Close call with a plane

[popsjumper 2]

Tom,
I hope you don't mind, but I am using your example for a template for our own notices to local DZs.

If you object to us using your stuff as a template, please let me know.

Thanks in advance.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[tombuch 0]

Quote

I hope you don't mind, but I am using your example for a template for our own notices to local DZs.

If you object to us using your stuff as a template, please let me know.

Of course you can use it. I've spent a bunch of time as a jumper, pilot, and S&TA, figuring out how pilots and skydivers can better communicate. That single page briefing is a result of that effort, and has been modified based on feedback from our local pilot community. It really works, especially when combined with a visit to pilot meetings. I hope many DZ's develop a similar approach, and my briefing paper is a fine starting point.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[davedlg 0]

One thing I have always thought we could work toward to prevent these kinds of incidents is to work with the FAA to get a discrete transponder squwak code for Jump Planes to use in the 2 minutes before and during Jump Run.

This would have some benefits in that this squwak code could be programmed to come up on every controllers scope, regardless of the filters they had in place, similar to a 7700 squwak (with fewer alarms). This could help prevent the kind of near miss incident that Chris Schidler (diverdriver) had last year.

This squwak code could also be programmed into TCAS systems of aircraft to light up and flash to warn other aircraft of the jump ship in the area.

This would not prevent this kind of incident entirely, as most GA aircraft are not in contact with ATC, do not have TCAS, and some don't even have a transponder, but it could help provide a heads up to the ATC controllers and TCAS equipped aircraft in the area.

Working with the FAA and all the other groups to get this done would be a very, very, big hurdle, however this would simply require a change in software and procedures - nothing too major. There is alot at stake, espically when larger passenger aircraft could potentially be involved. Thoughts?

Obviouslly spotting is important, however, it is a very big sky out there, and your chances of spotting an aircraft far enough away to pose a threat to you 5 minutes later under canopy are slim...

[tombuch 0]

Quote

One thing I have always thought we could work toward to prevent these kinds of incidents is to work with the FAA to get a discrete transponder squwak code for Jump Planes to use in the 2 minutes before and during Jump Run.

This would have some benefits in that this squwak code could be programmed to come up on every controllers scope, regardless of the filters they had in place, similar to a 7700 squwak (with fewer alarms). This could help prevent the kind of near miss incident that Chris Schidler (diverdriver) had last year.

This squwak code could also be programmed into TCAS systems of aircraft to light up and flash to warn other aircraft of the jump ship in the area.

Thoughts?

Interesting idea. I’ve considered it too. I think you are talking about a process that would alert two specific participant groups; controllers and TCAS aircraft.

The process of defining a single discrete code for skydiver jump runs would require a monumental push through the FAA and a million other alphabet groups. It might be problematic when multiple drop zones or aircraft are operating in the same ATC sector, and might actually add to in-flight communication confusion.

At my home DZ each skydiving aircraft already operates with a single transponder code for all skydiving operations under a letter of agreement (LOA) with ATC. With that process we have specific codes and call signs, so a controller can look at his scope and recognize a jump plane while also knowing the altitude and position relative to the drop zone. This process requires a pilot to set the transponder once at the beginning of the day, and then never touch it again. The transponder remains the same throughout the day as the pilot climbs and descends through different ATC airspace. Given the unique transponder code, even with a missed radio call, an experienced controller should already know when the jump plane is positioned on jumprun. This obviously doesn’t help TCAS equipped aircraft, but the controller should be responsible to alert pilots of those aircraft when appropriate.

Adding an additional code for jumprun would increase pilot workload at a critical point in the flight. It might also make it more difficult for a controller to identify the specific aircraft involved, especially if there are multiple jump aircraft from several DZ’s in the sector. And it adds a requirement that the pilot change back to the original transponder code at some specific point following the jump, a process with a potential for accidental failure, especially at DZ’s making 50-100 jump runs a day.

The primary new beneficiary of the proposal seems to be to TCAS equipped aircraft rather than ATC, but most of those aircraft are generally already talking to ATC. I’d rather focus on getting DZ’s depicted on GPS and FMS displays so these pilots know there is a DZ along their flight path, and then adding coordination with ATC when jump operations are in progress.

While discrete transponder codes for jumprun do have merit, the idea would need to be hashed out among all users, and I’m not familiar enough with ATC issues and procedures to know how it would affect their operations. Based on my three years of experience trying to get drop zones depicted in digital databases, my hunch is that this additional effort would be a real time-suck, with little probability of success. Sorry about that assessment.

Perhaps another option is to have pilots of jump planes squawk-ident at the beginning of the jumprun to get a controllers attention. That is an easy process that could be included in local LOA’s if the controllers believe it will assist in identifying jump operations. Again, I’m not familiar enough with the ATC side of the operation to define this as a meaningful solution, but it is something DZO’s can talk about with ATC if they have an LOA. Likewise, a discrete transponder code for jumprun (as you suggested) could be built into a local LOA.

If you are really interested in following up with the idea, I suggest you give Ed Scott a call at USPA. He is the point person for all things FAA and ATC, and has a good handle on the administrative process. Another avenue for change is AOPA, but my experience is that AOPA has a very full plate, (as full as Ed Scott’s), and they are more likely to take action if they hear from a group like USPA than from an individual member.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[davedlg 0]

Quote

Based on my three years of experience trying to get drop zones depicted in digital databases, my hunch is that this additional effort would be a real time-suck, with little probability of success. Sorry about that assessment.

Yup. That's why I've never brought it up before. Still, all it would take is one skydiver bringing down one passenger plane, and all kinds of things would happen. Too bad FARs usually only get written in blood.

As for the increased workload for the pilot switching transponder codes, it could definatly be an issue, but you could resolve it somewhat by using a progammable transponder with single button code, or making the "climbing aircraft" code one digit from the jumprun aircraft code, or even make a new type of transponder for jumpships only that goes to the discrete code at the push of a button and reverts back to the old code when the plane starts decending (I know, I know, expensive, TSO issues, so on and so forth). Using "ident" is a good idea, however, the problem I see is that there are different controllers for different altitudes in the same sector in congested areas. If something like this were implemented, then all controllers, high and low, could see the jump ship and be positively alerted (as opposed to passively watch) what was going on.

[Joe_Kay 0]

Quote

Perhaps another option is to have pilots of jump planes squawk-ident at the beginning of the jumprun to get a controllers attention. That is an easy process that could be included in local LOA’s if the controllers believe it will assist in identifying jump operations. Again, I’m not familiar enough with the ATC side of the operation to define this as a meaningful solution, but it is something DZO’s can talk about with ATC if they have an LOA. Likewise, a discrete transponder code for jumprun (as you suggested) could be built into a local LOA.

Squawking Ident would be a good plan as it would be an easy standard operating procedure that could be established with local ATC. I've done a few visits to ATC at work and the ident feature just causes the aircraft callsign to flash or bloom depending on the ATC system. That would definitely get the controllers attention even if they were talking to other aircraft. When I got close to that plane ATC contacted the jump plane just after we jumped, identing with 15 seconds to go would have probably averted this situation, good suggestion.

Joe

[hommie 0]

pm sent

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Green light 15 seconds before GPS spot, open the door, stick your freakin' head out and check for spot and 360 degrees of air traffic, go when ready.

Still not sure about how to check the whole 360 degrees, as a side door is on one side of the airplane. You can do your very best, but what about a plane approaching from your starboard side a mile or so out ? I've tried looking out the windows myself, but the view is pretty limited. On tailgate exits like a Skyvan you can lay down or crouch for a full look around, but I haven't seen anyone do that in ages either.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Still not sure about how to check the whole 360 degrees, as a side door is on one side of the airplane. You can do your very best, but what about a plane approaching from your starboard side a mile or so out ?

Most airplanes have windows on each side. EVERY jumper should take a moment before exit to check the windows near his/her position and scan for traffic. Very few people do this, but if just a few of us on each load made the effort, we would have a much better chance of spotting traffic. Sure it's hard, and even a good pilot sometimes misses traffic, but more eyes looking will improve the odds. It is our responsibility to avoid creating a hazard and to avoid other traffic.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Most airplanes have windows on each side. EVERY jumper should take a moment before exit to check the windows near his/her position and scan for traffic. .

You know, that really isn't practical if you're in a big way exiting from an inside position in, say, a CASA or Skyvan, or 2nd row in the door in an Otter. Someone (or two or three) should do it, but EVERY jumper?

...

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

• Quote

[Scoop 0]

One thing that puzzles me is that you should look under the aircraft and every other axis if possible before jumping. This must take so much time that you have to start looking well before the spot. Is it possible you could miss the actual important hazards such as directly infront and below or off to side of jump run flying across because your starting your check too early?

[billvon 2,990]

>Someone (or two or three) should do it, but EVERY jumper?

Can't hurt! I often take a look around the cockpit windows of the Skyvan when I am last out; I often have a good view of jump run from left side windows before we turn on to jump run.

[billvon 2,990]

>Is it possible you could miss the actual important hazards such as
>directly infront and below or off to side of jump run flying across because
>your starting your check too early?

Well:

1) an aircraft directly beneath you isn't as big a hazard as one coming in from the side. Even a slow aircraft will be a mile away from you once you open if it's directly below you.

2) I think the more time you take to look the more likely you are to see hazards in all directions.

[Scoop 0]

Maybe its complacency but I've never been on at aircraft which made a huge deal out of this issue. Maybe they should instead of just worrying about the spot.

I need to do a jumpmaster course to get my next licence I believe so hopefully it'll all become more apparant then

[MikeTJumps 4]

I am now home from the USPA and PIA meetings and the attached JPEG file is the promised article describing the call for an "Intensive Parachute Jump Area" label to be placed on the charts. Mind you, this was published in Parachutist back in August 1980 on page 13. The FAA must have it on a centipede for delivery because it's been almost 27 years and I have yet to see any action on this even though I handed a copy of it to AOPA's president Phil Boyer just last year.

I am dumbfounded about the lack of progress on this issue. I guess we're going to have to have a few more fatal collisions before the FAA and the NOAA folks get cracking on this as a major safety issue. That is not what I want, but let's see if a some major government official's kid gets whacked by an aircraft (or an aircraft carrying that person gets whacked out of the sky by a jumper) is what it takes to get this thing off the back burner.
-

Mike Turoff
Instructor Examiner, USPA
Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

I am now home from the USPA and PIA meetings and the attached JPEG file is the promised article describing the call for an "Intensive Parachute Jump Area" label to be placed on the charts. Mind you, this was published in Parachutist back in August 1980 on page 13. The FAA must have it on a centipede for delivery because it's been almost 27 years and I have yet to see any action on this even though I handed a copy of it to AOPA's president Phil Boyer just last year.

I am dumbfounded about the lack of progress on this issue. I guess we're going to have to have a few more fatal collisions before the FAA and the NOAA folks get cracking on this as a major safety issue. That is not what I want, but let's see if a some major government official's kid gets whacked by an aircraft (or an aircraft carrying that person gets whacked out of the sky by a jumper) is what it takes to get this thing off the back burner.
-

Charts are SO 1970s.

I expect FAA will put them on charts right about the time the last charts ever are printed.


We NEED them on GPS displays.

...

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

[Beachbum 0]

First ... thanks to everyone for the informative discussion, and to Tom and others actively involved BIG THANKS for trying to help make the sport a little safer for us and other aircraft.

As a relative newbie, I too question my ability to catch aircraft traffic when spotting. To this point, I've yet to see another plane when doing so. I guess we can't really know we WILL see something if it's there, until it happens once or twice. I AM in the habit of checking out windows some when we near jump altitude ... not something anyone ever taught me ... I just figured it made sense! I wonder if something to do with this should be in the ISP (or IS it these days ... I went thru ground school a lot longer ago than my #'s show ... just prior TO the ISP).

Quote

I like your idea of posting notices to pilots, but unfortunately, both places I fly out of don't really have stuff posted for piltos to read. There also is no where for pilots to hang out and shoot the !@#$. So, I suppose it won't work at every airport.

About this ... have you asked them to designate a place on the airport for pilots to look for such info, and put a bulletin board or something up? I'd think any responsible airport manager would want to do things to help increase safety. Might even be someone at your local dz would be willing to make them a corkboard or something?? Seems a relatively minor expense compared to the things it could help avoid!

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[billvon 2,990]

> Might even be someone at your local dz would be willing to make them a corkboard or something?

Well, consider the airport I learned to fly at. There were three FBO's, none near the tower. There were two scheduled airlines; their terminals _were_ near the tower. There were a total of about 8 hangar areas. Some pilots would get their briefings at home, go to their airplanes, do their preflights and go.

A corkboard (or four) might help in places like that, but it would be hard to figure out a way to get pilots to take a look at it before taking off. At smaller airports, a few notices (say, in the tower, near the pilot's lounge and in the FBO) might help.

[Beachbum 0]

Well ... was a thought anyway ... LOL ... I'm not a pilot, so am not familiar with their procedures and such, but it did seem to me that if there were a place designated FOR that type of thing, pilots would want to look at it once in a while. I can see your point about airports such as you describe tho ... spread out and not a good central place to do it. Do most pilots utilize many online resources?? ... maybe a way to get info to them thru the web in a way they would use?

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[nikejumper 0]

A run in with A Commercial Airliner!!!

http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=5539

Is it saturday yet?

[riggerrob 643]

You are over-simplifying the process.
Traffic avoidance was never a "one man job."
... not was it ever a "once per flight" process.
More eyeballs, looking out more windows, more times equals more chances of spotting dangerous traffic.

Skydivers who only look out of the airplane ten seconds before exit are lazy and stupid!

For example, the closest I ever came to a mid-air collision - over Pitt Meadows - was not even during jump run. We were climbing out (1200 feet) along the regular down-wind leg of the standard traffic pattern. I was siting in the back, with a tandem student between my knees. I glanced out towards the right wing tip and noticed a Mooney approaching on a 90 degree intercept course. I slapped the pilot on the shoulder and pointed towards the traffic. She instinctively pulled up. Fortunately, the Mooney passed underneath us without doing any harm.

If we had been flying the standard traffic pattern (i.e. level on the downwind leg) we would have collided with the Mooney.
It was entirely the Mooney's fault, because he blundered into a control zone without ever talking to an air traffic controller.

That is why I spend most of my time in airplanes scanning out windows, even if we are twenty minutes away from jumprun.

[AFFI 0]

Quote

We were climbing out (1200 feet)

You mean 12,000 or was it a ballsy tandem?

[nbblood 0]

Quote

Quote

We were climbing out (1200 feet)

You mean 12,000 or was it a ballsy tandem?

I believe he's talking about the airplane climbing out, not the jumpers climbing out of the airplane.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[riggerrob 643]

Sorry for the confusion.
The AIRPLANE was climbing through 1,200 feet, just above the normal airport traffic pattern altitude.
We waited until the airplane was at 10,000 feet before climbing out/exiting with tandem students.