A horror story

[G-KEST]

:(
I was shown a digital video clip on Monday at Sibson that shook me to the core. On Saturday at around 1700 local the Peterborough Parachute Centre were operating from Sibson and jumping onto their DZ some 500 metres from the ARP.
Two groups of parachutists had left the LET410 from 12,000 with around 10 seconds separation. The first group's parachutes deployed causing a Chipmunk tracking along the right hand side of the A1 southbound to do a steep avoiding turn to the right which brought him directly under the second group of paras who were still in freefall. One of them was wearing a video camera helmet which captured the Chipmunk below as it turned under him. He kept looking at it as he fell past probably doing around 120 mph with a miss distance I would estimate as being in the order of 15 feet. His expletive as he appreciated the proximity was not suitable for publication.
The Sibson DZ is clearly marked on the chart and is frequently active up to FL150 with parachutists anywhere within a radius of around 3 NM. Clearly this was an avoidable near catastrophe and I have no doubt that the video will be made available as a warning to pilots of the dangers involved in flying over or near to a published parachute DZ.
There is little doubt if the pilot concerned reads this he will know now only too well the danger so narrowly avoided.
Trapper 69

[niknak]

A truely terrifying experience for the people involved I'm sure.

However, above Sibson's ATZ, at 2001 feet and laterally at 2nm and 1", it's the open FIR, and however poor airmanship it may to do so, anyone can fly through that airspace regardless of whatever may be happening, and sadly, some do.:rolleyes:

[411A]

All this drama could be avoided of course, if both (all) aircraft had been in RT contact, and an appropriate announcement made of the impending drop.
This is done on a regular basis out here in Arizona and works like a charm.
Some turkies however in old(er) aircraft tend to fly around with no radio contact (or indeed without any radio installed) so this sort of incident is bound to continue.

[BEagle]

There's a local meat-bombing place at an unlicensed aerodrome which also has gliders, motor gliders and light a/c flying from it. Often you can call the place (it only has a single allocated A/G frequency, not even a FISO) and announce your intentions, yet the meat-bombers' DZ refuse to reply on the grounds that if they told you something and there was a subsequent accident, they could be held to blame...:rolleyes:

Not long ago I was taxiing there when totally out of the blue a flock of meat bombs landed on the grass areas on each side of the RW. Truly this place is an accident waiting to happen!

[hotprop]

If the chips pilot was aware of the close call I'm sure he's as shook up as the parachutist.

I had a close encounter with a chute when training for my PPL ages ago - scared the s**t out of me. This guy appeared in my windscreen on downwind AFTER my instructor (who was in a different aircraft) called downwind. :uhoh:
I naturally followed as number 2, thinking it was clear, which it was not.

I'm extreeemely careful around these bag hoppers these days.

[Aerobatic Flyer]

Truly this place is an accident waiting to happen!

Another accident, don't you mean?

[sharpshot]

B Eagle

You mention an airfield you regularly catch flights in larger a/c, so the one you refer to above is perhaps in same region - give us a clue? It's the "unlicensed" bit that reduces my ability to pinpoint it, despite a licensed one that does come to mind.

[Taildragger55]

As a navigationally challenged low time PPL and a former skydiver. I can see both sides of the argument.

However, having once been in freefall when a cretin in a helicopter passed close underneath me I have very little sympathy for morons who cannot read a map.

Skydiving uses a tiny amount of airspace,
just stay the hell away from parachute symbols on your chart.

I have to say that I find the use of insulting terms such as meatbomber and baghopper offensive in what is meant to be a serious safety post.

[dublinpilot]

On the other side, last weekend, the helpful boys in Dublin ATC were able to tell me about some parachute drops that were taking place, that weren't in drop zones marked on the VFR chart, and weren't notified by NOTAM. (Some were notified last weekend, but there were more!)

Now, if I hadn't got a FIS, or was non-radio, how would I have known about these?

As it happens, my route didn't take me near any of them, but that's just lucky.

If you're doing a drop, in an area that's not marked on the chart, have the good sense to make a notam!

dp

[Fly Stimulator]

Taildragger,
I have to say that I find the use of insulting terms such as meatbomber and baghopper offensive in what is meant to be a serious safety post.

