Parachute site infringement
Thread Starter
Parachute site infringement
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uplo...%202016212.pdf
My view is that the professional pilots should be obliged to cary a 1:500,000 map like the rest of the airspace users if they are going to fly outside controlled airspace.
bb
My view is that the professional pilots should be obliged to cary a 1:500,000 map like the rest of the airspace users if they are going to fly outside controlled airspace.
bb
a 1:500,000 map
Then again, in decent areas the FIS in charge will warn people if their route comes near active paradrop areas.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yebbut having a drop zone so close to a standard departure route is probably not the best idea to begin with.
The holes in the swiss cheese lined up (as they have a habit of always doing eventually) but fortunately the result was only an airprox this time.
The holes in the swiss cheese lined up (as they have a habit of always doing eventually) but fortunately the result was only an airprox this time.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Indeed. As I said in the Dundee thread, poor show by Flybe ops people in not giving the crews a safe departure procedure.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a bit of confusion among the airprox board as to whether the airprox was intended to be reported against the aircraft or the parachutist. It would seem one was a technical alert triggered by the DHC8 TCAS although the pilots of the respective aircraft could see each other. The other was reported by the pilot of the parachute aircraft who saw how close the DHC8 got to the parachutist.
I know from a meeting held by FlyBe a few weeks later they were not aware of the incident with the parachutist.
I know from a meeting held by FlyBe a few weeks later they were not aware of the incident with the parachutist.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a bit of confusion among the airprox board as to whether the airprox was intended to be reported against the aircraft or the parachutist. It would seem one was a technical alert triggered by the DHC8 TCAS although the pilots of the respective aircraft could see each other. The other was reported by the pilot of the parachute aircraft who saw how close the DHC8 got to the parachutist.
I know from a meeting held by FlyBe a few weeks later they were not aware of the incident with the parachutist.
I know from a meeting held by FlyBe a few weeks later they were not aware of the incident with the parachutist.
Two reports were submitted. One by Flybe against the C182. The other was submitted by the parachutist. Flybe were not aware that a parachutist was in the air at the time and looked a bit shocked when they found out
BTW I was the parachutist and I was at that meeting as well.
Floppy
