pilot informed and to fly defensively.

Just some nuggets.. Take it or leave it..

Rhino

[murps2000 86]

At least during jump run there is a measure of air traffic control. Under canopy (and in freefall, for that matter), as many have stated, it appears that see and avoid is the rule. Pure VFR. As you and others have also asserted, this is a very rare occurence, but as with many skydiving incidents, close calls are sometimes never reported. I had one myself over United Parachute Club back in '99. I never saw that silver Cessna till he was pulling away in a left hand turn about 200 meters away. I'm sure glad he saw me. Have you ever pulled high on an otter load and tried to spot every canopy below you? It's not that easy, particularly if it's a canopy with a dark topskin. I imagine that it has to be difficult for pilots, as well.

See and avoid was the rule in 1972 when a PSA 727 hit a Cessna and crashed while on approach to Lindbergh Field in San Diego. In the NTSB ruling on the incident, ultimately the 727 pilot was deemed responsible. But one of the board members dissented stating that the see and avoid protocol which was standard at the time was at least contributory. In my mind I see a bit of a parallel, but I'm not sure of a viable solution in this case. I have a feeling, however, that simply stating that this is so rare that nothing should be done may not be good enough. As I said, I'm quite curious what the FAA's take on this will be.

[billvon 2,433]

>Have you ever pulled high on an otter load and tried to spot every canopy below you?

Yes. Wingsuit jumpers have to do that all the time. We're basically flying at about the approach speed of an Otter into an area with a lot of canopies, and some of them (tandems/AFF) open high. Often I have to modify my flight a bit to arrive in an area that will be clear of other jumpers. I usually start checking around 7000 feet.

Of course, this is not really a good comparison because we have much better visibility than either a canopy pilot (who can't see above him) or an otter pilot (who can only see out the cockpit windows.)

[n23x 0]

Pyke,

In a challenge between General Aviation and Skydivers, who do you think would end up with the airport?

If we required that all approaching aircraft held off until every jumper was down, how long do you think that dropzone would last at that airport?

The FACT is, if this becomes an issue of regulating GA for our own "benefit"/safety, then DZ's will drop like flies.

Kneejerk reactions aren't the solution to freak accidents.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[DBCOOPER 1]

Lets say the FAA made dropzones restricted airspace.In restricted airspace there are what is known as "invisible hazards to flight" such as artillery rounds flying thru the air or low flying jets at very high speeds,or in this hypothetical case,skydivers falling from above.You couldn't fly thru that area unless you contacted the controlling agency.Would that make everybody feel better? I got to tell you I witnessed a Cessna 172 fly right through a restricted area while an "Immediate suppression"(where every tube in the battery fires every thing they have as fast as they can) call for fire with 155 mm artillery rounds.Big sky little bullet let him live to see another day.Some times shit just happens Lets be careful out there.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[livetofly 0]

Just thought i would add my 2 cents. Setting up to land an airplane in the pattern is a very stressful time. Being a pilot and a skydiver i would definetally say it is the parachutists resposibility to stay clear of planes. The canopy pilot has a better view and the advantage of hearing whats going. Remember, planes are always keeping watch for traffic but can only see in front and to the sides, they can not comunicate with, expect, or always see a canopy decending above them. To me its like those share the road with bikers signs. They can ride on the same roads as cars, but highways are not built for bikes. The best way to avoid planes i think is to be aware of two important altitudes. 2000ft and 1000ft. (+/- 1or200) Normal pattern altitude is 1000ft when a pilot enters his downwind at uncontrolled airports. When he passes the end of the runway he begins his decent and turns his base and then final (always to the left unless otherwise stated by the airport) My advice would be know wich way airplanes are landing prior to your jump, that way you will know which side of the runway they will be flying on. Be cautious when aproaching 1000 ft. because there could be traffic, and never ever be under 1000 ft. at the aproach end of the runway. It is comon for planes to set up for the pattern by crossing over the middle of the runnway at 2000ft. They then circle/desend back to 1000 ft and enter the downwind 45degrees to the middle of the runway. So again, aproach 2000 ft with caution. Aside from getting back from a bad spot, i always try to get through 2000 as fast as possible, its fun to spiral anyways. Basically, if your over the runway or to the opposite side of traffic pattern and under 2000 ft. you are in a no fly zone for planes. If you are to the side of the traffic pattern and under 1000 ft, you are in a no fly zone to planes. And avoid at all costs being under 1000ft at the aproach end of the runway. Anyways, those are just some things i try to think about, blue skies!

[riggerrob 558]

All you have to do with canopies is move the LZ off the DZ and bus them back and forth. It's a PITA for the DZ to bus people in from the landing area, but it's usually doable if it comes down to that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I disagree.
First of all split DZs are ridiculously time and dollar consuming.
Don Balch - my old boss at Hemet, California - used to complain about spending $45,000 per year on vans to drive jumpers from the LZ to the airport.
Come to think of it, Hemet was the least safe DZ I have ever jumped at.
Every weekend a Cherokee and a silver Cessna 170 used to wander through the Diamond Valley DZ, often while I was in drogue-fall.
And I got pretty good a spotting the US Marine CH-53 helicopters, but I remember one day saying to myself in freefall, "Those Huey Cobras should not be flying through an active DZ. Oh! Wait a minute, they are Huey Cobras and they can fly anywhere they want."
One time I watched a Brazilia pass behind my photographer as we freefell through 9,000'! Then our pilot heard ATC criticize the Brazilia pilot for starting his descent too early.
Normally SoCal center told pilots to wait until they were past the March VOR (a few miles West of Hemet and 1 mile East of the Perris Valley DZ) before starting their descent.
Come to think of it, Pitt Meadows is one of the safest DZs I have ever jumped at BECAUSE it has a VOR. Vancouver Center is pretty good at keeping airliners and skydivers separate. Air traffic controllers and airline pilots understand VORS.
If they tell airline pilots that there is skydiving near a VOR, it is easy for IFR pilots to fly around that VOR. IFR pilots understand VORS far better than they understand "DZ on a farmer's field some vague distance north-north-east of the gas station on highway number xyz."
I have only seen one close call at Pitt Meadows and that was with a Mooney pilot who blundered into the Pitt Meadows control without talking to controllers.

