Another article re: Skydive Chicago

[kallend 2,146]

Chris: re-reading the ASRS it shows both parties as being under the controlling authority of Chicago Center, which suggests to me that the formation was already IFR. (I hope I'm reading it right).

AS for professionals backing each other up, what about the controller who is quoted in the Tribune?

[wildblue 7]

Quote

AS for professionals backing each other up, what about the controller who is quoted in the Tribune?

Some professionals are assholes. And some are professional assholes.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[kallend 2,146]

There's a couple of sensible columns on risks in today's Chicago Tribune, that relate to this topic.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/

and click on Eric Zorn or Mary Schmich

[dzbum 0]

That was an interesting load. In the situation descried above by Chris I was the pilot flying and I considered it a non event, after all we are VFR and I saw him in plenty of time, only problem was the controller did not. A 747 at 12,000 going west is not a common occurrence here as they usually head east into Chicago. I was informed to hold/drop at or below 12,000 because traffic was holding at the binky intersection (just north east and not an uncommon occurrence) at and above 13,000. The 747 was cleared to hold at binky on a different frequency at 12,000, the altitude we were dropping at. After seeing it I held the jumpers till the 747 was passed and continued as normal. At no time was anybody in any danger and nothing came of it, however after the controller who mistakenly forgot to tell me that the aircraft was holding at 12 instead of 13 got off work he stopped by SDC to personally apologize to me. This was very much appreciated, even though in my mind it was a non event. After taking the controller on an observer ride, which he enjoyed very much, we ate, drank a few beers, and had a great chat. The controllers here are doing their best to keep traffic separation, both IFR and VFR, but we are all human and make mistakes, by having them come out and see our operation, fly with us, and talk ~ this is how progress is really made.

In regards to Roger or any other DZO having a policy of us (its employees) talking to the media- I find it irrelevant to our drop zone. Anyone here will tell it like it is, Roger knows this and it is the way it should be- we tell it like it is~ nothing to hide.

I have said my peace~ any questions?

It's good to be the pilot.

[quade 4]

Quote

In regards to Roger or any other DZO having a policy of us (its employees) talking to the media- I find it irrelevant to our drop zone. Anyone here will tell it like it is, Roger knows this and it is the way it should be- we tell it like it is~ nothing to hide.

That's a good deal for you guys, but not always the best idea from a PR or legal standpoint. As we've all seen in the past, words can be twisted and misunderstandings made. It really has nothing to do with whether you'd tell it like it is, but rather if it would be told in such a way that there is less chance of it being used against you or your employer.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[superflie 0]

Alright, I would wager that few people at SDC would really "tell it like it is." Largely because that would mean saying hey we often jump through thick layers of clouds with low bases and send tandems after sunset. I have been on loads at SDC where the entire load of solos and tandems jumped through low clouds. I even deployed in the clouds and did not come out until under three grand (thank you GPS). The tandems had to deploy above and fly through the clouds under canopy. I have also witnessed tandem loads take off at or just after sunset (when even I would not go). You might think that I have a grudge against SDC - I don't, I love the place - but if you want to tell it like it is... Also, you don't have to take my word for it - I know that there are videos of these tandems and it would not be too hard to track them down if anyone really wanted to.

[Jimbo 0]

Is it against the rules to take tandems out after sunset?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhreeZone 20]

Back before the FAA approved Tandems 100% and said that they were not "Experimental", they left it up to the manufactor's to decide what you could and could;nt do. Night tandems had to have the manufactors approval every time, same with demo tandems and most things other then the regular dive sequence. After the update to the FAR's... I'm not sure anymore about jack with the Tandem program.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[freeflir29 0]

Night tandems are perfectly "legal" now. I'm not sure about other types.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Alright, I would wager that few people at SDC would really "tell it like it is."
Largely because that would mean saying hey we often jump through thick
layers of clouds with low bases and send tandems after sunset.

Not me and not my team. No see ground, no exit (actually, no get on plane if the sky's overcast). Now, that doesn't mean I won't jump if there's scattered below.

[GrumpySmurf 0]

Now, I'm only guessing at this, so correct me if I'm out to lunch.
I thought the SIM stated that all student jumps were to cease at sunset. If the tandem master is in fact a tandem instructor, where the tandem jump has a series of learning objectives to be used in a student progression rather than simply being an amusement ride - I would guess it wouldn't take a major leap of faith to say the tandem passenger is a student, and cannot be put out after sunset? Sort of a "while you are not violating the letter of the law, you're violating the intent"?

Like I said, I'm just guessing?

[MarkM 0]

Yeah, I'm sure no other dropzones have ever put out a load over clouds(*cough* *cough* industrial haze *cough* *cough*). Just like I'm sure no skydiver here has ever gone above 15k without O2, because you know, that'd be illeagal.

There's shitloads of less than perfect activity going on at a lot of dropzones, plenty of ammo to go around if you wanna start throwing mud at dropzone names.

Does the odd cloud jump and dusk tandem really make SDC an unsafe dropzone?

[quade 4]

And it's at this point that I feel I should remind folks that by writing things on DZ.COM, you are making information available to people that you might not intend. These people include but are not limited to; lawyers, reporters, ex-spouces and stalkers.

In this particular case, I know that one of the writers of the Chicago Tribune has visited DZ.COM and the threads about his articles in particular looking for more information.

Please use some wisdom in this regard and do not imply that just because some drop zones have on occassion played fast and loose with the FARs, that they all do.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

In this particular case, I know that one of the writers of the Chicago
Tribune has visited DZ.COM and the threads about his articles in particular
looking for more information.

In that case, maybe they learned what a shoddy piece of research they did on the "near misses" (or maybe it was just shoddy ethics to write it up in such a misleading way). Perhaps a note to the Tribune's ombudsman is in order - Don Wycliff is his name.

[diverdriver 7]

WOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

ombudsman

A what?

Chris

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You've got your regs mixed up. The pilot in command must make oxygen available to all the passengers (in an unpressurized aircraft of course) about 15k, but the passengers aren't required to use it it they choose not to.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Jessica 0]

An ombudsman is sort of a mediator kind of guy. Some of the bigger papers still have them.

The paper pays his salary, but he's independent of it. When complaints reach his level, he considers them, then gives the newspaper a course of action to take -- nothing, a correction, a front-page apology, etc.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[diverdriver 7]

Jessica thanks!



Chris

[MarkM 0]

Quote

You've got your regs mixed up. The pilot in command must make oxygen available to all the passengers (in an unpressurized aircraft of course) about 15k, but the passengers aren't required to use it it they choose not to.

You take a DZ plane that isn't equipped to provide O2 to all the jumpers above 15k it's a violation of the oxygen equipment regs.

Same difference, don't nitpick. My point was there's rule bending and rule breaking. Just because a rule is bent now and then doesn't mean there's something unsafe going on.