Skydiving Through Clouds

[gale 0]

This weekend I decided not to get out of our cessna because I could barely make out an outline of the ground through the clouds and they were layer everywhere from about 4000 to 8000. (I was doing the spot as part of my solo certificate.) Now the senior jumpers got out using the GPS and a far away (relatively) landmark (on the second pass they couldn't see anything).
What are the rules about jumping through clouds? How much is too much? What are the dangers?
I've had some people tell me that it can be really scary and sometimes you can't see your altimeter.
I just didn't feel comfortable with it and in the end my instructor said I made the right call. I got out at 3800 below the clouds.
Gale
Isn't life the strangest thing you've ever seen?

[billvon 2,434]

>What are the rules about jumping through clouds? How much is too much?
>What are the dangers?
The intent of the rule is:
1. See and avoid. Skydiving is a VFR activity; you are responsible for clearing your airspace before you jump. That means you don't get out of the plane unless you can see the DZ and area around it to make sure there are no other airplanes down there.
2. Spotting. GPS's break, and have resulted in some spectacularly bad spots. In one famous case, ATC helped spot a load of jumpers, and they all exited over clouds. They emerged from the clouds to find themselves over Lake Michigan. Several drowned.
In terms of actual rules, clouds are generally defined as opaque things you can't see through. In the US, the FAA requires the following clearances:
0-10,000 feet: 500 feet below, 1000 feet above, 2000 feet horizontal
10,000+ feet: 1000 feet below, 1000 feet above, 1 mile horizontal
There are no exceptions for having a GPS or having a guy on the DZ with a radio, although both might be good ideas to increase your margin of safety.

[gale 0]

Sorry, so one clarification:
So in the case where I can just make out the dz on the ground but I can't clear the airspace because of the layered cloud I should stay in the plane?
Gale
Isn't life the strangest thing you've ever seen?

[billvon 2,434]

>So in the case where I can just make out the dz on the ground but I can't clear
>the airspace because of the layered cloud I should stay in the plane?
Well, that's always a judgement call, but I would. It would depend on the altitude as well - if I'm right over the DZ at 2000 feet, and I can see it, there is very little chance that an airplane will run into me in freefall but not see the jump plane. At 12,000 feet? If I could just barely see the DZ and not see around it, I wouldn't get out.

[DanG 1]

The second pass is even worse than the first pass. I got out on a second pass recently filming a tandem. I spotted the pass, so I have no excuse, and I certainly screwed up big time. I knew where we were, and the spot turned out to be perfect, but it also turned out to be directly on top of a tandem that had exited on the first pass. After filming my tandem's opening, I flipped over to find myself directly above an open canopy.

Don't "spot" though clouds. I have learned my lesson.
- Dan G

[tigra 0]

Gale,

If you aren't comfortable, don't go. Most of us at one time or another have jumped in weather or cloud cover that was marginal at best. That doesn't make it right. The biggest risk is not being able to see who or what is in your airspace with you. A thin layer up high is better than a thick layer at breakoff or deployment altitude, but both have their risks. Personally, I have never ridden the plane down or refused to go if I have found myself on jump run staring at a whole lot of white stuff, but a couple of times I probably should have. I have, however, scratched from loads if I didn't like what I saw moving in as I was looking up. The hardest thing was walking up to Jerry Bird and telling him I didn't want to jump in the clouds- tough because 1) it was Jerry Bird and I really wanted to jump with him and 2) I didn't want him to think I was a wimp. I didn't need to worry about that though, because he didn't want to jump in the clouds either!

Anyway, sounds like you made the right choice!

maura

[tooueay 0]

Jumping through clouds is a dangerous and stupid thing to do. You are risking lives (your's and non-participating aircraft). It is extremely difficult to spot jumpers in freefall when you are in an aircraft that is not affiliated with the drop. There was a recent incident in Europe with a skydiver hitting an aircraft in freefall. Everyone died. Not cool. That didn't involve a jumper suddenly exiting from a could either. Air Traffic Control typically separates IFR aircraft from jump activities. However, ATC does not always notice VFR traffic that may be in the DZ proximity...Lastly, you are jeopardizing the pilot's career by violating cloud clearances. We can be violated for anything a jumper does wrong. Your reserve out date...my butt. You cut an aircraft off on your landing...my butt. Please don't risk my livelyhood due to your selfishness.
Thanksth, your guysthhh and the greateshthhhhh!

Pilot/Jumper Steve

Give me ambiguity...or something else.

[gale 0]

Good point. I hadn't thought of the pilot's point of view. I wonder why our pilot wasn't more worried?

Um, I will admit that I did feel like a big geek (read wimp) not jumping when the others were willing. Good to know that some other jumpers with big numbers might have made the same call.

Gale

I'm drowning...so come inside
Welcome to my...dirty mind

[diverdriver 5]

Gale, you never EVER have to get out of an aircraft if you don't feel comfortable. That is your personal choice. You might have to pay for the plane ride. But that's fair.

I have been flying by my DZ and knew exactly where to look for skydivers. It was a bright blue sky with 50 miles visablility. I never EVER saw them. So see and avoid is mostly on the jumpers part to see other aircraft and avoid them. With the help of the pilot/ATC traffic reports/looking down you can clear the area fairly well.

I know in some areas where the radar coverage is very good and aircraft can be seen fairly low near the DZ. I would say that my main concern about jumping through clouds is the break off and deployment below the lowest layer. A jumper to jumper collision (in my opinion) is a much greater hazard than a jumper/aircraft collision. NOW....I'm NOT advocating to go out and start busting clouds. That's not my point at all. Just from my experience.....I see the most likely threat to be jumper/jumper collisions.

Chris Schindler
www.DiverDriver.com

[quade 3]

Quote

So see and avoid is mostly on the jumpers part to see other aircraft and avoid them.

Yeah, but the reality of this doesn't look very good either.

Lessee, a Piper Cub maintaining 4,000 at 60 knots on the right side of the twin otter on jumprun at 12,500. Hmmm, if he's 1 mile horizontal from your position . . . ya gonna see him? Of course, it only gets worse for a C-172 cruising at 120 knots doesn't it? I know I don't see too many people sticking their heads out and under the plane looking for aircraft.

Obviously, this doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but the reality is that for a jumper to really scan for traffic and be certain the area is clear . . . well, that's just not too likely.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[diverdriver 5]

You're right Quade. Looking out the door has to be done correctly. That's why communication with ATC is so important. A good working relationship with ATC to give you pertinent infomation on traffic. And if they aren't very cooperative you HAVE to get that relationship changed.

I have to say that at most places I've dropped jumpers, ATC has been very cooperative and helpful. Only two places did I feel an adversarial relationship with a majority of controllers.

There are several tools the jump pilot uses to make sure the area is clear. No one tool can be used alone.

All that said...I am in support of DZs getting relief from the FARs in some situations for dropping through clouds or at least getting relief to the point of remaining "clear of clouds". Can you measure 500 feet or 1,000 feet or 2,000 horizontal? I didn't think so. Neither can the FAA. The only way to measure it is to go through the cloud. That's the only way to definitively say "yep....you were closer than 2,000 horizontal". And even then there are angle changes that can mask the actual distance.

Chris Schindler
www.DiverDriver.com

[thrillseek 0]

Remember, the "big sky, little jumper" theory is a recipe for disaster. I like those big puffy clouds as much as the next jumper, but caution is always the first concern.

[billvon 2,434]

>All that said...I am in support of DZs getting relief from the FARs in
> some situations for dropping through clouds or at least getting relief
> to the point of remaining "clear of clouds".

I agree, in certain (controlled) situations, like in class-B or other area that has radar surveillance and/or positive control requirements.

>Can you measure 500 feet or 1,000 feet or 2,000 horizontal? I didn't
> think so. Neither can the FAA.

Well, as that rule seems to have worked OK for about 50 years for pilots flying VFR, I have to think there is some validity to its continued use. I can tell 2000 feet horizontally pretty easy - if it's clear to the middle of the lake it's half a mile, and that's 2500 feet. If the cloud is near me, that number goes down. Below the clouds distance is really up to the pilot, since he is in charge of vertical navigation. Distance above the clouds is generally a non-issue, since if we get out 1000 feet over a cloud deck we _will_ be punching them.

[billvon 2,434]

>Lessee, a Piper Cub maintaining 4,000 at 60 knots on the right side
> of the twin otter on jumprun at 12,500. Hmmm, if he's 1 mile
> horizontal from your position . . . ya gonna see him?

Heck yeah. We get this pretty often; it's the spotter that catches the traffic about 30% of the time. (Other times we go on a hold before we even open the door.)

>I know I don't see too many people sticking their heads out and
> under the plane looking for aircraft.

Well, gotta get people to do that. That's what spotting _is_.

>Obviously, this doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but the reality is that
> for a jumper to really scan for traffic and be certain the area is
>clear . . . well, that's just not too likely.

Not sure I buy that. It's like saying "well, it's just not likely that we can really get jumpers to pull by 2000 feet, so we have to change something else instead." You _can_ get jumpers to pull by 2000 feet, and you can get them to spot. You have to want to enforce it, though, and many DZ's can't be bothered.

[thrillseek 0]

for once, Bill and i are in complete agreement. I jump at a smaller dropzone, and we are ALWAYS on the lookout for that small plane that could possibly be in our airspace. Try not to get tunnel vision looking for your "spot" though. Look out, around, down, everywhere. I would say that the same rule applies to aircraft as it does jumpers...lower person has the right of way...odds are, they can't see you.

[quade 3]

Bill --

I agree that we should always try, but considering the way the human eye works and the amount of time it actually takes to scan a piece of the sky I just don't think it's actually possible.

It'd certainly be an interesting experiment to set up for a Safety Day.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,434]

>I agree that we should always try, but considering the way the human
> eye works and the amount of time it actually takes to scan a piece
>of the sky I just don't think it's actually possible.

Interesting - do you think it's possible to safely fly VFR without radios? It's a _lot_ easier to see a moving aircraft against a fixed background than see a motionless dot on the horizon and realize that is an aircraft closing on you.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Not sure I buy that. It's like saying "well, it's just not likely that we can really get jumpers to pull by 2000 feet, so we have to change something else instead."

C'mon Bill. I know both you and I didn't see that plane at eloy until it was right on top of us. If the pilot hadn't called the go-around we woulda been right on top of it.

Visual spotting is WAY too error prone to be dependable. Sure, it helps, but relying on it as my primary means scares me.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[quade 3]

Quote

It's a _lot_ easier to see a moving aircraft against a fixed background than see a motionless dot on the horizon and realize that is an aircraft closing on you.

Yes, but there's a lot more area to scan for the jumper in the door looking for traffic below than for the pilot looking for traffic on the horizon.

You're good with math. Think about it!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,434]

>C'mon Bill. I know both you and I didn't see that plane at eloy until
> it was right on top of us. If the pilot hadn't called the go-around we
> woulda been right on top of it.

Yep, and that was my fault. At Eloy when there are more aircraft operating, and especially at boogies, I tend to rely more on ground and pilot separation because a) I know there's someone on the ground with a radio who is looking around and b) often I _do_ see traffic but it is another jump plane who's going to maintain separation. This isn't a good thing to rely on, since we once almost exited right above one of the otters at Quincy, and he was just plain in the wrong place.

>Visual spotting is WAY too error prone to be dependable. Sure, it
> helps, but relying on it as my primary means scares me.

It is currently what every skydiver relies on, and how the FAA assumes we are maintaining separation. It may be scary but it's what we've got.

[billvon 2,434]

>You're good with math. Think about it!

It's not math; it's biology. Our eyes are set up to detect moving objects against a fixed background, even against a background with slight motion in it. It's how we used to catch food. Go into a big, well lit hangar and see if you can find a penny on the floor; now see if you can find a moth flying around in the air. Even though the moth has three dimensions to fly around in instead of two, it will be easier to find the moth. Why? Because it's moving, and our eyes are designed to detect that.

[quade 3]

Yeah, but against ground clutter it's a lot more difficult. I think the fovea is going to have to come into play and that only has an angle of view of about 1 degree.

I know we've both studied this at least a minimal amount, but I don't think either of us are experts in this particular field. It would be interesting to get opinions and like I said, do some experiments.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Vlad 0]

>>Jumping through clouds is a dangerous and >>stupid thing to do

Well, that means that russian instructors and DZO's with thousands of jumps are stupid, because jumps through the clouds ARE permitted there, right ? May be pilots should really read the GPS manuals, because a GPS is a VERY exact thing. I would trust any GPS over ANY person's eyes, given that the pilot knows how to operate it.

[AggieDave 6]

Yeah, but GPS is a piece of electronics and anything like that is prone to error. I trust my spotting skills much more then a pilot with a GPS any day of the week.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>Well, that means that russian instructors and DZO's with thousands of
>jumps are stupid, because jumps through the clouds ARE permitted
>there, right ?

You just don't know if there are other aircraft under the clouds. Yes IMO jumping through clouds is stupid and dangerous, as are all instructors or DZO's who endorse jumping through clouds.

BTW, having seen a couple of videos from a russian skydiving club, the activity there is just outright scary.... Not exactly the most safety-conscious bunch in the lot... Then of course this might vary from one DZ to the next.

>May be pilots should really read the GPS manuals, because a GPS is a
>VERY exact thing. I would trust any GPS over ANY person's eyes, given
>that the pilot knows how to operate it.

A GPS only tells you where you are! It does not know if a stray aircraft with a broken radio is just under the clouds! Also a GPS needs to be operated properly, and the coordinates need to set right... I don't need to calibrate my eyes when I look out of an airplane
Erno