Airline jet fly under during freefall

[dixieskydiver 0]

Thank you all for the lesson in FAA airspace restrictions and classifications, I didn't know about all the types and whatnot. I just assumed that when they radioed the jumpers out warning they would vector large airliners out of the way. I still believe that if the plane vectored in from the direction I think it did that it would have been nearly impossible to see, but I am probably wrong. I started jumping at a cessna dropzone and we were taught to use the long ride up to check for surrounding airtraffic. I had since stopped doing that when I switched to a bigger dropzone with GPS and all that hitech jazz. When I make it back up to Chester I will mention all of your concerns about the exit delays and I will of course increase my own. To Billvon, I happened to read your sticky post in this forum and it says beware giving out generic information because you don't know who reads it. X seconds giving Y feet of seperation is not necessarily true because you must take into account Z airspeed and A windspeed.

Dixie
HISPA #56 Facil Rodriguez
"Scientific research has shown that 60% of the time, it works every time."

[billvon 2,998]

>One day I hope to be a master of the sky like you all are.

Dude, this isn't about "I'm better than you." This is about saving lives and preventing close calls. It could be a friend of yours who dies from someone's inattention to the spot, or traffic, or cloud clearance. So check that ego at the door and start doing your best to clear your airspace before you jump. Will you catch every single plane? Perhaps not. Will I? I may well miss one one day. But that's a piss poor reason to not do your best to clear your airspace for you, your friends, and the other users of the airspace who are relying on you to jump responsibly.

> X seconds giving Y feet of seperation is not necessarily true because
>you must take into account Z airspeed and A windspeed.

At a given aircraft airspeed on jump run (which is typically pretty constant) and a given upper wind situation (which changes only slowly throughout the day) X seconds gives you Y feet of separation. Which means that if 10 seconds worked on the load before, chances are it will work for you. Watching the group that just left doesn't do _anything_ to make sure you have enough separation.

[Hooknswoop 19]

http://www.iit.edu/~kallend/skydive/

Kallend has a great program for calculating exit speration needed.

Derek

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

5. Even jets must be below 250kts when below 10,000ft msl. So they are not travelling so fast that they catch you unawares if you take a good look out the door before you jump. There is no evidence from the video of much looking around going on.

does this apply to military flights as well? I once saw 2 F16s blaze by me slightly above (but offset by a good bit) as i deployed.... wish i'd had a camera that day....

Military operation areas (MOAs), training routes (MTRs), etc. are marked on aviation charts. Civilian pilots can find out if they are active from several sources, also listed on the charts. If your DZ is in a MOA or on a MTR your pilots would know about it.

Other than that, the military should be obeying the normal FARs like other users of the airspace, unless on some kind of real emergency, in which case they do whatever the hell they want to do.

...

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

[skylord 1]

Quote

I definitely agree that we need to look for traffic as best as we can, but I also believe we don't collide with airplanes very often because it's a big freaking sky, our pilots talk to ATC, and most pilots avoid flying over dropzones if they know about them. Not because we spot most of the traffic ourselves.

Dave

There are several of us ATC types on dz.com, and we're all skydivers. These clips serve as excellent training tools to educate us on DZ operations. If you have any that aren't on skydivingmovies.com, send 'em my way.

This incident is a bit hard to understand, since we should have been in contact with both the jet and the jump plane. If the jet got away from us on a vector, and we lost comm, we should have told the jump ship. I just don't know for sure.

When I was trained as a controller, I was taught that the airspace was to be sterilized when the jumpers went. That meant actively vectoring traffic around the airspace no matter what you called it. So, for Class A, B, and C (which almost none of us regularly jump in or into), we are required to separate non-participatory aircraft from the airspace. For Class D and E, there is NO such requirement, just advisories.

Our equipment is limited in its ability to detect and track aircraft that don't have an operating transponder. We are then getting just a "primary" return, raw radar energy bouncing back to the antenna from the skin of the airplane. Since the cross section of the aircraft can change, and the return is already weak, these targets tend to be intermittent. Long story short, we don't see everybody out there.

So, take a good close look outside before jumping. The other issue has to do with the ability to see traffic. In the door, if you have traffic say, 1,000 ft. below, and 150 feet or so behind you, going the same direction as jump run, you can see the aircraft moving against the ground clutter. Suppose you jump anyway. As you transition off the hill, your relative velocity (speed and direction) to the traffic changes.

In the air, a collision threat will NOT appear to be moving against the background. That makes it SO much harder to spot. Check out the two videos again, with the Chipmunk you can hardly see any movement until the end, it just appears to get bigger. You see movement when the jumper deploys. The jet is moving across the ground relative to the camera the whole time.

It is the threat that is hardest to see that is the most dangerous. Rambling done.

Bob

Bob Marks

"-when you leave the airplane its all wrong til it goes right, its a whole different mindset, this is why you have system redundancy." Mattaman

[tombuch 0]

Quote

This incident is a bit hard to understand, since we should have been in contact with both the jet and the jump plane. If the jet got away from us on a vector, and we lost comm, we should have told the jump ship. I just don't know for sure.

I'll offer a few quick ways it could happen based on incidents at My DZ.

First, our airspace is split between Center (at altitude) and Approach (below 6,000). If we are jumping from Center airspace and the jet is in Approach airspace, the two controllers may not be sharing information and the conflict might happen. Ideally, we should be talking to both Center and Approach before exit, but sometimes those calls get missed by one party or the other. Rare, but it happens.

If it's a super clear day, a large jet on the way to a major airport 12 miles away may be handed off to tower for the visual before he reaches us. At that point Approach and Center assume the big boy is clear, but he may well change his track and become a threat. Rare, but it happens.

Sometimes we will do a couple of passes and controllers will hear our first two minute warning and figure the sky is clear again a few minutes later, but we may just be setting up for another pass, and might skip the next two minute warning. Rare, but it happens.

A controller may be asleep at his scope and might miss the conflict. Rare, but it happens.

A pilot may be asleep in his window seat and miss the required radio calls. Rare, but it happens.

A controller may have no real idea what happens when jump planes begin a drop, or a pilot may have no idea what the controllers must deal with on their end. Rare, but it happens.

Staying safe is a team effort. The nice thing about threads like this is that they allow us to share knowledge with each other, and that makes the sky safer for everybody.
.

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

[Amazon 7]

DUDE.. you could have dove on the plane to get a better shot of it...

[skylord 1]

Tom,

Excellent points. I wish we'd treat DZ airspace as restricted areas before an accident happens. But that would be pro-active, wouldn't it? Restricted areas are HOT or NOT. I mean, the military up at Edwards has restricted airspace nearly the size of New Hamphire and Vermont almost all the time. Can't we do something around Perris and Elsinore, like a 3 mile radius on an on call basis? That eliminates the problem you mentioned with different facilities working different altitudes.

Thanks again for your post.

Bob

Bob Marks

"-when you leave the airplane its all wrong til it goes right, its a whole different mindset, this is why you have system redundancy." Mattaman

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Tom,

Excellent points. I wish we'd treat DZ airspace as restricted areas before an accident happens. But that would be pro-active, wouldn't it? Restricted areas are HOT or NOT. I mean, the military up at Edwards has restricted airspace nearly the size of New Hamphire and Vermont almost all the time. Can't we do something around Perris and Elsinore, like a 3 mile radius on an on call basis? That eliminates the problem you mentioned with different facilities working different altitudes.

Thanks again for your post.

Bob

Ummm - the US military has a little more clout than the US Parachute Association.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Excellent points. I wish we'd treat DZ airspace as restricted areas before an accident happens. But that would be pro-active, wouldn't it? Restricted areas are HOT or NOT. I mean, the military up at Edwards has restricted airspace nearly the size of New Hamphire and Vermont almost all the time. Can't we do something around Perris and Elsinore, like a 3 mile radius on an on call basis? That eliminates the problem you mentioned with different facilities working different altitudes.

If you convince the FAA that in order to maintain an acceptable level of safety, the airspace around a DZ needs to be treated as a rEstricted Area during Parachute Operations, they will shut down skydiving. Given the choice between open airspace or skydiving, skydiving will lose.

Derek

[skylord 1]

Quote

If you convince the FAA that in order to maintain an acceptable level of safety, the airspace around a DZ needs to be treated as a rEstricted Area during Parachute Operations, they will shut down skydiving. Given the choice between open airspace or skydiving, skydiving will lose.

Derek

I disagree. An accident has a much higher chance of doing that, though.

Bob

Bob Marks

"-when you leave the airplane its all wrong til it goes right, its a whole different mindset, this is why you have system redundancy." Mattaman

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I disagree. An accident has a much higher chance of doing that, though.

Skydiving is no more than a nusance to the FAA. They are not going to restrict airspace around DZ's, giving skydiving priority over other GA operations.

Derek

[pilotdave 0]

Collisions between planes and freefalling skydivers have happened. A skydiver that hit a plane (breaking his leg and knocking the tail off the plane killing all on board) sued air traffic control for not providing adequate traffic advisories to the jump plane. IMO the pilot that got hit was mostly at fault (in that particular case), but the skydiver won the suit.

A close encounter with a commercial airliner is a different story and could have horrible consequences. But the entire national airspace system is designed for the airlines, not for the skydivers. We don't need restricted airspace, we need empty airspace for short periods of time. Proper pilot/ATC/jumper procedures ensure it. And when DZs show up on cockpit GPS units, the world will be a far safer place for us.

Dave

[Guest 1010]

Quote

...

And when DZs show up on cockpit GPS units, the world will be a far safer place for us.

So how can this be brought about? What is hard about it, why are we not already there? Are there competing data providers, so that DZs can become a feature/selling point? LAT/LONGs of basically all civilian DZs in the country are available on this site.

You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I mean, the military up at Edwards has restricted airspace nearly the size of New Hamphire and Vermont almost all the time. Can't we do something around Perris and Elsinore, like a 3 mile radius on an on call basis? That eliminates the problem you mentioned with different facilities working different altitudes.

Perris and Elsinore are just east of the LA basin, which is on the west coast. Meaning that most commercial flights go east. Not a lot of free airspace for less than a thousand people when tens of millions are flying somewhere else.

Edwards has huge space, but they're rather more remote. Historically, totally remote.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Quote

And when DZs show up on cockpit GPS units, the world will be a far safer place for us.

So how can this be brought about? What is hard about it, why are we not already there? Are there competing data providers, so that DZs can become a feature/selling point? LAT/LONGs of basically all civilian DZs in the country are available on this site.

See this historical thread http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1133168;#1133168 for background. I’ll cover the topic again here with current status.

It’s a complex problem with lots of players. I’ve been working the issue for about two years, and although we have made some progress, it does tend to drag. I actually began working the problem on October 28, 2003, so I’m thinking of an anniversary party!

There are a couple of industry committees that need to deal with this issue and they only meet twice a year. Thus, moving the project forward is a time-challenge. I’ll try to outline the issue in simple terms as best I know it.

There are five levels of concern.

First: Drop zone listings have been maintained by the FAA as analog data and cannot be added to any database until the source data is converted to a digital format. Part of the issue with conversion is establishing a standard, and part of the issue is confirming the accuracy/integrity of the data. Pilots and other users require current and accurate data, and until now, the FAA has not been able to provide that level of integrity. For example, the data that supports sectionals is old and inaccurate because it isn’t really managed at any level. That issue needs to be resolved. Likewise, drop zones are now lumped in with gliders, hang gliders, and ultralights and whatever solution we establish for skydiving needs to work for the other users too. All these issues are being hashed out at the FAA level with USPA support. I expect this stuff to finally be handled later this month, but I think I said that more than a year ago too. Sometimes it makes me scream.

Second: Once a data standard has been established, a technical communication standard needs to be established between the FAA and all the manufacturers, and among all the manufacturers. There are two levels of standards. The first is for GPS use, and that’s being worked on as part of the basic standard. The second is for FMS use (big airplanes), and that standard has been established and should be published, probably next year. In the meantime manufacturers of FMS boxes can write display code to the future standard. Getting drop zones listed in the next ARINC revision for FMS systems was a huge step forward, and much of the rest of our progress will be built upon that foundation.

Third: Once data standards and communication standards have been set, the FAA needs to release the data to manufacturers and then to maintain the currency of that data over time. The FAA has agreed to release the data on an update CD of existing data. So, once standards have been set, we have an easy means of distributing data. Maintaining that data is still an unresolved issue, but I understand USPA is working to assist FAA in this regard.

