Near Miss - Crosskeys, NJ 6,7,2007

[diverdriver 5]

I have received word that one of our CRJs departing Philadelphia had a near miss with the Twin Otter at Crosskeys, NJ. The plane dropped the last jumper then apparently dove past our CRJ which took evasive action to avoid a collision. The captain on that flight estimates the horizontal distance at less than 1,000 feet.

This can not continue! My near miss with freefalling jumpers at Crosskeys happened just over a year ago. Eventually the statistical odds will catch up and there are going to be fatalities due to this. That is why I am now a firm believer that ALL turbine jump planes should be REQUIRED to install and have operating a TCAS (Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System). USPA is doing a diservice by fighting this regulation. It is going to cost people their lives soon.

Will you be one of them?

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[bigway 4]

is this an incident or nearly an incident?

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[rapter 0]

Installing TCAS and training pilots in it's use will cost DZOs lots of money and would kill many dropzones, Yes money overrides the possibly of saving lives. Why stop at turbine aircraft ?, how about all jump planes.

Only the good die young, so I have found immortality,

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

is this an incident or nearly an incident?

From the FAA (pdf; p20):

Quote

Incident - an occurrence other than an accident associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.

Definition of a near miss:

Quote

Near Midair Collision (NMAC) - an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which the possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is received from a pilot or flight crewmember stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.

[diablopilot 2]

So there was a failure of ATC to provide adiquate seperation, and your CRJ pilot failed to allow for a wide enough margin to the existing jump opperation, and you think the Twin Otter ought to have TCAS?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

So there was a failure of ATC to provide adiquate seperation, and your CRJ pilot failed to allow for a wide enough margin to the existing jump opperation, and you think the Twin Otter ought to have TCAS?

Is C-K inside the Philly Class Bravo? If not, even IFR flights are required to see-and-avoid when in VMC. But one wonders why the jet was anywhere near a well known and busy drop zone, and who was talking to whom (Jet/ATC/Otter/CTAF).

...

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

[Krip 2]

Quote

Installing TCAS and training pilots in it's use will cost DZOs lots of money and would kill many dropzones, Yes money overrides the possibly of saving lives. Why stop at turbine aircraft ?, how about all jump planes.

I know we can't put a $ value on the loss of human life since every life is invaluable.

But can someone be more specific about the cost of installing a TCAS on a otter and the training involved.

[rapter 0]

Quote

But can someone be more specific about the cost of installing a TCAS on a otter and the training involved

http://www.aea.net/Pilot/TCASPG05.pdf

just for starters

Only the good die young, so I have found immortality,

[wrightskyguy 1]

The initial cost can be a little high, depending on what you get, there really isn't much training involved.

John Wright

World's most beloved skydiver

[jdatc 0]

Quote

So there was a failure of ATC to provide adiquate seperation,

Doubt it.

Are air traffic controllers required to issue traffic advisories to jump aircraft?

FAAO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, paragraph 9-8-4, requires that controllers issue traffic advisories to the jump aircraft before the jump. Controllers must issue advisories to all known aircraft that will transit the airspace when the jump operations will be conducted.


Are air traffic controllers required to separate jump aircraft that operate within a Class E airspace area?

No. Traffic advisories shall be provided, but ATC is not required to separate visual flight rules aircraft within Class E airspace. However, in accordance with FAAO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, paragraph 9-8-4, ATC may assist pilots of non-participating aircraft that request help in avoiding the jump airspace. In addition, if there is other traffic in the jump area, ATC does not authorize or deny jump operations due to traffic. The jump pilot shall be issued traffic advisories. The jump pilot and jumpers will make a decision on whether or not to allow the jumpers to leave the aircraft. 14 CFR, section 105.5, clearly places the burden on the jump pilot and parachutist by stating that 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 ground.

Actually, looks like crosskeys is outside the class B of PHL.... http://skyvector.com/

I am leaving work to go skydiving. not my problem!

_justin

[Derekbox 0]

Did the CRJ get a traffic warning?

Here are my issues, if the Otter is diving onto another aircraft then:
1) In a dive, the Otter may change from non threat to threat, the warning may not be issued quickly enough for effective response.
2) TCAS generally issues, "climb" or "dive" commands. This is effective on collisions that happen on the horizontal plane. It would be much less effective on a vertical collision scheme. TCAS 3 has the horizontal avoidance scheme, but TCAS 3 has been backburnered and is not available.
3) A TCAS installed in the Otter would not likely prevent a collision in the vertical scheme (see #1 and #2 above). But, IF the Otter does have TCAS installed with a display to show intruders, then the situational awareness might be greatly increased, knowing that an aircraft is in close proximity and below you, the aware pilot would ideally change the decent profile.
4) This same traffic awareness can be provided by TIS if your area is under Mode S coverage that supports TIS.

