M6RV6 wrote:reading some comments on another page.
Food for thoooooooooooooooought on blaming the Old Guy!!


Several commenters stated that “skydivers always have right of way over aircraft, so the (87 year old) pilot is obviously at fault”. I couldn’t remember reading about skydivers having right of way over aircraft in the FAR, so I went and looked it up (FAR 91.113) and, sure enough, there is no mention of skydivers in the several categories of aircraft and which has right of way in the air.

I also went and read, for the first time, a portion of FAR Part 105.23 c, which covers parachute operations over airports. Sure enough (as I always assumed), the FAR specifically prohibits skydiving ops that would interfere with aircraft in the airport traffic pattern:

“(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport’s traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground.”

ALSO
I hear “jumpers away” often, but seldom hear an “Jumpers on ground” call over the CTAF. Seems this would improve communications between jumpers and aircraft in the area.

Well then.....I stand corrected! I assumed, incorrectly a non powered parachutist would have right of way. Never stop learning.

Cheers...Rob

M6RV6 wrote:ALSO
I hear “jumpers away” often, but seldom hear an “Jumpers on ground” call over the CTAF. Seems this would improve communications between jumpers and aircraft in the area.

This is a good point. I'd love for operators to start doing this. We have a very busy DZ in the chicago area that also has a great fly-in restaurant. They run a pretty clean operation already (multiple landing zones, all a good distance from the runway) and this would just make it that much better.

M6RV6 wrote:Several commenters stated that “skydivers always have right of way over aircraft, so the (87 year old) pilot is obviously at fault”. I couldn’t remember reading about skydivers having right of way over aircraft in the FAR, so I went and looked it up (FAR 91.113) and, sure enough, there is no mention of skydivers in the several categories of aircraft and which has right of way in the air.

I did the same thing out of curiosity, and initially came to the same conclusion. But then I found that a parachutist could be defined as a glider and thus does have right-of-way over a powered craft. In the FAR definitions it says:

Glider: Glider means a heavier-than-air aircraft, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.

and what is an aircraft?

Aircraft: Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

Seems like a lawyer could argue that a parachute is a glider?

Now I am all confused. I think I will give way.

OregonMaule wrote:Now I am all confused. I think I will give way.

The issue is that the southern end of the runway is a designated jump landing zone. It is under a TFR during jump operations by order of and in full cooperation with the airport authority. It gives the jumpers right of way.
The jump center has operated in that fashion for well over 20 years and it has never been a problem before. The "old guy" is a long term resident of the field and was certainly aware of the restrictions. As a member of the airport association, he is a voting member on all rule making. And the membership has voted to allow jump operations on the field.
Years ago when I frequented that airport the jump planes did indeed announce Jumpers away, the number of canopies to expect, and their position from the LZ. They also announced " all jumpers on the ground" and circled until all were accounted for. I don't know how they do it now. My friend that lives there is away in the south pacific so I can't get too much information from him.
For those of you who suggest that the aircraft should have right of way, I ask you. Are you suggesting that the jumper should have diverted and landed off field? The designated LZ is surround by houses, hangers, lots of trees, power lines, and large commercial strawberry fields.
If you knew a jumper was about to land on or near the runway you were on final for, would you honestly continue on ahead and assert your right of way? Tell you what, next time you're near a designated jump zone with jumpers in the air, try flying a pattern across the LZ. Let me know how it works out for you.

Why are there so few 87 year old pilots? Or truck drivers, doctors....... Or 87 year olds period?
At 60 I'm no spring chicken but I do recognize that I have limits that I didn't have even 5 years ago.
Are there 87 year old pilots that have better skills than me? Yup, but not many.
Are there 87 year old pilots who are a danger to themselves and others? Yup.
Just saying.

I think the jumper should have made a right pattern. - and yes, the jumper could/should have been in a far better position to see all this coming - take a hard right hand turn and go to the trees/fence to the east rather than taking a cessna up the outhole

a TFR - now that is news to me - I didn't realize that operations on the field could initiate a TFR. Perhaps a NOTAM, but a TFR?

It is under a TFR during jump operations by order of and in full cooperation with the airport authority. It gives the jumpers right of way.

In this or any similar incident, what regulation gives parachuting activities a TFR?

I agree with soy. I think the skydiver had a way better view of what was coming and the best chance to steer away and avoid it. Sitting under a high wing looking down the runway it would be hard to see a skydiver coming in fast from the upper left.

You're correct, A NOTAM not a TFR. However, the airport does restrict operations during jumps for safety reasons. Zephyr Hills just to the north has pattern restrictions around the Jump center's LZ during ops. And their LZ is a fair distance away from the GA runways.
I doubt that neither the jumper nor the pilot saw each other until they were both committed. I also doubt the jumper would have deliberately landed in front of the 170 or that the 170 would have risked hitting the jumper.

It's also possible that it was a planned event that went awry. One of the witness statements said something to the effect that he expected to see something exciting. When my buddy get's home I'm sure he'll get a lot more info than what's in the papers. I'm fairly sure he knows the pilot personally. It would be interesting to get his reactions.

Please bear in mind that I have not flown into this airport for over 6 years. I did used to fly there nearly every weekend and back then it was expected that we all gave the jumpers right of way. And truthfully, I never once heard a singe complaint from the local pilots. That may have changed over the years.

I like to think that both of these guys would have taken steps to get out of the others way if they had really seen this coming.

I am pretty sure the parachute has the right of way.

I'm pretty sure the right of way means about as much as two tears in a bucket when you're a dead sumbitch.

when the wind has you crossing a runway in your normal left pattern approaches - maybe - just maybe - you should think about a right hand approach - especially when you see someone on the field doing his 3rd touch and go in a standard pattern

apparently it's like nascar down there in south lakeland - go fast - turn left - don't wreck (well 2 out of 3 ain't bad)

rubbin's racin'!

I'll stick with last week's comment. Let's get ALL the facts, then decide whether we should crucify the pilot, skydiver, jump plane pilot, or all 3. I can't imagine this being a staged event, but this series of photos is very convenient. As for claiming a parachute is a glider, a sleazy lawyer can claim almost anything, getting a judge and jury to go along wigh it is a different subject. I don't think we know EVERYTHING about this crash yet.

just to muddy the argument, it was a parafoil, a foil is a wing and flys, would it be a glider?

A parafoil is a nonrigid (textile) airfoil with an aerodynamic cell structure which is inflated by the wind. Ram-air inflation forces the parafoil into a classic wing cross-section. Parafoils are most commonly constructed out of ripstop nylon.

scottf wrote:

M6RV6 wrote:Several commenters stated that “skydivers always have right of way over aircraft, so the (87 year old) pilot is obviously at fault”. I couldn’t remember reading about skydivers having right of way over aircraft in the FAR, so I went and looked it up (FAR 91.113) and, sure enough, there is no mention of skydivers in the several categories of aircraft and which has right of way in the air.

I did the same thing out of curiosity, and initially came to the same conclusion. But then I found that a parachutist could be defined as a glider and thus does have right-of-way over a powered craft. In the FAR definitions it says:

Glider: Glider means a heavier-than-air aircraft, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.

and what is an aircraft?

Aircraft: Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

Seems like a lawyer could argue that a parachute is a glider?

I think that is a REEEEALLY far stretch. The FAR's address them in separate categories. If there was NO section in the FAR that mentioned parachutes, then you MAY have some sort of valid argument.

Your argument here is about as valid as someone saying that all aircraft must be maintained to part 135 standards.. just because part 135 happens to mention the word aircraft in it.

We have a lot of skydiving at the airport. In fact, it likely accounts for most of the air ops on an average day On the field. It has been a while, but I've had to abort for jumpers on occasion. I've had to abort for a lot more folks who drive their plane in front of me on short final or deciding their end of the runway is suddenly the active for their takeoff with 3-4 planes in the opposite pattern. Something is going to happen eventually, and it does little good to skewer one party or the other rather than acknowledge the critical importance of see and avoid to keep incidents rare and survivable.

It is usually enough for the offending pilot when the comments on the radio tell him to drive his plane back to the hangar.

I have to side with lowrider. I've been flying since 1972 and jumping since 1978. Skydivers should never cross an active runway- period. Safer to land off airport if you have to. I think the jumper was low and trying to milk it back to the field-bad choice. Lowrider is right-does'nt matter who has the right of way if you get hit. Lucky they are both ok but I feel bad for the guy with the wrecked 170.

akavidflyer wrote:

scottf wrote:

M6RV6 wrote:Several commenters stated that “skydivers always have right of way over aircraft, so the (87 year old) pilot is obviously at fault”. I couldn’t remember reading about skydivers having right of way over aircraft in the FAR, so I went and looked it up (FAR 91.113) and, sure enough, there is no mention of skydivers in the several categories of aircraft and which has right of way in the air.

I did the same thing out of curiosity, and initially came to the same conclusion. But then I found that a parachutist could be defined as a glider and thus does have right-of-way over a powered craft. In the FAR definitions it says:

Glider: Glider means a heavier-than-air aircraft, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its lifting surfaces and whose free flight does not depend principally on an engine.

and what is an aircraft?

Aircraft: Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

I think that is a REEEEALLY far stretch. The FAR's address them in separate categories. If there was NO section in the FAR that mentioned parachutes, then you MAY have some sort of valid argument.

Your argument here is about as valid as someone saying that all aircraft must be maintained to part 135 standards.. just because part 135 happens to mention the word aircraft in it.

There is however a section that addresses the pilots ultimate responsibility to see and avoid. (both pilots)
I highly doubt a jury would expect an unpowered jumper to land in trees, power lines or on a house just so a powered aircraft in no distress can practice touch and go's. Especially when said jumper was landing in a DESIGNATED landing zone after an announced flight at an established jump center that has operated for decades.
This wasn't a case of some yahoo jumping into a random airstrip unannounced.
At best it's a case of some yahoo jumper showboating at an area poorly designed for active jump operations.

If a Powered parachute is a designated aircraft type, why is it hard to grasp that a non-powered chute of similar design and control is a glider?
Because they don't have a pilots license? Neither do ultralights but we have to treat them as aircraft.
Why is it do you suppose that the jump plane even bothers to announce jumper away?
Not to establish right of way or to let the people on the ground know when to look up.
It's so aircraft in the vicinity can know where and when to expect a temporary obstruction. And to help the aircraft to see and avoid.

From the Airmanship Information Manual:

3-5-4.[EN SPACE]Parachute Jump Aircraft Operations

a.[EN SPACE]Procedures relating to parachute jump areas are contained in 14 CFR Part 105. Tabulations of parachute jump areas in the U.S. are contained in the A/FD.

b.[EN SPACE]Pilots of aircraft engaged in parachute jump operations are reminded that all reported altitudes must be with reference to mean sea level, or flight level, as appropriate, to enable ATC to provide meaningful traffic information.

c.[EN SPACE]Parachute operations in the vicinity of an airport without an operating control tower - there is no substitute for alertness while in the vicinity of an airport. It is essential that pilots conducting parachute operations be alert, look for other traffic, and exchange traffic information as recommended in paragraph 4-1-9, Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers. In addition, pilots should avoid releasing parachutes while in an airport traffic pattern when there are other aircraft in that pattern. Pilots should make appropriate broadcasts on the designated Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), and monitor that CTAF until all parachute activity has terminated or the aircraft has left the area. Prior to commencing a jump operation, the pilot should broadcast the aircraft's altitude and position in relation to the airport, the approximate relative time when the jump will commence and terminate, and listen to the position reports of other aircraft in the area.

Sorry about the format, taptalk on the iPad did it. AIM got auto corrected too.

Jake

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_105.html
Easy to browse
Pretty much covers everything about Parachutes, When and where and how! and it is a CFR, not the AIM.