Whereas 'cretins' and 'moron' are fine obviously! :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Free-fall meatbomb sites may be considered active up to FL150 when the viz is > 5 km by day or night. But that is within the demarcated area, of course. Drop outside the area, e.g. upwind on a strong wind day from altitude and, if you're outside the promulgated area, then you are far more likely to have a close encounter with a spamcanner quietly minding his own business.

A certain (not the same) local site operator announced that GA pilots should 'expect' to know that his gravity-tempters would be falling out of their aeroplane well outside the notified area on such windy days. Bolleaux, in a word. If you can't stay in the demarcated area, stay on the ground!

The antics of some Eastern European pilots - who appear barely able to understand a word of English - carrying out aerial work in this country in such circumstances I also find somewhat surprising.

[englishal]

This is done on a regular basis out here in Arizona and works like a charm
I'm afraid this is a syptom of the UK, where often people don't bother talking to anyone. I would have assumed the drop plane should be in contact with a radar facility who can advise them on traffic, whether they are chatting to them or not. It would be good airmanship in my book.

In the USA they have a frequency for drop zones so you can directly call up the drop aircraft and ask for advisories on the drop. Makes sense to me.....

EA

[Flap40]

In the USA they have a frequency for drop zones so you can directly call up the drop aircraft and ask for advisories on the drop. Makes sense to me.....

There is a dedicated parachute frequency in the UK, just as there is one for microlights, one for helicopters at remote sites and at least two for gliders, but they are not widely published.

[Flyin'Dutch']

All good suggestions but I think that someone who is not going to be aware enough of the dangers of DZs by looking at the map and avoiding them is not going to be any better at calling them!

;)

FD

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I think they should just establish half a dozen parachute sites around the country that are well known and own their own airspace for a good 10 mile 15,000ft block.

Either that or make all jumpers wear mode S transponders... ;)


WWW

[freefallfun]

Here's a link to the British Parachute Association web site that lists UK drop zones & associated radio frequencies - http://www.bpa.org.uk/dropzone/dzone.htm

Monitoring of the given DZ frequency if you’re near a DZ can often help you build up a picture of what's going on. Better still just call up” <"DZ Name" Drop Zone> and ask what's going on / tell them you’re there - they'll *always* appreciate an RT call from aircraft in the vicinity.

Jump planes will call the DZ controller with a "Running in <altitude / Flight level> parachuting <1 or 2> minutes" call as they begin the jump run over the DZ. With the DZ controller (who is just concerned with parachute operations not any form of ATC) replying with a "Clear Drop" if after a visual check of the Parachute Landing Area airspace it is considered safe to jump.

WWW- don't joke about Mode S - I read in a BPA magazine article a real suggestions skydivers may need to be mode S equipped in the future! Can't see that happening myself...

FreeFallFun:ok:

[Legalapproach]

Anyone tracking th A1 and adhering to the rules of the air ie with the road to their left will infringe the Sibson drop zone. I have seen the video and the Chipmunk pilot was, imho, clearly in the wrong place. If he knew where he was, why did he not give Sibson a call and, having seen the parachutes, why was it that he quickly bu****ed off to the North without even then talking to anyone?

DZ's are clearly marked and should always be assumed to be open unless the contrary has been established. Further, local air traffic services will always provide the necessary information whether it is asked for or not. I flew in to Sibson on Tuesday with the intention of jumping and en route was informed by Marham that parachuting was taking place. The previous week I flew from East Anglia to Truro and was advised en route that various DZ's ( ie Netheravon, Dunkeswell were active), earlier in the week en route Filton I was give similar advice about Weston on the Green. Even without this, as a sky diver and pilot I would asume that any DZ was active unless told the opposite.

I understand that the CAA are interested in this incident and so, if he has nothing to hide, the pilot in question should come forward and give his explanation.


BEagle
Meat Bomber? Gravity Tempter? In my cae I think Lard Leaper might be a more accurate description as in my jump suit I closely resemble the fifth, and missing, Teli Tubbie - mind you I did the same in my HM issue nomex green romper suit
despite predating the TT's by several years!!

