loudawg 0 #51 June 21, 2004 Quote However, until you hear the magic words, "radar contact", you are not under the ATC umbrella... Maybe Chris can back me up on that.. In class C and D airspace you don't even need that much to be considered under the ATC umbrella. All you need to hear from them is your callsign, and you're good to go into that airspace. For example, if you make a call to ATC, and they respond with "Cessna 4008V, standby" and then they start making calls to other aircraft, you're still all set....pretty strange....almost seems too lenient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #52 June 21, 2004 Quote Some controllers are lazy, some are just ignorant about skydiving, some even profess to hate skydiving. ...and others are terrific people doing the best job they can to keep all the users of the national airspace system happy. I'll bet that most drop zones have a great relationship with local controllers and appreciate what ATC guys and gals do to keep us safe. By the way Chris, when you spoke with the offending pilot, were you kind enough to clue him into a NASA report?Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #53 June 21, 2004 Quote...and others are terrific people doing the best job they can to keep all the users of the national airspace system happy. Yup, and JohnMitchell is one of those terrific folks. Thanks John! Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #54 June 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteSituations aren't always black and white. The FAR is very clear; " §105.13 Radio equipment and use requirements. (a) Except when otherwise authorized by air traffic control -- (1) No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, in or into controlled airspace unless, during that flight -- (i) The aircraft is equipped with a functioning two-way radio communication system appropriate to the air traffic control facilities being used; and (ii) Radio communications have been established between the aircraft and the air traffic control facility having jurisdiction over the affected airspace of the first intended exit altitude at least 5 minutes before the parachute operation begins. The pilot in command must establish radio communications to receive information regarding air traffic activity in the vicinity of the parachute operation. (2) The pilot in command of an aircraft used for any parachute operation in or into controlled airspace must, during each flight -- (i) Continuously monitor the appropriate frequency of the aircraft's radio communications system from the time radio communications are first established between the aircraft and air traffic control, until the pilot advises air traffic control that the parachute operation has ended for that flight. (ii) Advise air traffic control when the last parachutist or object leaves the aircraft. (b) Parachute operations must be aborted if, prior to receipt of a required air traffic control authorization, or during any parachute operation in or into controlled airspace, the required radio communications system is or becomes inoperative." QuoteThe load Chris described was already at altitude and he used his best effort under the circumstances to contact ATC. He obviously felt that he had let them know that he was there and intended to release jumpers. ATC did broadcast communications directed at the pilot, so communications were established. His decision to drop the jumpers may not have been by the book, nor was it in the best interest of safety, but he made a decision as PIC. This is what every pilot is charged by the FAA to do. Yes, ATC did brodcast comms directed at the jumpship....."asking the jump plane to leave the area", not OK'ing the drop. If the pilot had comms w/ ATC, he would have had that information, therefore comms were NOT established. Pilots are charged with following the fAR's except in an emergency, and operating the aircraft safely, not just making a decision. QuoteFAR 105 states that you MUST have two-way radio contact with ATC 5 minutes before dropping jumpers. This plane NEVER had positive two-way radio communication with ATC as NY Center kept transmitting in the blind asking the jump plane to leave the area as he was up in the middle of a holding pattern. The jump pilot violated FAR's, endagered his passengers and the passengers of Chris's aircraft. I also wonder how close the jumpers and jumpship came to the aircraft holding 1,000 ft below Chris. Imagine if the tandem had hit either airliner and brought it down. The FAA would likely simply ground all parachute operations and then, budget permitting, figure out how to allow skydiving again. Derek Excellent reply...... Buck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #55 June 22, 2004 QuoteThe FAA would likely simply ground all parachute operations and then, budget permitting, figure out how to allow skydiving again. The thing I find scariest about this is they already figured it out once, and they wrote it down and called it an FAR. If people ignore these regulations, and as a result or in combination with ignoring them cause an accident, what could the FAA do that would have any chance of working better? Perhaps relegate jumping to areas that have no controlled airspace. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #56 June 22, 2004 QuoteBy the way Chris, when you spoke with the offending pilot, were you kind enough to clue him into a NASA report? Yep. He said he was going to fill one out online. So, he was one step ahead of me on that one. Really, I'm not here to bash this pilot or the operation (yet). This is a general broadcast with a real story to enlighten the jump pilots and future jump pilots that read here to a very dangerous attitude towards flying skydivers. Skydivers should watch for cavalier attitudes with jump pilots and DZOs when it comes to stuff like this and choose their DZ wisely. The problem here was that it was a tandem and the first time tandem has no opportunity to really educate themselves about DZ ops. They think that if someone advertises in the local yellow pages that means the FAA is watching over them. Sadly, that's not really the case. Self-policing. It really requires US to stand up and say "no more".Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #57 June 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteDerek, I think he was wrong by not checking NOTAMs also known as notices to airmen. He was not alerted to look for jumpers or aircraft. Had he been getting flight following with ATC that would have helped to. How do you know he didn't check NOTAM's? Even he had checked the NOTAM's, he can still fly through uncontrolled airspace w/o talking to anyone. When I fly I sometimes contact approach for flight following, sometimes not. Sometimes it isn't worth it. Your profile says your home DZ is San Marcos. See if you can find a NOTAM for Parachute Operations for Skydive San Marcos. Not saying it doesn't exist, but give pilots a break. There are parachute symbols on Sectional maps, but they are a lot of parachutes at inactive DZ's and pilots aren't trained as to the importance of the symbol. So the symbols are ineffective. From the FAA's web site for a flight from Sugarland to San Marcos Mun, this is what they show for NOTAMS(Notice it lists no NOTAMs for Skydive Houston): . Best of luck getting VFR flight following from Chicago Approach! If you get your briefing from a FSS, they will usually only give you the notams relating to your starting point, destination, and navaids along the way. Chances are slim to none that you'll hear about skydiving operations along the way. It is easier for you to look down and spot a plane below than for the pilot of the plane below to see you coming.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #58 June 22, 2004 QuoteThere are parachute symbols on Sectional maps, but they are a lot of parachutes at inactive DZ's and pilots aren't trained as to the importance of the symbol. So the symbols are ineffective. That little parachute symbol isn't included in GPS databases, conventional flight planning databases, or on instrument charts/plates. As more pilots migrate to digital flight planning and navigation tools we will see increased traffic over our drop zones. We can't rely on pilots to know that we exist, or what our activity levels might be. Please see: http://ranchskydive.com/safety/tb_article08.htm QuoteIt is easier for you to look down and spot a plane below than for the pilot of the plane below to see you coming.But that's not to say it's easy to spot a plane while on jumprun. There is actually a ton of space to clear, extending as far as 12 miles in every direction, and as much as two miles deep. It takes the effort of each jumper looking out of every window to spot traffic, and that is especially true of high speed traffic at lower altitudes. If we throw in some scattered clouds, the check for traffic can be completely ineffective. It's a problem. See http://ranchskydive.com/safety/tb_article01.htmTom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #59 June 22, 2004 Good articles.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funks 1 #60 June 22, 2004 I work 2 miles from Dulles. I am very curious to know what DZ this plane could have originated from. The closest DZ to Dulles that I know of is about 50 miles away..maybe a little more....Trying to figure out what the hell a jump plane would be doing in Dulles Airspace and where the hell it came from??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tspillers 0 #61 June 24, 2004 Also about NOTAM's: Most DZ's don't actually called a NOTAM. They are what is called "Published", which means they are in the Airport Facillities Directory and can get put on the Sectionals. When you call for a briefing, they giving you NOTAM's and assume you have look at the AFD and sectionals (you are responsible for knowing the information), but in practice many pilots don't do this. Heck, many don't even get the flight brief. Todd I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guru312 0 #62 June 25, 2004 This subject thread and comments is great. A wonderful learning experience for us all. From the facts presented by DD and the references to FARs it seems evident to me the pilot is at fault. Never the less, allow me to relate an experience I had *many* years ago when I had 1500 hours flying jumpers. Probably 25 years ago. I was flying jumpers at Pelicanland in Maryland. I had a committment to fly a jumper who was jumping into Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia with the ball for the first day of the Phillies season. Pelicanland is probably 75 miles or more from Philadelphia. All the paperwork for the jump had been filed. I contacted PHL ATC at least 50 miles out. Since the plan was to pick up the jumper at the General Aviation Terminal I also talked to the tower and landed at PHL. 20 minutes after landing I took off from PHL and circled to altitude, all fully under ATC and tower control. I was working both on two radios and I was squawking the provided ID on the transponder. We climbed to altitude over the airport. ATC held all traffic for the actual jump. The stadium was about 2 miles from the airport. My flying part of the jump went without