jdfreefly 1 #1 July 26, 2006 Does this statement from the manager of the FAA's Technical Standards Branch scare anyone else? "Parachute descents through uncontrolled traffic patterns are a hazard at any time and should not be permitted," wrote Michael L. Kelly.... Link to full story: http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/06/news060725_5.htm Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr17Hz 1 #2 July 26, 2006 To quote the entire article: Quote The Federal Aviation Administration has sided with the Durango-La Plata County Airport in finding that a skydiving landing zone located near the airport would create an unsafe situation. Bayfield's Stephen Gromack proposed a skydiving business in which skydivers would land about a quarter of a mile east of the airport's runways. The Airport Commission voted unanimously to deny the request for a landing zone on airport property for safety reasons. So in May, Gromack appealed to the FAA. In a letter earlier this month, the FAA concurred with the Airport Commission, saying the location would result in parachute descents being in direct conflict with aircraft traffic. While the statistical chances of a mishap are low, the FAA based its ruling on the "obvious hazard" that would result. "Parachute descents through uncontrolled traffic patterns are a hazard at any time and should not be permitted," wrote Michael L. Kelly, manager for the FAA's Technical Standards Branch. Efforts to reach Gromack for comment were unsuccessful Monday. I'm not a pilot. I wonder what this FAA manager's definition of "uncontrolled traffic patterns" is. Perhaps this airport had no designated flight patterns like others ussually do? Could somebody educated on this matter fill me in to what "uncontrolled traffic patterns" are and how they're different from "controlled traffic patterns" around airports? Before we go and get upset about the quote we should consider it in context.Matt Christenson [email protected] http://www.RealDropzone.com - A new breed of dropzone manifest software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 July 26, 2006 QuoteI'm not a pilot. I wonder what this FAA manager's definition of "uncontrolled traffic patterns" is. The word "uncontrolled" means there is no control tower. A "traffic pattern" is, just like in skydiving, the area set aside for entry into the landing area. Quote Perhaps this airport had no designated flight patterns like others ussually do? ALL airports have a designated traffic pattern. ALL. The default is 1000 agl and left hand. Pilots fly downwind, base and final legs to land just like skydivers do. Aircraft are NOT required to be in radio contact with ANYONE at an uncontrolled airport. Therefore they would have NO WAY of knowing if skydiving was going on. Any reasonable pilot would agree with the basic statement; "Parachute descents through uncontrolled traffic patterns are a hazard at any time and should not be permitted". This is not an attack on skydiving, just good sense. Quote Does this statement from the manager of the FAA's Technical Standards Branch scare anyone else? What scares me more is anyone that would have attempted this. If you don't understand how aviation works, then don't screw around near airports. Any DZO proposing this needs some education.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #4 July 26, 2006 Definitions a. Airports Without Operating Control Towers. Airports without control towers or an airport with a control tower which is not operating. These airports are commonly referred to as nontowered, uncontrolled, or part-time towered airports. Source: USPA SIM More good reading: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:tRs_Nnr7qY8J:boulder.cowg.cap.gov/tiki-download_file.php%3FfileId%3D24+uncontrolled+traffic+patterns&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #5 July 26, 2006 I sure would like some clarification on why this is not ok yet almost every dropzone I have ever been to is on an airport w/o a control tower. I guess I don't know what I am missing here.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #6 July 26, 2006 QuoteI sure would like some clarification on why this is not ok yet almost every dropzone I have ever been to is on an airport w/o a control tower. I guess I don't know what I am missing here. Ok, lemme try to explain with a mythical airport. The runway runs north and south. Jumpers exit, deploy and land EAST of the runway. Airplanes have their traffic pattern WEST of the runway. No issue. Happens everyday at drop zones across the country. What this guy proposed was that BOTH airplanes and jumpers use the SAME airspace. Pretty bad idea.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #7 July 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteI sure would like some clarification on why this is not ok yet almost every dropzone I have ever been to is on an airport w/o a control tower. I guess I don't know what I am missing here. Ok, lemme try to explain with a mythical airport. The runway runs north and south. Jumpers exit, deploy and land EAST of the runway. Airplanes have their traffic pattern WEST of the runway. No issue. Happens everyday at drop zones across the country. What this guy proposed was that BOTH airplanes and jumpers use the SAME airspace. Pretty bad idea. Doesn't the traffic pattern change sides depending on if they were landing on 18 or 36? Or does this situation have to do with how far away from the runway we are talking about? I guess what I am wondering is, is this more a matter of the proposed distance from the runway rather than specifically which side of it? If they were closer to the runway then they would be (in theory) inside of the pattern and out of the way? I don't know?~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #8 July 26, 2006 I'm going to ask DiverDriver to step in here. Let's get an expert's definition of controlled, uncontrolled and what "might" be the issue.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #9 July 26, 2006 I have to disagree. Like a poster pointed out above, aircraft will be using either side of the runway depending on the landing direction. Quade, you seem to be saying that dropzones should only operate at privately owned, single use airports. I hope I am misreading you. If this happens, many small and medium size dropzones will be put out of business. BTW, Skydive Orange has been operating at the Orange County Airport (uncontrolled) for over 25 years without any traffic problems on landing. Our infrequent and minor traffic problems come from passing aircraft not listening to unicom for jumper announcements. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #10 July 26, 2006 QuoteI'm going to ask DiverDriver to step in here. Let's get an expert's definition of controlled, uncontrolled and what "might" be the issue. Heh heh . . . if DiverDriver gives you an answer significantly different from mine . . . I'll donate $100 to your favorite charity. As far as being an "expert" on the subject . . . uh, the FAA did approve my flight training syllabus that I wrote. I dunno if that qualifies me as an expert, but . . . at least they still allowed me to teach people to fly airplanes. I don't really expect you to fully understand what that means, but . . . suffice it to say . . . I kinda know what I'm talking about on this subject.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #11 July 26, 2006 QuoteI have to disagree. Like a poster pointed out above, aircraft will be using either side of the runway depending on the landing direction. No. For instance, Perris has a runway that is north/south. Aircraft landing to the North use a left hand pattern and when landing to the South use a right hand pattern. This keeps the aircraft landing pattern to the WEST of the runway -- ALWAYS. Meanwhile, the skydivers have their landing patterns set up exactly the opposite and use the area to the EAST of the runway. A one-sided aircraft traffic pattern usually makes the most sense for noise abatement or other land use issues. Issues like . . . operating a DZ. Quote Quade, you seem to be saying that dropzones should only operate at privately owned, single use airports. I hope I am misreading you. If this happens, many small and medium size dropzones will be put out of business. Not at all. A drop zone -could- be put up right next to a lot of very busy airports -- hell Class B airports for that matter -- IF the right conditions existed. I'm going to have to assume that you also don't understand the basic terminology the FAA uses. What the FAA said on this particular case was -exactly- correct.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #12 July 26, 2006 The FAA did that?!?!?!? I had the same question as Dan. Thanks for the update.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #13 July 26, 2006 > Like a poster pointed out above, aircraft will be using either side >of the runway depending on the landing direction. Nope. Often traffic is restricted to one side of the pattern. A good example is Lufker and Spadaro's airports, two runways on Long Island within about 100 yards of each other. Lufker's pattern is to the west, Spadaro's pattern is to the east. Otherwise you'd get people flying at each other in the pattern. >Our infrequent and minor traffic problems come from passing aircraft >not listening to unicom for jumper announcements. That's a significant problem since they are not required to, and there's no good way around that (other than hope they do, or hope they notice the parachute symbol nearby.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #14 July 27, 2006 QuoteI'm going to have to assume that you also don't understand the basic terminology the FAA uses. What the FAA said on this particular case was -exactly- correct. I think I do understand the terminology and you are right, what he said is semantically correct. I think the important word in the sentance is "through". Parachutes, and other aircraft for that matter, should not fly through a pattern. Should they be permitted to fly "near" a pattern? I hope so. What worries me is how this statement could be interpreted by non-experts. People like myself and, say, legislators. To people not as tuned in as you to terminology, it sounds like this official believes parachute operations cannot be conducted at or near uncontrolled airports. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #15 July 27, 2006 Quote Parachutes, and other aircraft for that matter, should not fly through a pattern. Should they be permitted to fly "near" a pattern? I hope so. Near is a word that would give me, as well as the FAA "heartburn." Nobody is going out with a ruler and measuring what the word "near" is going to mean in your useage, but, in fact, "near" (as in miss) does have bad connotation when used in aviation. A better phrasing might be that parachute operations are conducted in a designated area on the airport property, a safe distance away from aircraft traffic. QuoteWhat worries me is how this statement could be interpreted by non-experts. This is a danger when anyone speaks in a highly specialized field. Quote People like myself and, say, legislators. To people not as tuned in as you to terminology, it sounds like this official believes parachute operations cannot be conducted at or near uncontrolled airports. Let me assure you that 99.99% of FAA officials choose their words extremely carefully so that they communicate precisely what they mean to those that understand their terminology. They make an art and science of it. They quibble over its minutiae ad infinitum. Trust me, they take their trivia seriously. That said, a person can almost never assume that anyone outside a specialized field such as this will ever understand. Then again, it really doesn't matter. While some (most?) people may be confused by the language, the people that are really in charge actually do understand it and that's all that really matters. If clarification is required, yes, the FAA is also capable of that, but don't ever expect them to "dumb it down" since that introduces other ambiguities. As I said in my first responce on this topic, if a person doesn't know how aviation works, then they have no business fooling around near airports. This is admittedly glib, but also about as true as anything that can be said on the subject.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #16 July 28, 2006 I approve all Quade's posts. ...you're welcome Quade. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #17 July 28, 2006 QuoteI approve all Quade's posts. ...you're welcome Quade. Whew! As soon as I saw your name I started reaching for my wallet!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