Fourth: Once data is distributed, the GPS and FMS manufacturers will need to establish memory to hold that data, and code to display it. They will need to spend money to do that, and as of now none of the manufacturers have any interest in adding drop zones to their boxes. That could change. We spent more than a year convincing FAA to put the data cart before the display cart, and now that they have done that, we have a better chance of driving manufacturers to upgrade their display units. In the past manufacturers have been able to avoid the issue because there wasn’t any data available. Once data begins to flow manufacturers can be pressured with liability risk if they don’t recode their boxes.

Fifth: Once data is distributed and boxes have been designed to display that data we will need to convince pilots to actually use the display. That will probably be a menu option, so at that point pilot education will become important. Right now, however, there is no data, and no means of displaying that data, so the pilots aren’t a meaningful concern.

As I said, it’s a big issue. When I first stepped into this pile I thought it would be easy, but our national airspace system and the systems that surround it are very stable and resistant to change. That’s a big problem when we are trying to improve a specific safety risk, but it’s a benefit as well because that stability tends to prevent untested changes, and enhances safety over the long haul. So, our industry needs to keep plugging away. USPA and AOPA are on board, as is the FAA.
.

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

[skylord 1]

Quote

Perris and Elsinore are just east of the LA basin, which is on the west coast. Meaning that most commercial flights go east. Not a lot of free airspace for less than a thousand people when tens of millions are flying somewhere else.

Edwards has huge space, but they're rather more remote. Historically, totally remote.

Actually, neither are near the LA Basin, to my way of thinking. Both are way south. I jump at both and also do ATC (18 years) for all that airspace. The departures go ABOVE the DZ, and the arrivals go around and don't get anywhere near my magic circles. We do it all the time for all sorts of reasons, and we make it work, it is a matter of making it a requirement for pilots in non participating a/c to stay out and for us to keep them out.

Bob

Bob Marks

"-when you leave the airplane its all wrong til it goes right, its a whole different mindset, this is why you have system redundancy." Mattaman

[kallend 2,027]

Naming the airport "Skydive Chicago" helps a little - that does show up on the charts (but not on the handheld GPS displays unless you click on the identifier).

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually, neither are near the LA Basin, to my way of thinking. Both are way south.

The LA Basin extends to TJ, these days.

two weeks ago from Elsinore, I saw quite a few jets flying overhead.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

It’s a complex problem with lots of players.

Why doesn't the USPA approach Bush Senior? Seriously, he's got an interest in the sport and has a son who I hear might be able to pull a few strings occasionally. What's the point in having a high profile patron if you don't make use of him? Nepotism works!

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why doesn't the USPA approach Bush Senior?

Ya, I'm sure he is going to drop everything else and address skydiving. Again, you are over estimating skydiving's value to anyone other than skydivers.

If the FAA thinks there is a safety issue between skydiving and the airlines and GA, they aren't going to make changes that restrict/inconvenience the airlines or GA, they'll just restrict skydiving, making it more expensive and difficult. They would probably just require jumpships to have TCAS where you can see other aircraft on the screen. I got to fly a Premier the other day that had it, very cool.

Derek

[airdvr 210]

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/967.html Anyone know more about this one. Seems to be getting more common...but this one was way too close.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[xpug 0]

Incident thread

Original version on SDM where those jokers have lifted it from...

[speedy 0]

Quote

Just to reiterate some important points here, in one place:

3. Four seconds between exits is insufficient spacing, regardless of what your chief instructor tells you. Saying " You were not there, I was" is a cop-out, the laws of physics don't care who was there and who wasn't.

This is from a real case last weekend:

Droprun into the wind. Wind at exit altitude 10kts and opening altitude 20kts and from the same direction.

Groundspeed as per GPS 93kts = 157 ft per second.

4 second delay gives 4 x 157 feet = 628 feet. Is this not sufficient for separation between two solo belly fliers?

According to the freefall simulation I get even more due to the winds at opening altitude.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 2,998]

>Is this not sufficient for separation between two solo belly fliers?

I use 1000 feet as my minimum separation. Solo fliers need less space to track off BUT they tend to backslide more, so their position is less certain at opening time. If you keep an eye on the previous guy, and have the skill to avoid him, you should be OK. But I wouldn't use 600 feet as a 'normal' full altitude separation.