a hitch...except the jumper totally missed the stadium due to the circulating winds and landed in the parking lot. No safety issue. No near miss as DD described. Wonderful coordination with the FAA regarding approving the jump...which was was one of the first into a downtown stadium...and obviously a great working relationship with ATC and the tower. BUT...I very nearly lost my ticket over the incident. A very high-up FAA beaureaucrat was in the stadium and filed multiple complaints with whomever. EVERYONE involved was interrogated about the incident: ATC, tower personnel and whoever gave the final approval. Hopefully, the incident DD describes is investigated fully and appropriate action is taken. In my case, I was pissed for a long time because of the hassle I went through over the jump. And we did everything by the books. Never the less, it is the pilot's responsibility to fly by the rules. It doesn't seem like the pilot DD described did that.Guru312 I am not DB Cooper Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #63 June 25, 2004 Can you imagine the trouble you'd have if you hadn't dotted all the "I's" and crossed all the "T's"? Yipes.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #64 June 25, 2004 ***BUT...I very nearly lost my ticket over the incident. A very high-up FAA beaureaucrat was in the stadium and filed multiple complaints with whomever. EVERYONE involved was interrogated about the incident: ATC, tower personnel and whoever gave the final approval. In my case, I was pissed for a long time because of the hassle I went through over the jump. And we did everything by the books. QuoteYour tax dollars at work. We have a FSDO supervisor in Seattle that thinks skydiving is not a legitimate aviation activity. He has a track record of trying very hard to press actions against skydivers and DZ's. There have been a few calls to investigate this official, but as far as I know, the FAA hasn't taken any action. Most folks in the FAA do a good job, but some have hyper inflated egos and love to flaunt their "power". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites velvetjo 0 #65 June 26, 2004 funks, if I'm reading correctly, the published hold at HYPER intersection is where this occurred. HYPER is about 5 nm ESE of Emmitsburg, way up near the MD/PA line. The hold is a racetrack pattern oriented roughly to the NE of HYPER on a victor airway. Pretty far away from Dulles, but probably still part of a published arrival route (STAR) for Dulles Class B. I hate to say it, but I've seen a lot closer calls than this between aircraft. I do agree that a responsible jump pilot should be talking to ATC, but the name of the game in VMC is still see & avoid. I always fly defensively, especially when I'm on an IFR flight plan in VMC. It's too easy to be complacent about looking out the window. Lance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akjmpplt 0 #66 June 27, 2004 Skydive operations usually are not listed under NOTAMS if they are an established drop and the DZ has been published the A/FD. Once the info is published the NOTAM is no longer listed. Where NOTAMS come into play is for the one-off jump such as demos. A pilot that flys over a dropzone hasn't commited any violation...but he is one dumb SOB. We have a lot of traffic crossing over our DZ (Skydive Alaska)...still working on how to get the word out. (Of course the guys that pay attention to info aren't the ones that are the problem. )SmugMug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #67 June 27, 2004 QuoteSkydive operations usually are not listed under NOTAMS if they are an established drop and the DZ has been published the A/FD. Once the info is published the NOTAM is no longer listed. Where NOTAMS come into play is for the one-off jump such as demos. Exactly my point. A VFR pilot that over flys a DZ may not know it exists. Instead of harshing on the pilot, work on fixing the problem, which is, pilots have a hard time getting DZ information. It really isn't their fault. A DZ that doesn't contact ATC or announce on unicom, only makes the problem worse. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akjmpplt 0 #68 June 28, 2004 Quote Exactly my point. A VFR pilot that over flys a DZ may not know it exists. Instead of harshing on the pilot, work on fixing the problem, which is, pilots have a hard time getting DZ information. It really isn't their fault. BS. The info is available, the pilot just has to expend the energy to look it up.SmugMug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Flyer2Diver 0 #69 June 28, 2004 Pilots certainly should be looking at the sectional charts, but it would also be a good idea for GPS manufacturers to include DZs in their databases - since many pilots rely on GPS for all their navigation Also, many pilots don't have any clue about skydiving. They don't realize just how big a deal it is to fly through that airspace (even if they're 'extra careful'). I know because I was one of them before starting to jump._______________________________ 30005KT 10SM SKC 23/05 A3006 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tombuch 0 #70 June 28, 2004 QuotePilots certainly should be looking at the sectional charts, but it would also be a good idea for GPS manufacturers to include DZs in their databases - since many pilots rely on GPS for all their navigation Also, many pilots don't have any clue about skydiving. They don't realize just how big a deal it is to fly through that airspace (even if they're 'extra careful'). I know because I was one of them before starting to jump. Please see a new thread called GPS Issue in this forum at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view&post=1133168Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,076 #71 June 28, 2004 > They don't realize just how big a deal it is to fly through that airspace >(even if they're 'extra careful'). I don't think it should really _be_ a big deal - or at least any more of a big deal than a pilot who flies through an area frequented (and marked on a sectional) by sailplane, hangglider, ultralight or paraglider traffic. All those activities are VFR activities, and thus pilots operate on "see-and-avoid" principles. At our old DZ we had a lot of potential conflict issues with aircraft. We had border patrol helicopters flying right over our DZ, we had people set up long finals right next to it, had paragliders flying near the base of the mountains etc. We dealt with the border patrol issue by talking to them about it; after that they were good about not flying over our DZ. We also got good at recognizing border patrol helicopters from above, and we knew the pilots well enough to know they would divert around the DZ area well before they got there. We also got good at recognizing the traffic pattern at Brown, and we could tell which planes were just extending. But every once in a while we'd see a plane that wasn't inbound for Brown (or was doing an odd pattern entry) or a helicopter we couldn't recognize or just someone doing something odd. And then we wouldn't jump. I think for the system to work, pilots have to read the sectionals enough to recognize the DZ and that there may be unusual traffic issues there, but by the same token we have to take the ultimate responsibility for ensuring sufficient separation - even if it means not jumping on occasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Flyer2Diver 0 #72 June 28, 2004 True, but as a pilot, I'd rather not count on jumpers seeing my little cessna at 3,500' from 14k - and then you have the possibility of a cloud between us during spotting (even if the jumpers don't penetrate the cloud). IMHO, if most pilots had an understanding of skydiving operations, they'd choose to stay clear of the airspace if possible. I think it'd be smart to give them the tools to make that choice by depicting DZs on GPS maps. Of course, pilots would still be free to fly in the area, just like they are free to fly through an active MOA. And of course none of this should relieve the jumper and pilot of the jump ship from scanning for traffic. Just my .02_______________________________ 30005KT 10SM SKC 23/05 A3006 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FrogNog 1 #73 June 28, 2004 I have to agree with a lot of stuff I'm reading here, but I just wish "everyone else" could stay 2500 feet horizontally from our "X". They're not bad people, it's just a communication issue. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #74 June 28, 2004 A simple parachute symbol might be over looked on a map. Maybe USPA could petition the FAA to add "DANGER PARACHUTING" in a off color on an already cluttered map. Of course they can't put danger on everything dangerous.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pilotdave 0 #75 June 28, 2004 Hehe ever looked at a sectional? The less words, the better! The last thing I want on them is warnings. It's true that the parachute symbol doesn't always stand out, but more words just add clutter. Years ago 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. When I fly, I navigate almost entirely by GPS these days. I always have a sectional open also, but I just use it as a backup most of the time. But I constantly hit the "nearest" feature on my GPS to keep looking up the frequency of the next airport I'll be flying near. And on nice sunny saturday afternoons, I tend to try not to overfly any airports, dropzones or not. Just busy places to be. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
velvetjo 0 #65 June 26, 2004 funks, if I'm reading correctly, the published hold at HYPER intersection is where this occurred. HYPER is about 5 nm ESE of Emmitsburg, way up near the MD/PA line. The hold is a racetrack pattern oriented roughly to the NE of HYPER on a victor airway. Pretty far away from Dulles, but probably still part of a published arrival route (STAR) for Dulles Class B. I hate to say it, but I've seen a lot closer calls than this between aircraft. I do agree that a responsible jump pilot should be talking to ATC, but the name of the game in VMC is still see & avoid. I always fly defensively, especially when I'm on an IFR flight plan in VMC. It's too easy to be complacent about looking out the window. Lance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akjmpplt 0 #66 June 27, 2004 Skydive operations usually are not listed under NOTAMS if they are an established drop and the DZ has been published the A/FD. Once the info is published the NOTAM is no longer listed. Where NOTAMS come into play is for the one-off jump such as demos. A pilot that flys over a dropzone hasn't commited any violation...but he is one dumb SOB. We have a lot of traffic crossing over our DZ (Skydive Alaska)...still working on how to get the word out. (Of course the guys that pay attention to info aren't the ones that are the problem. )SmugMug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #67 June 27, 2004 QuoteSkydive operations usually are not listed under NOTAMS if they are an established drop and the DZ has been published the A/FD. Once the info is published the NOTAM is no longer listed. Where NOTAMS come into play is for the one-off jump such as demos. Exactly my point. A VFR pilot that over flys a DZ may not know it exists. Instead of harshing on the pilot, work on fixing the problem, which is, pilots have a hard time getting DZ information. It really isn't their fault. A DZ that doesn't contact ATC or announce on unicom, only makes the problem worse. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akjmpplt 0 #68 June 28, 2004 Quote Exactly my point. A VFR pilot that over flys a DZ may not know it exists. Instead of harshing on the pilot, work on fixing the problem, which is, pilots have a hard time getting DZ information. It really isn't their fault. BS. The info is available, the pilot just has to expend the energy to look it up.SmugMug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flyer2Diver 0 #69 June 28, 2004 Pilots certainly should be looking at the sectional charts, but it would also be a good idea for GPS manufacturers to include DZs in their databases - since many pilots rely on GPS for all their navigation Also, many pilots don't have any clue about skydiving. They don't realize just how big a deal it is to fly through that airspace (even if they're 'extra careful'). I know because I was one of them before starting to jump._______________________________ 30005KT 10SM SKC 23/05 A3006 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #70 June 28, 2004 QuotePilots certainly should be looking at the sectional charts, but it would also be a good idea for GPS manufacturers to include DZs in their databases - since many pilots rely on GPS for all their navigation Also, many pilots don't have any clue about skydiving. They don't realize just how big a deal it is to fly through that airspace (even if they're 'extra careful'). I know because I was one of them before starting to jump. Please see a new thread called GPS Issue in this forum at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view&post=1133168Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #71 June 28, 2004 > They don't realize just how big a deal it is to fly through that airspace >(even if they're 'extra careful'). I don't think it should really _be_ a big deal - or at least any more of a big deal than a pilot who flies through an area frequented (and marked on a sectional) by sailplane, hangglider, ultralight or paraglider traffic. All those activities are VFR activities, and thus pilots operate on "see-and-avoid" principles. At our old DZ we had a lot of potential conflict issues with aircraft. We had border patrol helicopters flying right over our DZ, we had people set up long finals right next to it, had paragliders flying near the base of the mountains etc. We dealt with the border patrol issue by talking to them about it; after that they were good about not flying over our DZ. We also got good at recognizing border patrol helicopters from above, and we knew the pilots well enough to know they would divert around the DZ area well before they got there. We also got good at recognizing the traffic pattern at Brown, and we could tell which planes were just extending. But every once in a while we'd see a plane that wasn't inbound for Brown (or was doing an odd pattern entry) or a helicopter we couldn't recognize or just someone doing something odd. And then we wouldn't jump. I think for the system to work, pilots have to read the sectionals enough to recognize the DZ and that there may be unusual traffic issues there, but by the same token we have to take the ultimate responsibility for ensuring sufficient separation - even if it means not jumping on occasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flyer2Diver 0 #72 June 28, 2004 True, but as a pilot, I'd rather not count on jumpers seeing my little cessna at 3,500' from 14k - and then you have the possibility of a cloud between us during spotting (even if the jumpers don't penetrate the cloud). IMHO, if most pilots had an understanding of skydiving operations, they'd choose to stay clear of the airspace if possible. I think it'd be smart to give them the tools to make that choice by depicting DZs on GPS maps. Of course, pilots would still be free to fly in the area, just like they are free to fly through an active MOA. And of course none of this should relieve the jumper and pilot of the jump ship from scanning for traffic. Just my .02_______________________________ 30005KT 10SM SKC 23/05 A3006 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #73 June 28, 2004 I have to agree with a lot of stuff I'm reading here, but I just wish "everyone else" could stay 2500 feet horizontally from our "X". They're not bad people, it's just a communication issue. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #74 June 28, 2004 A simple parachute symbol might be over looked on a map. Maybe USPA could petition the FAA to add "DANGER PARACHUTING" in a off color on an already cluttered map. Of course they can't put danger on everything dangerous.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #75 June 28, 2004 Hehe ever looked at a sectional? The less words, the better! The last thing I want on them is warnings. It's true that the parachute symbol doesn't always stand out, but more words just add clutter. Years ago 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. When I fly, I navigate almost entirely by GPS these days. I always have a sectional open also, but I just use it as a backup most of the time. But I constantly hit the "nearest" feature on my GPS to keep looking up the frequency of the next airport I'll be flying near. And on nice sunny saturday afternoons, I tend to try not to overfly any airports, dropzones or not. Just busy places to be. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