Now this awareness would require a display. The bare bones TCAS installation is the Avidyne TAS series which would run $10-20k, plus installation. The Garmin TIS solution (GTX 330 with GNS430), could be had for approx $10-20k plus installation.

Now, the term TCAS is being thrown around here indiscriminately. TCAS is a Honeywell trademark. It is BIG dollar equipment. But it is also some of the best. You could easily spend $50-100k+ on a true TCAS 1 installation if using after market parts.

Now if any operator there is interested in a TCAS/Traffic awareness/avionics installation feel free to call your local DZ.com avionics tech/installer (me).
D

p.s. training is simple, self test unit per the manual, and do what the unit says, pull up/dive.

[diverdriver 5]

The Regional Jet (CRJ) most certainly was NOT at fault for this near miss. You think your DZ "owns" the airspace above it? Hah! You don't. And you never will. Crosskeys is a hazard to every departure from Philadelphia on the DITCH departure (the first fix/waypoint) and those coming in for runway 35. The airport for Crosskeys IS NOT displayed on our screens and it's not required to be. I have gone and described to our pilots on how to get it on their displays by using a couple of "drawing" features we have but this does not guarantee each crew will do it nor are they required to. I am trying to educate our pilots more despite what is required of us. I am trying on our end. You all have to try on your end.

This is the second near miss in just over a year with my company alone and there are a lot of operators coming in and out of PHL. Yes, the controller did vector the CRJ into the DZ. But on our TCAS screens we see planes that have transponders. We do NOT expect them to do barrel roles and acrobactic manuevers coming out of the sky above us. This crew had to take evasive action to avoid the collision (so they DID see and avoid) because the jump plane DID NOT see them. Our crew had to go way beyond normal flight manuevering to avoid a collision. 1,000 feet horizontal seperation is not enough and not acceptable. Had the jump plane had TCAS or some traffic alert system the pilot of the jump plane would have been warned as to the presence of the CRJ. He could have made a more informed decision about descending. A Twin Otter can achieve a rate of descent over 6,000 feet per minute. That is a tremendous verticle closure rate and it is up the operator of such aircraft to plan accordingly for the airspace they are in.

Dead is dead. Even if you are dead right, you're still dead.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Actually, looks like crosskeys is outside the class B of PHL.... http://skyvector.com/

I am leaving work to go skydiving. not my problem!

_justin

The link your provided did not show the Cross Keys DZ as far as what I saw. It was of the New York area. Anyone have a better link?

edit: ok try this link: http://skyvector.com/#22-23-2-4375-672

It is outside the Class B but is inside the Mode C vail. The Class B airspace has been "cut off" from a normal shape around an airport of PHL size. I was told by the PHL manager that it is because of McGuire AFB is to the Northeast and they didn't want to contact anyone going southwest towards the Washington DC area. How true that is I don't know. Just what I was told from someone who's been there longer.

So Crosskeys is way closer to a major airport than most any other DZ I can think of.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[Derekbox 0]

I am not sure if your reply was directed at me, or commenting in general. So I will try to tread carefully here. I did not imply anyone was at fault. It appears to me that the CRJ was doing business as usual. But on the same token, it does not seem that the Otter was at fault either. Now had a collision occured, without doubt the Otter would be the root cause, but was he breaking any rules (and I am not soliciting opinions about him being wreckless either). Did the Otter do anything breaking any rules?

My point, was that even if both aircraft had TCAS installed, in this situation, I do not think that it would have made a difference. You said it yourself, 6000'/m dive, the otter would go from non threat to threat in a matter of seconds, and in a dive from above, the TCAS warnings issued would not appropriate for this kind of vertical closure.

What would have helped the Otter, is not the TCAS itself, but the situational awareness presented by the TCAS display. But that same fuctionality would also be provided by TIS. A much more cost effective solution if you have a mode S terminal (and most of the NE US region does).

The reason I mention the TIS solution, is an operator can use the Garmin solution, use a 430/530, get a new com, new nav, GPS, MFD and TIS for about the same cost as the simplest Traffic avoidance system. That is something that you would have MUCH greater success selling to a DZ. Of course there is still a significant installation cost associated with either package.

So let me rephrase this, if the CRJ and Otter has 2000' of vertical seperation, the TCAS will be fat dumb and happy. and then enters into a dive of 6000'/m, the TCAS for both should go off, at which point either aircraft have seconds to respond. The TCAS would issue TA (traffic advisor), if one has a TCAS 2 unit, it may also issue a RA (resolution advisory), but the commands are going to tell the planes to climb or dive. But that are still in the same vertical plane. The effectiveness of these commands is sketchy at best. TCAS 3 addresses the shortcomings of the previous generations lack of horizontal resolutions which would be effective in this scenerio, but TCAS 3 does not exsist. My point - depending on TCAS alone to prevent this collision is not the solution. Situational awareness is the solution here, and a TCAS/TIS display will give you a much better picture of that.

Of course if any of these aircraft have a bad transponder, or the transponder/tcas antenna is shadowed then it doesnt matter.

[itllclear 1]

Depending on technology to do a job for which it might not have been intended might actually reduce safety margins, not enhance them. Maybe there are other alternatives that would be more effective.

As I understand it, the software in TCAS units is designed to deal with horizontal closures, not rapid vertical closures. The RA’s are either “Climb” or “Dive.” If an Otter Pilot in a rapid descent received a “Dive” command, what should he change?

Although TIS might give enhanced information about traffic below a jump plane either on jump run or during descent, what effect on safety would there be if the single pilot of an Otter was concentrating on the small screen of a Garmin 430 while dealing with changing CG as floaters climb out?

Some questions regarding this particular incident:

1) Do we know if the Otter pilot was aware of the RJ and was already established on trajectory that would have afforded adequate VFR separation, i.e. in a turn away from the path of the RJ? Perhaps the evasive action was not really necessary, although I am fully familiar with taking action when another plane pops into my line of sight.

2) Do we know if there was any ATC advisory given to the RJ of the jump activity?

Some more effective steps might be to:

1) Work with the various ATC facilities to have the controller handling the departures off PHL inform the controller handling the Otter on jump run that a jet was being sent over the DZ.

2) Have the ATIS at PHL include info about the jump activity like at Brown field (SDM)

3) Have the chart for the PHILADELPHIA 7 departure include info about the DZ the same way the PRADO 6 departure from Ontario warns about the Perris and Elsinore DZ’s . Note that JUMPA intersection has been designated at the Elsinore DZ!

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0706/00965PRADO.PDF
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0706/00320PHILADELPHIA.PDF

Before we ask DZ’s to spend hundreds of thousands of $ on equipment that might not only NOT enhance safety but actually detract from safety, shouldn’t alternatives that might be more effective be exhausted?

Harry Leicher

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[DBCOOPER 1]

I'm really having a problem understanding how this happens in a radar enviroment...

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

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

[jdatc 0]

Quote

The Regional Jet (CRJ) most certainly was NOT at fault for this near miss. You think your DZ "owns" the airspace above it? Hah! You don't. And you never will.

edit...

forget it you seem intent on laying blame. Explaining who owns what and where isn't worth the time.

Good luck at your commuter.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

But can someone be more specific about the cost of installing a TCAS on a otter and the training involved.

I know the TCAS I replaced the other day was $325,000! That was on a Boeing 777 though.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[CPTSkydive 0]

I witnessed another incident.... It was about 3 years ago. Two tandem instructors, each with video were falling. Each fell to one side of a 757 (I think it was a 757, could have been a 737) with not much room to spare. Each had video of the other falling past the plane. It was a show! I know because I was on that load and out just before these two jumpers, and saw the plane below me. I believe it was logged with the FAA as ATC or pilot error as the jump plane did make all the appropriate calls prior to jump run, as always at this DZ.
The problem is, the most common free fall areas to the drop zone where I witnessed this incident are right the middle of a very common commercial airline decent glide path to an international airport into a very large city. Usually in this area ATC diverts the airliners once they know a jump plane is in the air and jump run is getting ready to commence, but as in this case....and others.... there is a factor that can only be defined as human.
Imagine the tragedy, not just to the human lives, but to our sport as a whole if one of us brought down a commercial airliner because of a collision, weather it was our fault or not. You can look all you want before you jump, but if a commercial airliner is approaching at speed from behind your jump plane, at three thousand feet below you, you may not see it until it is either too late, or it makes a very cool but scary video.
I really think that the commercial traffic could be diverted, as a rule, around any DZ during daylight hours or posted jump hours, and not just when “jumpers are in the air.”. It is only prudent and really would not be that hard to accomplish. Is this something USPA can lobby for? Am I off base here?

[bigway 4]

is there a link to this video??? PLEASE!

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

I really think that the commercial traffic could be diverted, as a rule, around any DZ during daylight hours or posted jump hours, and not just when “jumpers are in the air.”. It is only prudent and really would not be that hard to accomplish. Is this something USPA can lobby for? Am I off base here?

I agree. But this is not what ATC is doing. I feel any DZ should be treated as "hot" whenever they give a NOTAM for jumping. It should be treated just like we treat props on piston planes: It could start up at any time. The human element to "clear" the DZ of air traffic just shouldn't be. When airliners leave PHL there is no conflict when they are turned "direct DITCH" as soon as they check on with departure. It's when they are given a vector south first then turned direct that we fly right through the DZ. And I guarantee that you go to any airline out there that flys into PHL and ask 500 pilots if they know where Crosskeys is and I guarantee that maybe two would know how to find it.

It's up to you to protect your life and your sport. Even if it is deemed controller error if there is actually a collision between jumpers or a jump plane and an airliner which costs lives I guarantee that all skydiving across the country is likely to be grounded. Remember the threat from the FAA about seatbelts in 1992 after the Perris Valley Twin Otter crash and the Beech 18 at Hinckley? Grounding all skydiving can happen if Congress gets involved because airline commerce has been effected. Think of the press and public outrage that would ensue. You think the general public will care if you get to jump again ever or not?

Be proactive. Get your DZs to ensure they are not having regular near misses with airliners. Go the extra mile for yourself. This type of accident can never happen or the repercussions will be felt for decades.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[diverdriver 5]

My apologies to all about my comment that USPA was fighting a proposed reg to require all turbine aircraft to have TCAS. Although I'm quite sure I read this, I can not now find any supporting information about the proposed reg or USPAs stance.

I retract my statement on that part of the issue.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[billvon 2,426]

> I really think that the commercial traffic could be diverted, as a
>rule, around any DZ during daylight hours or posted jump hours, and not
>just when “jumpers are in the air.”

If this were implemented, there would have to be an approval procedure, and surely several DZ's like Crosskeys would be denied approval since losing that airspace would negatively impact air safety (less space to vector IFR traffic in congested airspace.) So we should think carefully about what we ask for.

Ultimately the person looking out the door is responsible for making sure they can safely exit; the pilot of the jump aircraft is responsible for making sure they see and avoid other traffic in the area.

[itllclear 1]

Quote

I really think that the commercial traffic could be diverted, as a rule, around any DZ during daylight hours or posted jump hours, and not just when “jumpers are in the air.”. It is only prudent and really would not be that hard to accomplish. Is this something USPA can lobby for? Am I off base here?

If we ask ATC to sterilize the airspace over the DZ even if there are no jump planes up, the airlines would be within their rights to ask ATC to sterilize the airspace in the published departure paths, even if no jets were actually on departure. Guess who has more clout.

To expect sterilization of airspace for a Cessna DZ the makes a few flights per day is completely unreasonable. On the other hand, a NOTAM or evenb a TFR may be established for extraordinary events, such as the WFFC. But where do you draw the line?

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[itllclear 1]

Quote

I'm really having a problem understanding how this happens in a radar enviroment...

Real simple.

It is very common to have different controllers working different altitude airspace. The two planes were probably talking to different controllers. ATC is more accustomed to planes in level flight, or climbs & descents not exceeding 2,000 f.p.m. As was previously mentioned and Otter on descent can easily hit 6,000 fpm.

Remember, @ 240 kts, the RJ would be covering 4 miles per minute.

At the time the Otter gave its “2 minute to drop” call to its ATC controller, the RJ might have been 8 miles away, on an assigned heading that would not have taken it over the DZ. To the controller handling the Otter, no conflict.

The ATC controller handling the RJ would have seen a target in level flight, way above the RJ. Without knowledge of the anticipated rapid descent, again no conflict of a turn over the DZ.

Depending on when the RJ was given instructions to turn, with the frequency congestion in busy areas, and ATC’s priority to separate IFR traffic from other IFR traffic, there might have been no opportunity for either controller to call the other on a landline, or to give an advisory to either aircraft.

Remember, if we ask ATC to sterilize the airspace over the DZ even if there are no jump planes up, the airlines would be within their rights to ask ATC to sterilize the airspace in the published departure paths, even if no jets were actually on departure. Guess who has more clout.

At Perris, there has to be coordination with SoCal Approach as well as March ARB Tracon. They seem really good at it, and as a pilot flying near the area I’ve had both ATC facilities give me advisories of jump activity and anticipated rapid descents. I’ve also heard the controllers tell the jump planes to stop a descent at a certain altitude due to conflicting traffic below.

Since this is the second incident in this location reported on this forum alone, I’m wondering if a meeting with the ATC managers might be in order to try to establish procedures to minimize the risks. I know there is often a reluctance to talk to the Feds, but being proactive by offering a reasonable solution to an anticipated problem if often better than dealing with the consequences of taking no action at all.

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."