[Taildragger55]

Whereas 'cretins' and 'moron' are fine obviously!

Er. good point, sorry :-(

[Parapunter]

Just a note in passing, us paraglider & hanglider pilots (meat missiles?) are very capable nowadays of flying in excess of 100 miles in thermic conditions. Indeed, one of our local lads bagged Brighton to Deal last week south of the London FIR, that's 126kms on an ENE bearing.

We're hard to see and for some reason, gliding sites have been removed from airmaps. Airprox incidents are unsurprisingly getting more common as a result. We fly always on VFR (obviously) and operate see & be seen as a principle.

As always, a few idiots amongst us will wander across atz's from time to time, but by & large, we're a nice sensible bunch not wanting to upset anyone. So in the absence of marked maps, please knock in a quick heads up ifd you happen to be near hills and at cloudbase or below on a sunny light wind day!:ok:

[G-KEST]

The CAA has given me the following advice.

They believe the system put in place in about 1999 is proving to be about as good as you can get, and its functioning is auditable. The most important thing is that the system must be fail safe.

Those interested should refer to the UK AIP Section ENR 1.1.5 and the frequencies for Drop Zone Activity Information given on CAA charts.

If they desire more direct liaison with the parachute clubs they should get a copy of BPA Form 192, available on the British Parachute Association website - www.bpa.org.uk and follow the links >Office> >Documents on-line>
>F192 DZ frequencies and contacts.

Here is the complete link -
http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/docs/Form%20192%20-%20DZ%20Fequencies%20and%20Contacts.doc

From the CAA perspective, the DZ activity notification system is set up to ensure that, for example, the pilot of a foreign corporate turboprop should be able to receive strategic information about a DZ that has been notified by the club as being active. Very often this information will be offered by the nominated ATSU without it even being requested. The nominated ATSU should also be able to provide the local frequency used by the club when asked. In addition, pilots who are more familiar with local operations can obtain up to date tactical information direct from the club (within the constraints that this is not an official information service - since when you call you have no idea who you are talking to or the quality of the information they provide).

It seems to work, and BPA does actively promote the system and monitors that the clubs are doing what they are supposed to do.

It is certain that any amount of measures will not prevent every wayward aeroplane from flying into danger, whether the errors are negligent or not.

The CAA hope this information will be of assistance.

They take the point about the protocols needing to be easily understood and will be pleased to consider sensible suggestions if it can be better explained. The limitation is that we cannot appear to give official sanction to any elements that are unofficial.

This puts the official perspective on the matter and I do think that there will be increased emphasis on the dangers present in and near parachute club DZ's in future CAA safety evenings and GASIL publicity.

Hope this will assist in minimising the possibility of any repetition.

Cheers,

Trapper 69

:ok:

[PPRuNe Radar]

Avoiding DZs makes good sense and demonstrates airmanship. I find it hard to see how anyone can argue with that. The zones aren't massive and it shouldn't be impossible to plan a way around them.

In the same way, I would expect paradrop operators to exercise the same good airmanship when dropping outside the confines of the DZ and ensure that the airspace is clear :ok:

I would dispute that DZs should be assumed to be active all the time. If that is the case then the 'active' times which are published in the AIP are worthless and should just say H24. That is not the way to reasonably share airspace between users and goes against the European Flexible Use of Airspace Management Plan. If you are flying outwith the notified times and there has been no extension activity NOTAM'ed, then the DZ operators have failed to let other airspace users have the full picture. They can't then expect people to avoid a 'non active' DZ.

I am not for one minute saying that the above happens. In my experience with the sites I deal with in my day job, the flow of information is good and they advise of early closure as well, thus freeing up the airspace for other users. Let's hope this is repeated at all the sites throughout the land :ok:

PS BEagle .. have to agree that those 'Eastern European' operators of which you speak do cause us all concern. Appropriate reporting for each incident should and does take place, but you often wonder if the action which can then be taken will ensure that there is no repeat. Difficult to enforce if they have sloped back off home and a new set of crew have arrived with the same lack of knowledge
:rolleyes: