Low Time Jump Pilots HEED MY WORDS

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

...I ... keep looking up the frequency of the next airport ...

This brings a tear to my eye.

Quote

And on nice sunny saturday afternoons, I tend to try not to overfly any airports, dropzones or not.

And 25-foot white "X"s in the middle of big grass fields, right?

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[rickjump1 0]

in MA, a skydiver in freefall hit a plane. The investigation found that the blue parachute symbol was sitting right on top of a river on the chart, making it very hard to spot. So they changed the parachute symbols to magenta. But the entire accident woulda been avoided if the pilot had either been listening to the local frequency or the approach frequency......

Ok, so whose fault was it? So far on this thread I understand intruding pilots are not responsible for checking notams, notams are complicated and not available sometimes, some parachute symbols are out of date or the wrong color, and basically if you are out of controlled airspace, it's up to the jump pilot to make his own separation because intruding pilots can do what they want. This is like a no win situation. Is there more the USPA can do that they aren't doing already?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Ok, so whose fault was it?

In that particular case, the skydiver sued the air traffic controllers, and won. BTW the skydiver broke a leg and all on board the plane died.

Air traffic control (Bradley Approach) hadn't informed the jump plane of the incoming traffic. In my opinion, the jury was wrong. Fault lied with the pilot, the jump pilot, the skydiver, and maybe ATC to some extent. But skydiving is a VFR activity. ATC does not HAVE to inform a jump plane of all traffic in the area.

The radios in the crashed plane were found to be on the frequency of the departure airport, very many miles away.

And of course this was before GPS was common, so we can't blame that. Nobody here broke any laws. The jump plane talked to ATC and announced jumping activity on the local frequency, the plane flew along VFR, visually looking for traffic, and ATC provided separation to IFR aircraft.

But I'd put most of the blame on the pilot for flying over a DZ on a sunny day without listening to the local or approach frequency. It might not be the law but it sure is safer. To his credit of course, it was found that the parachute symbol was not obvious on the chart.

At home I have sectionals from before and after that accident so you can see the changes they made. Pretty interesting.

Dave

[rickjump1 0]

Sad, interesting story. Thanks.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,078]

>Ok, so whose fault was it?

1) the jumper
2) the pilot of the second plane

>it's up to the jump pilot to make his own separation because intruding
>pilots can do what they want. This is like a no win situation.

It's only a no-win situation if we can't maintain visual separation from other aircraft. I think it's possible to see-and-avoid.

>Is there more the USPA can do that they aren't doing already?

I would put a lot more emphasis on telling people that THEY HAVE TO LOOK OUT OF THE AIRPLANE before they jump! Every weekend I see dozens of people just get in the door and go without so much as a look down.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

>Ok, so whose fault was it?

1) the jumper
2) the pilot of the second plane

>it's up to the jump pilot to make his own separation because intruding
>pilots can do what they want. This is like a no win situation.

It's only a no-win situation if we can't maintain visual separation from other aircraft. I think it's possible to see-and-avoid.

>Is there more the USPA can do that they aren't doing already?

I would put a lot more emphasis on telling people that THEY HAVE TO LOOK OUT OF THE AIRPLANE before they jump! Every weekend I see dozens of people just get in the door and go without so much as a look down.

Must be because they're looking back at 45 degrees.

In a VFR environment it's everyone's responsibility to see and avoid. ATC may give alerts for traffic at the same or similar altitude (Chicago seems very good about doing this, for example), but I doubt they call out traffic that's 11,000ft below.

...

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

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I think it's possible to see-and-avoid.

I agree that it's usually possible, but realistically, in the real world, not always. That traffic might be 3 miles away or more at the time we exit. We may have a nice big hole in the clouds to jump through, but that plane is below a cloud, in the distance. So before exit, in my opinion, it's not always possible to spot all traffic. Then of course there's the time it would take for each group to look in all directions, etc, not that the rest of the jumpers can't be looking out the windows on jump run.

And spotting traffic in freefall? Not realistic for the average skydiver (definitely including myself). I'm way too busy on even a 2 way jump to be scanning the sky after exit.

Luckily, I think we'll have technology on our side in the future. Jump planes, and maybe even ground based systems available to DZs will be able to see traffic on their moving map displays. Still might be many years off before all aircraft are equipped with this kinda thing, but the technology is here now.

Dave

[diverdriver 6]

Quote

Air traffic control (Bradley Approach) hadn't informed the jump plane of the incoming traffic. In my opinion, the jury was wrong. Fault lied with the pilot, the jump pilot, the skydiver, and maybe ATC to some extent. But skydiving is a VFR activity. ATC does not HAVE to inform a jump plane of all traffic in the area.

Dave

Dave, I have to disagree that blame lies more on other places than ATC.

Skydiving is the ONLY VFR activity required to contact ATC to do what it does. So, in my opinion the controllers are bound by FAR to provide seperation for jump planes and other traffic since we are required to talk to them.

Even on an IFR flight plan if I'm in VMC I'm required to see and avoid. So, that is the basis for all flying. Now, if a controller intentionally does not tell a jump plane that traffic is transiting (as I believe was in this example of the jumper hitting the plane) the DZ then I say he is totally negligent and apparently the jury thought so too. But, I wasn't in the court room and didn't read the transcript.

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

[rickjump1 0]

I would put a lot more emphasis on telling people that THEY HAVE TO LOOK OUT OF THE AIRPLANE before they jump! Every weekend I see dozens of people just get in the door and go without so much as a look down....

That is correct, but can every jumper stop at the door and poke his head down and around 360 degrees before going or even see 360 degrees once climbing out? Like he said, add clouds. Now add intruder aircraft at different speeds. That should not stop people from looking the best they can. It just may not be good enough.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[sleepyflyboy 0]

i dont thing anyone can justify the actions of the pilot that almost caused the accident but because theres one careless, brainless pilot out there doesnt mean every low time jump pilot is unsafe. i am a low time jump pilot in jersey and would probably take a swing at the guy for what happened. the scary truth about skydiving and flying is that it only takes one cowboy that isnt familiar with the FAR's or who makes a bad judgement for there to be a serious accident. the fact that this happened twice is evidence enough for me to not trust this guy and his employer should be notified.

low time pilots are a little green but most are very safe. the pilot in question had to know the FAR and had to blatantly violate it in my opinion. how could you be a jump pilot and not know part 105? who would be dumb enough to think that they could get away with it? to be a comm pilot w 600 hrs you would have to know a little of whats going on at the very least. theres no excuse.

as for another topic in this forum about notams... a lot of divers are thinking that because there is a notam for skydiving over an airport that pilots not in radar contact will alter their course around the airport or monitor atc but because we are not required to by law many do not. not the safest or smartest thing to do. as far as accountability if there is an accident where skydiver/aircraft comes into contact it is everyones fault. the skydive pilot for not clearing traffic, atc for not giving traffic advisories, skydiver because they also have to see and avoid, and the pilot of the other aircraft is also at fault. basically its the FAA's way of saying your screwed no matter how you look at it. just because someone does what you dont expect them too doesnt make it their fault entirely. traffic spotting and avoidance is everyones responsibility.

mike

[pilotdave 0]

In case anyone's interested, you can find a couple reports about that accident...

Factual
Probable Cause

And yep, the NTSB found the ATC to be the main factor. The controller was in training and said he never saw the traffic (he did not intentionally not report it).

Dave

[rickjump1 0]

basically its the FAA's way of saying your screwed no matter how you look at it. just because someone does what you dont expect them too doesnt make it their fault entirely. traffic spotting and avoidance is everyones responsibility.......

Yes, it is everyones responsibility. Hopefully, we can narrow the chances of something like this from happening.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.