In conclusion, split DZs waste time and dollars and are far more dangerous than landing on the same airfield you just took off from.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

First of all split DZs are ridiculously time and dollar consuming.
Don Balch - my old boss at Hemet, California - used to complain about spending $45,000 per year on vans to drive jumpers from the LZ to the airport.

Beyond that they mean experienced skydivers are filling fewer slots.

When I can walk a few hundred feet between the packing hanger and landing/loading areas I can make every other load on a single turbine. With trailer rides I can only make every third load.

Much of the time this leads to unfilled empty seats at $22 each, several on a load, on many of the 25 loads in a day.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

First of all split DZs are ridiculously time and dollar consuming.
Don Balch - my old boss at Hemet, California - used to complain about spending $45,000 per year on vans to drive jumpers from the LZ to the airport.

Beyond that they mean experienced skydivers are filling fewer slots.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What do you mean by "experienced jumpers are filling fewer slots?"
Try zero.
As soon as our students graduated AFF, they left Hemet for bigger DZs with shorter walks, like Elsinore or Perris.

• Quote

[dbonevt 0]

Another post from a pilot and jumper, and I was a jumper before I was a pilot…

I would like to echo what another pilot poster said earlier… On final approach as a pilot, there is a lot going on, and it’s the most stressful part of the flight. There is limited visibility, limited maneuverability, and most of all, we are concentrating on the runway in front of us because that’s the only place we can land.

I don’t know the specifics of this recent accident, but I heard it was at an altitude of 600 feet AGL. If that is a correct altitude and the pilot was on final approach, then I put more of the blame on the jumper. Everybody (jumpers/pilots/even spectators) knows EXACTLY where that plane is landing. There is a paved strip of land a few thousand feet long with numbers on each end of it. That’s where the plane is going to land. As jumpers, we can land just about anywhere. You cannot expect a pilot to keep track of the number of canopies in the air and the location of each. I believe it is 100% the jumper’s responsibility to stay away from the final approach path of the runway.

Planes flying over the DZ at cruise (freefall) altitudes is a whole ‘nother story. I agree with a previous post that said give up now if you think you’ll ever be able to “restrict” airspace around a DZ. It won’t (and shouldn’t) happen. However, there is something that will help pilots coming out soon. The USPA is working with the FAA to figure out where ACTIVE DZ’s are operating, because aviation maps have a lot of airports marked as DZ’s even though there hasn’t been an active one there for years. Once they get that list together, they are going to be added to Jeppeson GPS databases that are put out by major manufactures. So as paper charts fade away and more pilots fly using just GPS, they will see the DZ marked on there.

Sharing the airspace means pilots won’t fly low over the LZ and jumpers won’t fly over the runway. Think of a busy road with a sidewalk. You walk on the sidewalk and drive on the road. If a person gets hit on the road, it’s more his/her fault for stepping onto a busy road. If they get hit on the sidewalk, it was probably the car’s fault for leaving the road. I jumped a lot at Skydive PA with glider traffic every weekend. They had a right hand pattern to land on the runway (from the left side of the runway making all right hand turns to land) and we landed on the right side of the runway. All DZ’s I know of and have jumped at/flew into either have landing patterns to keep jumpers and pilot’s separated and usually have the standing rule for jumpers that says no canopy below 1000 feet over or crossing the runway.

Lastly, I’m of the opinion nothing needs done here. 1 accident in millions of skydives and years of sharing the airspace does not necessitate more rules/regulations. Hopefully it is a wake up call to jumpers and pilots alike, and let’s all hope it never happens again.

Dave
Dallas, TX

[n23x 0]

Dave, Excellent Post.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[murps2000 86]

If a person gets hit on the road, it’s more his/her fault for stepping onto a busy road. ***

Not in California. But that is one of the things I miss about the east. People push baby carriages out in the streets with legal impunity here.

Point being, if it's not what the law says, it may not matter who was at fault from a common sense standpoint. What I tried to point out earlier is that no clear FAR exists regarding a parachutist vs. aircraft collision, at least as far as right of way is concerned, and it will be interesting to see if it is perceived by the powers that be that new regs need to be made. It sounds like many drop zones take into careful consideration the air traffic situation around their landing areas, which is good, but for whatever reason things didn't work out in Deland.

People are right to express concern and disdain for knee-jerk reaction to this incident, but it was highly visible. So was 9-11, and IMO, the TSA strip searching old ladies & Al Gore at the airport was knee-jerk reaction to that. It fails common sense, but it still happened. Unfortunately, sometimes thats how regs end up on the books.

[Designer 0]

This is a tough 1?I let the pilot know usually before I get on the plane if I plan on opening at 5,000 agl or 8,000 agl.More times than not the pilot is landing the plane before I land.We all fly by "Visible Flight Rules".Now,more than ever it seems(because of last weekends accident)we general users of the air space will have to do a better job "Flying our patterns" correctly.Not to suggest that was the problem?I don't know the facts.It does seem like it might have posed a problem?rob