Glider Pilots... We love em !!!!!

[adamsr 0]

Quote

Is it possible that you didn't notice that an aircraft with a 60 to 90 foot wingspan was nearly beneath you before you jumped? Or did you look before you leapt? This near-miss was as much your fault as his.

Think this is a bit unfair, having flown in light aircraft a lot i can tell you gliders are damn hard to spot, as someone else has said they are very skinny, and on more than one occasion a glider has just seemed to appear in front of the aircraft i'm in as it turns.

Plus spotting aircraft against the backdrop of a landscape, i.e. if you are much higher than them, is almost impossible at best, especially if you are thousands of feet higher than them.

In this situation it would be more the responsibility of the dz ground crew to notify the aircraft that there is an aircraft in the airspace and to suspend jumping.

[sukaidaiba 0]

Thx for the post. With regard to not jumping through clouds, well often thats not an option. If there is cloud above 5000ft the drop planes will often operate at my DZ, unless I don't jump all day I would have to jump through cloud. Perhaps you guys could simply stay out of the DZ cone, then there would be no opportunity for collisons....there's plenty of sky out there!

the ideal falling motion of something subject only to a gravitational field

[n23x 0]

Quote

Quote

Is it possible that you didn't notice that an aircraft with a 60 to 90 foot wingspan was nearly beneath you before you jumped? Or did you look before you leapt? This near-miss was as much your fault as his.

Think this is a bit unfair, having flown in light aircraft a lot i can tell you gliders are damn hard to spot, as someone else has said they are very skinny, and on more than one occasion a glider has just seemed to appear in front of the aircraft i'm in as it turns.

Plus spotting aircraft against the backdrop of a landscape, i.e. if you are much higher than them, is almost impossible at best, especially if you are thousands of feet higher than them.

In this situation it would be more the responsibility of the dz ground crew to notify the aircraft that there is an aircraft in the airspace and to suspend jumping.

These are just rediculous excuses to shrug BASIC responsibility.

Gliders may be hard to spot head on, but with an overhead view, you'd have to be blind to not see them.

It is every jumpers individual responsibility to clear the airspace below before jumping.

To think that you need some DZ ground crew to do all spotting for you while you're in the plane, or hold your hand the rest of the way, is just absurd.

Perhaps they should pull for you as well?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Is it possible that you didn't notice that an aircraft with a 60 to 90 foot wingspan was nearly beneath you before you jumped? Or did you look before you leapt? This near-miss was as much your fault as his.

Think this is a bit unfair, having flown in light aircraft a lot i can tell you gliders are damn hard to spot, as someone else has said they are very skinny, and on more than one occasion a glider has just seemed to appear in front of the aircraft i'm in as it turns.

Plus spotting aircraft against the backdrop of a landscape, i.e. if you are much higher than them, is almost impossible at best, especially if you are thousands of feet higher than them.

In this situation it would be more the responsibility of the dz ground crew to notify the aircraft that there is an aircraft in the airspace and to suspend jumping.

Speaking for myself, I find it much easier to see a white airplane from above than from below.

The glider is readily visible against the background in the picture accompanying this thread.

...

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

[pilotdave 0]

I am a firm believer that it is not possible for skydivers to spot all traffic they may encounter during their skydive from the plane. Maybe someone should have seen the glider, maybe it was nearly impossible. Nobody will ever know the answer to that.

I believe that anyone that believes all traffic can be spotted before exit is fooling themselves. Face it, we're lucky it's a big freaking sky.

I'm not saying don't try. And I'm not saying pilot's shouldn't avoid areas where people may be skydiving. But to say we CAN avoid all close calls just by looking out the door and windows is, in my opinion, unrealistic.

Dave

[billvon 2,989]

>But to say we CAN avoid all close calls just by looking out the door
>and windows is, in my opinion, unrealistic.

We cannot avoid all close calls. A business jet flying at 500 knots at 1000 feet can get below a jump plane in the time between doing a good scan and the time you open. However, 99.9% of the time, close calls _are_ avoidable.

Take demos. Sometimes spectators will get hurt; there's no way we can eliminate the possibility. It is still 100% our responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. That means that we choose LZ's carefully, have requirements for skills on demos - we even decline to jump on occasion when the demo cannot be done safely. Why? Because we have a huge responsibility not to put other people at risk. If we reneg on that responsibility, we will not be able to do demos any more. Indeed, if a demo jumper said "hey, I can't make sure some guy won't get hurt; it's unrealistic of me to guarantee where I will land" he wouldn't be a demo jumper for very long.

We have the same responsibility to the other users of the sky. It is not acceptable to kill four people in a small aircraft because we think it's hard to clear airspace. We must do whatever it takes to be able to clear our airspace before we jump.

[pilotdave 0]

I didn't say not to try. I didn't say not to lie about our ability to spot traffic to make us look better. I said it's unrealistic to spot all traffic.

We rely on our pilots to follow proper radio procedures, and we rely on other planes to listen to the radio AND avoid areas where skydivers might be.

We rely on our own eyes from the airplane very little, in my opinion. You are entitled to believe otherwise.

We don't purposely jump through clouds, but we do purposely jump near them. Is a 4000 foot diameter hole big enough to spot a plane that we might run into a minute later? That's also generally why I believe cloud clearance requirements are pointless to begin with. I like the british rule when it comes to clouds. I think it's british... if you can see the DZ from the exit point, you can jump.

Safe? Well, who knows. Less safe than our rules? I doubt it.

Dave

[sweep 0]

Of course the advantage in Britain is that we have dedicated DZ controllers who are able, to an extent, to monitor traffic below cloud level that may not be visible from the acft.

Also, in my experience on DZ control, pilots are very good at keeping in touch with drop zones when they're even remotely close to our dropping radius in order to get information on traffic etc. We have very rarely had bandits overfly at my DZ, and when they have done we have always known about them well before they were close enough to pose a hazard. And at our club, the overhead above 5,500 is an airway so we get a lot of help from Scottish ATC who are very keen to make sure that we aren't dropping people through other aircraft.

All of which means that IMHO it is appropriate that our cloud clearance rules are that you can jump if you can see all the ground between the opening point and the landing area - since on the whole traffic clearance is less of an issue for us than spotting, ground hazards and other parachutists from the same or other lifts.

I think a couple of UK incidents a few years back also sharpened the minds of many of our pilots and glider pilots in addition to our DZ controllers....

Sweep

----
Yay! I'm now a 200 jump wonder.... Still a know-it-all tho..

[billvon 2,989]

> We rely on our pilots to follow proper radio procedures, and we rely on
>other planes to listen to the radio AND avoid areas where skydivers might
> be. We rely on our own eyes from the airplane very little, in my opinion.
> You are entitled to believe otherwise.

That's like saying we rely on our dytters to tell us when to pull and our AAD's to save us if we don't, and we rely on our eyes very little. That may be true for some people, but it does not make it a good idea.

>We don't purposely jump through clouds, but we do purposely jump
>near them.

Then you are intentionally putting other pilots at risk.

This really isn't that hard. Imagine someone who said "I don't purposely collide with people, but sometimes I purposely open very close to them. It's just the way it is. It happens all the time." Would this explanation be accepted, or would he get a ration of shit from the people he put at risk?

I know it's hard to clear airspace, and it's uncomfortable when it's cold out, and it's hard to see through clouds. On really cloudy days, you might have to even (gasp!) not jump. That's what you have to do.

[sneaky 0]

Hey Everyone, very interesting inputs here, but lets not forget how this incident or close call happened.

Glider Pilot ignores regulations of Airport, strays into Area at god knows what speed with tail wind ( on the day was high winds at altitude ), hears radio traffic from DZ GC and Jump Pilot, realises his error after talking to ATC and takes immediate evasive action ( his direction of flight is SW to their flying area, which is restricted to gliderz or aircraft on landing approach, AOB to jumpers ). Weather was clear day with patchy white clouds at 6K.

The glider is clear in the picture because he is damn close !! The dudes jumping have a lot of skydives and believe me they know their shit, so checking airspace before jumping is second nature.

This incident was treated with respect by all party's involved and agreements were made so as too prevent in the future, this is through the good spirit of the AirSports community. There was no finger pointing or whining, just the realisation that safety issues must be reviewed and thoses not in the know, must be briefed accordingly.

Blue Skies !

[tombuch 0]

Quote

We don't purposely jump through clouds, but we do purposely jump near them. Is a 4000 foot diameter hole big enough to spot a plane that we might run into a minute later? That's also generally why I believe cloud clearance requirements are pointless to begin with.

Cloud clearance requirements are not pointless, but they are not the 'whole' story. Remember we are also charged with not creating a hazard. You are correct that it is possible to jump through a 4,000 foot hole and be legal according to 105.17, but the jump might still violate 105.5. While 105.5 might be somewhat nebulous, it is the more serious violation from a legal standpoint, and from a moral standpoint. It really is our responsibility to avoid creating a hazard.

Way back on the first page of this thread I suggested a few articles I had written on The Ranch web site. Clouds were not an issue in this case of glider/jumper near miss, so I didn't reference article 19 "Jumping Near Clouds." It does a pretty good job of discussing 105.17 and 105.5 with regard to cloud jumps. See http://ranchskydive.com/safety/index.htm
.

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

[phoenixlpr 0]

I do envy you. You can jump where the sky is just blue.

Image a configuration like 5/8 clouds on 650m and 8/8 on 950m. We can jump because we ha ground vision. Have fun with a white glider over 5/8 white clouds!

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

>We don't purposely jump through clouds, but we do purposely jump
>near them.

Then you are intentionally putting other pilots at risk.

What cloud clearance requirements do you follow? You only jump when you can see for 30 miles? Come on... you know the real world. Skydivers aim for holes at best. Dunno if you're painting a prettier picture in case the media is reading this or what.

I'm not saying it's safe... or at least as safe as it would be if we only jumped under clouds. But it is the real world.

Dave

[negcamber 0]

Quote

Thx for the post. With regard to not jumping through clouds, well often thats not an option. If there is cloud above 5000ft the drop planes will often operate at my DZ, unless I don't jump all day I would have to jump through cloud. Perhaps you guys could simply stay out of the DZ cone, then there would be no opportunity for collisons....there's plenty of sky out there!

Well, we are frequently tied close to the airport due to limited lift. There is plenty of sky out there, but there is not always plenty of lift. If I had strayed too far from the airport that day, my chances of landing out and putting myself at risk would have been high. Like I said...if I hear the jump plane warning, and I am under blue sky, I high tail it to someplace where jumpers should not be...and one of the places they should not be is passing through a cloud.

But I have to ask you...assuming in you are in the US, by choosing to jump when you don't have the option to miss the cloud you are choosing to break the law if I read Part 105.17 correctly.

I have to make the same choice when I fly power. The Cessna I rent is equipped for IFR flight, but I am not IFR rated. If conditions are not VFR legal, I have to choose whether to fly illegally or stay on the ground all day. It is a choice. You can choose to operate safely or not.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Thanks Eric. I wonder if lawrocket or someone could tell us why since that ruling the FAA not only kept that definition but have added powered parachutes specifically as an "aircraft" category? I would also be interested to know what the FAA's view is on modern day parachutes that can actually ascend in thermals and ground launch like a glider?

A piece of toilet paper can actually ascend in thermals. That does not make it an aircraft.

The FAA's view on the modern day parachute is the same as it has always been. They are considered “aerodynamic deceleration devices.” They have no power and they do not go up. They carry a suspended load to the surface at a pre-designed descent rate. They do not consider them A/C in any sense of the word. And they wish they would go away.

In almost every case where there is a violation of FAR’s, it is the jump plane pilot that will get his butt in a jam, not the jumpers.

Like Harry said, if push comes to shove, we lose.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

A piece of toilet paper can actually ascend in thermals. That does not make it an aircraft.

While I agree, we are not talking about toilet paper. When was the last time you hooked turned and swooped a piece of toilet paper?

Quote

The FAA's view on the modern day parachute is the same as it has always been.

Show me where they say that? Like in the last five years.

Quote

They have no power and they do not go up.

Wrong, they most certainly can go up. Hell, they are ground launching high glide ratio canopies that ascend hundreds of feet on thermals. Sounds like a glider to me!

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

News flash, they most certianly can go up.

They do not go up, air currents carry them up, big difference. They are carried aloft like pollen, only when nature feels like it. They are not aircraft, they are parachutes.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[MikeForsythe 0]

Thermal is not the only way that they go up and you know it. And if we use your non-powered analogy then explain why gliders are aircraft?

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[pilotdave 0]

Parachutes aren't aircraft for only a single reason. The FAA doesn't define them that way. If a parachute was an aircraft, it would be considered an ultralight glider and fall under FAR 103. They simply don't. It's not worth arguing, it's just the way things are.

Dave

[PhreeZone 20]

That would be classified as a Paraglider and some of them depending on their intended purpose are carrying radios and transponders. On long distance cross country flights I understand some of them carry transponders to avoid traffic conflicts. Sport canopies as known to the majority of skydivers will not accend.

I dare you to take a Stiletto off a mountian and try to accend with it.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,989]

>What cloud clearance requirements do you follow? You only jump
>when you can see for 30 miles?

No, more like 3 miles. If we can clear a cone beneath us that's around 50-55 degrees, we are going to see any threat that can get to us by opening time that's going less than about 200 knots, which covers most GA aircraft - and certainly most gliders. Note that this means really looking (including under the plane) not just looking straight down. It also means not jumping when clouds cover large areas you can't clear.

>Come on... you know the real world.

In the real world people drive drunk all the time. It's still a bad idea. One should try to drive sober even if other people do foolish things.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Parachutes aren't aircraft for only a single reason.

okay, then tell me what the other reasons are? Because if i change just one thing (add an engine) now they are. Some of today’s canopies clearly have the same flight characteristics gliders.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

I dare you to take a Stiletto off a mountian and try to accend with it.

Hell Eric, I would not even decend with a Stiletto!

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[pilotdave 0]

Umm, I said there was a single reason and I listed it.

But anyway, first of all, parachutes don't come anywhere near the glide ratios attainable by modern gliders. Second of all, the flight characteristics of a pendulum type device (since i cant call it an aircraft) are never like those of a true 3-axis glider.

Add an engine and you now have an infinite glide ratio. That's something different.

But regardless of what makes a parachute different from a glider, a parachute isn't a glider because the FAA says so.

Dave

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Some of today’s canopies clearly have the same flight characteristics gliders.

As a non pilot I can see you maybe believing this, but as a rigger you should know better. Gliders have full 3 axis flight and parachutes turn right, left and go down. They have no pitch control and a glide ratio far less then the 60:1 some gliders have. You hang under a parachute, you ride in a glider.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals