Parachuting at Elwood Park

[runway16]

Yesterday was probably the start of using the beachside park at Elwood as a parachuting DZ.
I would appear that the local council has approved para hops into the park on a trial basis, possibly two months. The jumps will be tandem (read passenger carrying) and will operate from Moorabbin airport.

Elwood Park is on the beach south of Melbourne City. An aircraft in that area could be on any one of four frequencies so hearing a two-minute-to-jump warning might not be heard. Elwood is just north of the Brighton VFR waypoint into Moorabbin.

The area is already very busy with aircraft going north and south and into Essendon, some in CTA, others about to join CTA and others flying OCTA.

One has to ask does this meet APF regulations in hopping over a built up area?
Do these jumps meet APF regs in terms of the jumpers having lifejackets on given the proximity to the sea?

It would appear that a NOTAM will be issued on the day of any scheduled jumps. Whether that will be a Moorabbin or Melbourne FIR NOTAM is unclear at this stage.

It has been reported that more than 100 jumps per week are planned.

Given the extra workload on the Melbourne RAS 135.7 perhaps AirServices should start thinking of charging per hop for each flight that involves an airways clearance, in the same way that IFR flights are charged for using the system.

Beware when flying north of Moorabbin for both horizontal and vertical traffic.

[VH-XXX]

If there was a NOTAM issued every time they are going to jump then that will help a little but seriously I liken the location to jumping out overhead Carrum. Mind you, Elwood is next to Brighton which is essentially an approach point for GAAP. Not so much am I overly concerned about the chutes as such but the aircraft dropping them, they are out to get up and down as quick as they can so you are certanily right about vertical and horizontal traffic.

Tooradin has been operating next to water for near 6 years and they haven't lost anyone to the water yet.

Do you really want parachute aircraft to be charged for VFR CTA clearances? If you kept pushing that and it happened, god help us all.

[YPJT]

One has to ask does this meet APF regulations in hopping over a built up area? Provided the target area (DZ) meets certain characteristics there is no issue. Jumps into populous areas are classed as "displays" and have to meet stricter guidelines than the usual jumps in rural areas. If you have a concern, you could contact the state Safety Officer whose details you will find on the APF website.

Responsibility for safety of the drop largely rests with the meat bomber. If as you say there is a possibility of a number of frequencies in use then the workload on that final jump run will be a little high.

We used to see jumping into the ocean between Fremantle and Rottnest a few years back without too much problem. Perth Radar were always good at keeping the jump aircraft and those transiting mainland to the island or down the VFR route separated.

AirServices should start thinking of charging per hop for each flight that involves an airways clearance, Yes and and for the same reason lets charge every GA operator whether pvt or chtr who wants to fly through a capital city CTR.:rolleyes:

[2ndGen]

My semi-educated guess would be that ATC will clear the meatbomber to climb and descend out of the way of lanes of traffic in the area, likely over the bay depending on which rwy is in use at YMML which should be safe enough.
Proximity to water would unlikely pose a problem the tandem masters will all be very experienced and used to landing in certain areas; wind is also taken into account and if it's blowing offshore too strongly, they won't land on the beach. They'll have lifejackets with the pax just in case tho.
However I would also have concerns with aircraft potentially flying through the DZ enroute to Brighton or towards YMEN, especially considering students who are struggling with high workloads (I know I would have likely missed the call during training), and would be interested to know how they are going to negate the potential risk?? A tandem master, pax and rig will make a mess of any aircraft if they end up sharing airspace.

[VH-XXX]

They wont exist soon will they

Only time will tell if the changes acyually happen on time... It would not surprise me if they put them back a few
months.

[Omega471]

For those of your flying in the Melbourne area, have you ever heard on ML Radar the clearance "Lilydale One".

The skydivers at Lilydale are the same people operating into Elwood and they work very closely with ML ATC. Lilydale One is a defined area to the South and East of Lilydale where they climb and descent in CTA. Melbourne Skydive also have a Cloud Manual approved by the AFP and ML ATC where they are approved to drop through cloud.

Your points are well made with reference to the approach point into YMMB, but I am positive Radar is comfortable with the arrangement otherwise they wouldn't be able to drop in the area. Melbourne Skydive also drop into Royal Park near the Melbourne zoo from time to time.

Cheers
O471

[John Eacott]

I'm guessing that there may have been a case for a better weather check here?

Skydivers rescued as wild winds take Melbourne by surprise (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/skydivers-rescued-as-wild-winds-take-melbourne-by-surprise/story-fni0fit3-1227177450325)

DRAMATIC footage has captured the moment skydivers were caught out as wild winds and thunderstorms lashed Melbourne.

A total 14 tandem skydivers were rescued after diving in wild weather at St Kilda foreshore.

Five people were treated with welts and abrasions after freefalling from 12,000 feet into hail and storm clouds.

Instructor Thomas Lumb said the weather turned to “armageddon” after they leapt from the plane.

“Once we were out, there was nothing we could do about it,” he said.

MFB confirmed two people were rescued while “struggling” in the water, their parachute still attached, after they were brought down by the storm at about 3pm.

Another 12 people were found at the foreshore after MFB conducted a land and sea search.

First-time skydiver Samuel Cunningham, 29, was covered from head to toe in red welts.

“It was very painful,” the Pakenham man said.

“It seemed all right on the way up, but when we jumped out everything went pear-shaped. We got pelted on the way down.”

Mr Cunningham and his instructor landed on the beach, about 1.5km away from the target landing spot.

Herald Sun reader Christian said he saw the skydivers “dropping like flies”.

“They were going way faster than usual and you could tell they were going to have a rough landing,” he said.

As the skydivers hurtled to the ground, Christian captured the heavy impact on his phone.

“The first one landed pretty heavily in the water, you can see it in the video,” he said.

“Then there was another one that landed on the patch of land in front of the Espy.”

Two people were taken to The Alfred hospital with minor injuries at 3.44pm, while another three were being assessed at the scene at 4pm.

Christian said about an hour before the storm hit he had walked past the Skydive the Beach outlet and asked one skydiver whether he’d be going up in the wild weather.

“He said they weren’t sure if they were still going up or not, but then about an hour later I was still walking around in the area and I noticed these four skydivers dropping like flies,” he said.

Mr Lumb said the instructors — all with skydiving experience — used radars and internet forecasts to track the weather.

But he said nothing had suggested a storm would hit during the jump.

In his seven years as an instructor, Mr Lumb said he had never experienced anything like the rapid weather change.

Only two of the tandem jumpers made it to the usual landing area at St Kilda Marina, with a couple landing on the beach, one coming down in the ocean and another landing in a park near the St Kilda Sea Baths.

Skydive the Beach owner Anthony Boucaut denied MFB reports that the skydivers had to be rescued.

He said the experienced divers decided on a soft landing on the sand and in shallow water when the wild weather hit.

“The 14 people rescued is absolute furphy,” he said.

“Never let a story get in the way of the truth.”

Two other skydive groups were booked in for the afternoon but have been cancelled with strong winds set to continue.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2015/01/07/1227177/450299-29b0dcc6-962e-11e4-985a-7acd3b83aa30.jpg

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2015/01/07/1227177/517027-b8b2bea0-9631-11e4-9bd9-740a91fb6db7.jpg

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2015/01/07/1227177/519325-d5fac43a-9631-11e4-9bd9-740a91fb6db7.jpg

[framer]

Skydive the Beach owner Anthony Boucaut denied MFB reports that the skydivers had to be rescued.
I wonder how he explains the photographs shown in the post above?
The photo of the two tandem masters hugging and shaking hands says a lot, especially with the rubbish bins blown over in the background.

[Squawk7700]

You'd have to have had your head in the sand to not know that weather was coming today ! So the hail just fell from the blue sky above did it???

That video looks like a normal video with someone trying to lose height normally.

They are damn lucky they didn't drown. Same as in NZ today.

[vee1-rotate]

How absolutely moronic that they were dropping chutes with CB's building over the Melbourne area at the time, which were on the TAF. Hopefully someone gets their ass kicked for this ... was one way to easily kill multiple people

[cattletruck]

You gotta admit Melbourne weather was quite unpredictable today. I was sitting in Batman Park (I think that's what they call it) where the helipads are located. It was sunny, calm and warm, I was even handed a free ice-cream by Melbourne Trams who are doing major road works nearby.

Then I got up to go back and within 5 minutes it was p#ssing down, it came out of nowhere. I looked around and there were only a few largish cumulus clouds floating about like Zeppelins. I checked the BOM website and their rain radar only showed tiny spots of intense rain with lots of clear air, never seen this kind of phenomenon before, but this is Melbourne I guess.

Bad luck for the parachutists, I watch them regularly at Elwood and they are pretty good. Typical Herald Sun dribble, that's why I don't buy their newspaper.

[fencehopper]

I just can't believe this sort of crap is still happening. Bad weather just don't appear from no where. Just pushing the gap to make an extra dollar.
Hopefully the APF board will take a few ratings for some time.
And no one landed in the water in NZ. The boats went to the aircraft expecting to find people then found everyone further up the beach and brought them back to where the road access was. Pilot had to be cut from large blackberry bush. Poor press reporting as usual.
FH.

[ACMS]

They did the same thing 2 years ago while I was watching from the Melb F1 paddock. A big CB was rolling in from the west during F1 quali on Sat arvo, it was easily visible for a while and they still jumped, big squall line, made for interesting watching until they landed.

Seems they never learn or indeed look at the weather?

[CaptainMidnight]

"radars and internet forecasts to track the weather" aside, one would think that in the air they - and particularly the pilot - would have seen the WX coming.

[Squawk7700]

To experience falling through hail, unless it was travelling at a amazingly high front speed, you'd have dropped them into the top of it.

[pistnbroke_again]

Saw some great footage of the guy that went into the water on facebook. Stopped 10ft short of smashing into the pier. The sky looks about 5-6/8 so no excuse saying it crept up.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

It was unusual weather yesterday - the thunderstorms early in the afternoon were being created by the CBD. But by later in the afternoon they were general across the city.

I have posted before that I have concerns about the way these guys operate. I've seen them land off the DZ in the past - on the beach near Elwood life saving club. I've also seen them emerge from cloud, under canopy, very close to the C182 out of Williamstown.

[pistnbroke_again]

If a parachutist was hit by an aircraft, whose fault would it be? Not trying to start and argument, but would it be the pilot who could have been listening to another frequency and not heard them jump or the person controlling the canopy?

[John Eacott]

If a parachutist was hit by an aircraft, whose fault would it be? Not trying to start and argument, but would it be the pilot who could have been listening to another frequency and not heard them jump or the person controlling the canopy?

This was discussed at great depth at RAPAC (Vic) and CASA stated definitively that they 'could not restrict legal use of airspace'. Not that they haven't done so before of course but the onus was put on the parachute company to advise all other aircraft, an onerous task. Since the drop is from controlled airspace and then on down into OCTA in one of the most used transit corridors in Victoria there has to be coverage on 135.7, MB Tower, EN Tower, CTA broadcast, Yarra 132.1 and hope that everyone is listening and gets one of the calls.

I opined that leaving EN before a call there and then going onto 132.1 or 135.7 after a call had been made there, would leave me oblivious to a jump happening. And I believe it unreasonable to have to avoid an area (which many MB operators now do) because of the commercial operation causing risk to others.

There are a number of pilots around who will attest to coming close to drops without having heard a 'warning' broadcast beforehand.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

there has to be coverage on 135.7, MB Tower, EN Tower, CTA broadcast, Yarra 132.1 and hope that everyone is listening and gets one of the calls

This has always been the defense that it's safe - all those calls. The problem is that the parachute aircraft can't drop with aircraft below. With so many calls, 1 pilot and 2(?) radios and a clearance to get - who's listening for the calls that come in from potentially conflicting traffic below?

[BlatantLiar]

With all the comprehensive radio calls those guys make and the fact that its clearly marked as a danger area on charts any pilot finding himself in conflict with parachutes deserves to be shot on arrival at their next port of call. If unsure and desperate to transit some smart cookies have been calling 135.7 to ask if a drop was due, its not hard.

[Chief galah]

By the comments posted thus far, it's obvious no one knows how much traffic goes through this area.

[Di_Vosh]

By the comments posted thus far, it's obvious no one knows how much traffic goes through this area.

Agree 100%! :ouch:

More to the point, it's the "quality" of pilots flying through this area.

Back when I used to fly around there I considered anywhere south of the EN CTR right down to Cowes (including all around the bay and the MB Training area) to be a Danger area.

It's not just the quantity of traffic; it's "where they are" as pilots. You've got English challenged guys who are taught at the sausage factories going on PPL solo flights through there.

Some of these guys have almost zero situational awareness. Couple that with an inability to fly their areoplane in a practical way (i.e. if they're taught to fly over Brighton, that's the only place they'll fly over. It's not an option in their minds to fly 1nm west of Brighton and report "1Nm west of Brighton" when contacting MB tower).

And it's not just trainee pilots. I've seen countless examples of so-called experienced PPL's and CPL's who just barge on through there without any concept that other aircraft are in the sky.

IMHO, it's an accident waiting to happen.

DIVOSH!

[uncle8]

I wonder if we should avoid the parachute danger areas or fly straight through them. The parachutists seem to think that they are entitled to priority but they are not. Others are just as entitled to use the airspace as they are. If they want exclusive use of the area, let them ask for an R area.
I think that they should operate away from congested airspace, the current arrangement near PTO is stupid.

[Squawk7700]

Radio calls?

You legally don't even need a radio to fly through there !!

[peterc005]

There is good radar and ATC in that part of the bay so you'd think that would help with traffic separation.

[Sunfish]

DiVosh:

It's not just the quantity of traffic; it's "where they are" as pilots. You've got English challenged guys who are taught at the sausage factories going on PPL solo flights through there.

Some of these guys have almost zero situational awareness. Couple that with an inability to fly their areoplane in a practical way (i.e. if they're taught to fly over Brighton, that's the only place they'll fly over. It's not an option in their minds to fly 1nm west of Brighton and report "1Nm west of Brighton" when contacting MB tower).

And it's not just trainee pilots. I've seen countless examples of so-called experienced PPL's and CPL's who just barge on through there without any concept that other aircraft are in the sky.

IMHO, it's an accident waiting to happen.

Then why the hell allow a drop zone to be created in the first place - on the major Northern and Western approach to the busiest airport in Australia?

I don't see why I or any other pilot should have to put up with the inconvenience. just to satisfy the thrill seeking needs of a bunch of St Kilda backpacking bogans and the greed of one parachuting business whose actions have just demonstrated a complete contempt for life and limb - close it down.

Furthermore, some inbound pilots are now not tracking from Williamstown to Station Pier and proceeding down the coast to Brighton but tracking direct without a hope in hell of gliding to land if they have an engine failure and of course not wearing a life jacket.

When one of them inevitably goes in I bet CASA issues an order making the wearing of life jackets mandatory for anyone tracking North and West out of YMMB.

[Aussie Bob]

By the comments posted thus far, it's obvious no one knows how much traffic goes through this area.

Like how much? All the traffic in Australia? We have traffic here? Serious? Some of you blokes need a trip to a busy country. Australia has no traffic and a declining aviation industry.

On one breath you blokes tell me Australia's aviation industry is in decline, then on the next breath you tell me we should shut down an aviation business that is successful just because they operate where a few other aircraft fly. Drop zones are tiny and easy to avoid. Whats wrong with you guys?

[Sunfish]

Aussie Bob:

Like how much? All the traffic in Australia? We have traffic here? Serious? Some of you blokes need a trip to a busy country. Australia has no traffic and a declining aviation industry.

On one breath you blokes tell me Australia's aviation industry is in decline, then on the next breath you tell me we should shut down an aviation business that is successful just because they operate where a few other aircraft fly. Drop zones are tiny and easy to avoid. Whats wrong with you guys?


You obviously are not familiar with Melbourne or YMMB. The drop zone is approximately Ten miles Northwest of the field slap bang in the middle of the CASA approved and recommended VFR coastal route to the North and West of the state.

The drop zone is approximately Two miles North of the prescribed VFR entry reporting point Brighton (BTO) for aircraft arriving from the North and West.

The drop zone is approximately One mile South of Albert Park VFR reporting point for aircraft inbound into Essendon airspace and frequently one will get "clearance unavailable remain OCTA until it is which requires an orbit to be made right through the drop zone.

The drop zone is about Two miles South East of the Station Pier VFR waypoint which is a prescribed VFR entry/exit point from Essendon controlled airspace.

To put it another way, you might as well put a drop zone in Martin Place, Rundle Mall or Fortitude Valley to get the same effect.

[Squawk7700]

In this instance PeterC I would not call Melbourne Radar "ATC."

It's glass G, no radio is even required and separation cannot be guaranteed as many (most?) aircraft going through there don't even make radio calls.

Whilst there is a listed VFR route, aircraft go in all directions so there is no guarantee anyone is following it.

[Aussie Bob]

Sunfish, clearly you know exactly where it is. How come, when you know exactly where it is, you have such a problem avoiding it?

Perhaps you need a GPS.

Wanting to close down a viable aviation business because you don't like its location is pathetic.

Parachutists fall through a 1 nm wide column. 5 nm is all you need to avoid them totally, like 2.5 nm either side of where they are dropping. Struth, how hard is that?

[mary meagher]

Pretty easy to get it wrong in your light aircraft, and have a nasty encounter.
British glider over France. Parachutists DROPPING THROUGH CLOUD!
One hits the glider, knocks the glider wing off....both glider pilots then take to their chutes, one of which opened about 10 feet AGL...felt like it, anyway, he testified at the French Magistrates court....where they were held to be negligent flying a glider in open airspace...under a cloud!

And I got in trouble in a comp, following another glider near a known site, warned at the briefing....still got it wrong, and went round the parachute site on the UPWIND side. I never saw anybody, but the chief parachute instructor was freefalling, saw me below, maneuvered behind me, got my tail number and called the gliding competition director. I was basted in his office and before the entire congregation the next day.

So its easy enough not to understand the requirements of this strange form of aviation. Well done all those New Zealanders who managed to exit their jump plane in time. Meat bombing, we calls it over here.....

[andrewr]

5 nm is all you need to avoid them totally, like 2.5 nm either side of where they are dropping. Struth, how hard is that?

Pull out the Melbourne VTC and have a look.

2.5 nm one side and you infringe controlled airspace (or at least the tolerances for your planned track). 2.5 nm the other side and you are 2.5 nm offshore at 1500 feet.

There are 4 VFR approach points for Essendon and Moorabbin within 2.5 nm.

The coastal VFR route is marked literally right through the middle of the drop zone.

It does seem like a dumb place for a drop zone.

[BlatantLiar]

Radio calls?

You legally don't even need a radio to fly through there !!

I find it a tad ironic that you're making a point that a radio is not required yet your fellow pagans are using that argument that its the "RAH RAH THE MOST BUSIEST!!!" airspace in the world.

Spot on, a carriage of a radio is not mandatory. However having the correct charts for your area of operation is. It's clearly marked.

I am definitely with Aussie Bob on this one. It is sad that in a time where Australian GA is in decline people are trying to bring down a successful and progressive undertaking.

Wednesdays event while unfortunate was a parachuting incident more so than an aviation one.

How many years has the drop zone been operating now?
How many incidents with aircraft coming dangerously close to parachutes?

I think the most dangerous phase has passed and now there is enough awareness amongst the flying community about the dropzone that it is now safer than it ever has been.

Listening to the pilots on ATC they act professional and courteous. Expediting their sortie when needed and never hesitating to go-around if there is a suspected class G conflict.

I get the feeling half of you are instructors with training standards too p!ss poor for your students to have 3/38ths of a clue about situational awareness. Bit nervous if you sign a student out they might fly somewhere where they shouldn't?

All you guys whining and moaning need to take a good hard look at yourselves in the mirror. Airmanship, get some.

[Sunfish]

Aussie Bob:

Parachutists fall through a 1 nm wide column. 5 nm is all you need to avoid them totally, like 2.5 nm either side of where they are dropping. Struth, how hard is that?

As Andrew pointed out its quite hard and one day there will be an accident because the workload at this point is quite high for a beginner, say on their first solo navex:

Takeoff, climb, head for Brighton or Albert Park,, set cruise power, trim, transponder to 1200 or 0100 for YMEN from 3000, get Essendon ATIS, switch from YMMB 123.0 to YMEN 125.1 or Area on 135.7 watch for inbound aircraft on reciprocal course that you just heard on 123.0, , keep climbing for 2500 but not above.

Miss the jump call on the area frequency by one second in all your work.

Oh ****! What was that??? What...........

And a P.S., where in the hell is our great leader CASA in all this? How the hell could they approve it? Its terminally unsafe.

[andrewr]

I get the feeling half of you are instructors with training standards too p!ss poor for your students to have 3/38ths of a clue about situational awareness. Bit nervous if you sign a student out they might fly somewhere where they shouldn't?

All you guys whining and moaning need to take a good hard look at yourselves in the mirror. Airmanship, get some.

I assume you're not including the likes of John Eacott (post 19) in that assessment? :)

[Squawk7700]

Picture attached for those interstate whom are failing to understand what is starting to sound like the busiest and most dangerous piece of airspace in the Southern Hemisphere. Sorry I don't have a helicopter logo for John or a 172 logo for the sausage factory.

What you see here is actually quite typical for a given Saturday or Sunday.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/VTC-1.jpg

[Aussie Bob]

2.5 nm one side and you infringe controlled airspace (or at least the tolerances for your planned track). 2.5 nm the other side and you are 2.5 nm offshore at 1500 feet.


Personally, I am happy with the 1 nm column. The other thing is this is predominantly a tandem thing. It is prudent with a tandem operation to have the canopy open by 4000 feet.

A brightly coloured tandem parachute drifting down vertically is infinitely easier to see than another aircraft. Please, especially in this area, look out the window folks. Hopefully do it everywhere you are VFR.

Sunny, you have my respect on this forum but here I simply don't agree with your logic. Thankfully the regulator had enough nous to allow this operation. Obviously they are not totally against aviation.

[GTang]

Haha nice picture squawk.

Some of the negativity from pilots towards skydiving sounds a lot like the negativity from the public to general aviation. Ban these 172s flying around that just get in the way of 737s.

Busy airspace? What about the dropzone operation in amesterdam that operates out of their international airport?

[Aussie Bob]

Busy airspace? What about the dropzone operation in amesterdam that operates out of their international airport?

Precisely! Or look at how its done in the good ole USA

[no_one]

I haven't flown over that area but looking at that extract from the VTC why wouldn't you go straight from Brighton to Williamstown? The distance is what 3nm and even a 172 can glide 3.7nm from 2500 feet.

[Squawk7700]

why wouldn't you go straight from Brighton to Williamstown?

Good observation. There's nothing to stop you from doing that. It's a well used part of the bay too in terms of boating, so if you did end up in the drink (and didn't make the glide) in your 172, chances are that someone would see you and come grab you pretty quickly.

[peterc005]

@Squawk7700 - my understanding is that the PAC 750 parachute drop plane operates under IFR so it would be under control of ATC and that ATC would use radar to maintain separation from other traffic, including the canopies.

Your map is spot on. I fly out west often on weekends and will track from the BOM tower to Brighton to get back to YMMB. Brighton is a few nm south of the Elwood drop zone.

Training traffic going from YMMB via Albert Park Lake to YMEN might be a problem, but would more likely be inland of the drop zone.

I've met some of the skydive people who operate the PAC 750 over Elwood and get the impression they are more professional and well resourced than your typical weekend country skydive club. At least their pilots get paid properly.

[John Eacott]

Busy airspace? What about the dropzone operation in amesterdam that operates out of their international airport?

This extract from AIC-B_EN 04/10 is interesting, especially the onus on the parachutist to give right of way to all other aircraft and to comply with VMC. Does a similar procedure exist here?

The parachutist is responsible for his own safety. However, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Defense formalized requirements for participation in the air with a parachute and also for the flight of the aircraft in which the parachutist is transported to the jumping area.
A parachute is a special aircraft according to Article 1a of the Air Traffic Order. It follows that the parachutist:


shall meet the rules for the use of a parachute in the air;
shall give right of way to all other aircraft, and
will not endanger persons or property.

Parachuting is only allowed:


within a permanent or occasional parachute jumping area: a circular column with a radius of 3.7 km around the intended landing area;
after authorization by the pilot-in-command of the transporting aircraft;
within the daylight period (UDP) (AIP Netherlands GEN 2.7, www.ais-netherlands.nl (http://www.ais-netherlands.nl)). For a jump outside UDP a waiver can be obtained from the CAA-NL via the website www.ivw.nl (http://www.ivw.nl); and
when the rules are met for flight visibility and minimum distance to clouds according to the minimum values for VFR operations in the respective class of airspace (AIP Netherlands ENR 1.2, www.ais-netherlands.nl (http://www.ais-netherlands.nl)).

The minimum VFR requirements for flight visibility and distance from clouds are also applicable to the parachutist. The parachutist must understand the rules for the airspace classes in which the jump is planned.
For example: a jump from above Texel will pass, from top to bottom: Nieuw Milligen TMA A class B airspace, class E airspace and uncontrolled class G airspace. This means at the moment of the jump a required flight visibility of at least 8 km between FL 150 and 3500 ft AMSL, and at least 1.5 km visibility for landing. The minimum distance from clouds is successively 1500 m horizontally and 300 m vertically in class B and class E airspace, and free of clouds and with ground or water in sight in class G airspace.


With regard to the VTC excerpt posted by Squawk7700, those blue dots following the coast comprise the published VFR Route. This is the recommended safe route for VFR aircraft, many of which are S/E helicopters for whom a direct track across the water is not a safe option, nor a desirable route if transiting between Essendon and Moorabbin. The VFR route has been designated for many, many years and now tracks directly through D342.

Training traffic going from YMMB via Albert Park Lake to YMEN might be a problem, but would more likely be inland of the drop zone.

Not at all: the designated departure points out of EN to MB will be via the MCG, the Bolte Bridge or the Westgate Bridge. None of these dictate a route east (inland) of D342. Plus most helicopters will take the coast at 700 feet to enter the MB area at the required altitude and join for the helipads on the west of the runways. Going inland subjects the residents to unnecessary noise and limits the forced landing options for both fixed and rotary aircraft. Hence the blue dots along the coast.

A brightly coloured tandem parachute drifting down vertically is infinitely easier to see than another aircraft. Please, especially in this area, look out the window folks. Hopefully do it everywhere you are VFR.

Exhortations to look out and up for parachutes are all well and good, but the majority of drivers will be looking ahead and around. It's the nature of flying unless you're a steely eyed aluminium death tube driver with a head on a swivel.

[Sunfish]

Applying "Airmanship" is not a valid argument. The obstacle to the safe flow of traffic should be removed.

To put it another way, appeals to "airmanship" to avoid an obvious unnecessary obstacle is akin to placing a public toilet on a median strip of a busy freeway then appealing to "good driving" to avoid the inevitable crashes as people try to use it. Shouldn't have been sited there in the first place.

[Squawk7700]

Sunfish, what would you say if the danger zone was a 24x7 munitions factory? Can't you just go around it, like in the Yarrawonga circuit perhaps?

[GTang]

Sunfish are u suggesting GA be removed for Flow of RPT traffic. Skydive ops is perhaps the only growing sector in GA at the moment.

[John Eacott]

Gentlemen (and others),

I don't think there has been any mention of stopping the growth of any GA sector, nor of preventing JTTB from operating.

What is being discussed here is the suitability of the location being used. It is in an area which is subject to a high traffic density including numerous training aircraft, along with a designated VFR route which has been in use for may years. Comparisons with overseas ops under different rules/standards is akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let us concentrate on the subject and location under discussion.

A more suitable operating area (from the aviation point of view) may well have been sought and created with a bit of forethought and co-operation. Certainly the RAPAC discussion was very much along the lines of accepting the Elwood Beach without any alternative being put up, which was to me a disappointing approach.

[Aussie Bob]

John, could this not be the best option for making money? Moving it somewhere out of the way could well result in such a drop in business that it is no longer viable. These sort of operations need huge exposure to generate good revenue.

The obstacle to the safe flow of traffic should be removed.


But this is an aviation activity. Should we discriminate? The parachute was invented before the aeroplane. What else will we call obstacles? RAA registered? Experimental? Helicopters? Drones? Birds?

[John Eacott]

Aussie Bob,

What is more important: achievable safety or making money? Maybe the most attractive place for huge exposure to generate revenue should be Albert Park; or Royal Park; or Essendon Airport? Reconcile that idea with other vested interests and you can begin to see the disparity that is being mooted here.

The concept of inconvenience to a majority of airspace users to the commercial advantage of one operator (no matter what thew type of operation) is difficult to support when the safety of overall operations is diminished.

Discrimination is already in place within Australian aviation with RPT at the top of the pecking order and so on down. GA needs mutual support from all sides, but when the pendulum swings too far in support of one operation purely on commercial grounds at the risk of others, then it is not unreasonable to question the options.

I note that having raised parachuting ops at Amsterdam there has been no comparison made to the operating restrictions required in the AIC that I quoted. Would JTTB be able to operate were they held to the same standards? Are they currently held and comply to the same standards?

[Sunfish]

Aussie Bob, the reason the Elwood DZ exists is to satisfy European backpackers who reside in and around St Kilda. There is a ready market for tourist thrill seekers everywhere and the Elwood DZ is a stones throw from the pubs and bars of St Kilda/Elwood. I know, my partner lives there.

The DZ has only existed for maybe Three years. It appeared on the VTC one day with no warning as far as I am concerned.

As it is, the whole Hobsons bay area is congested with seaplane, Helicopters using the Yarra CTAF, entry points for Essendon and a VFR corridor right through the middle ...and then One business gets to put a drop zone smack bang in the corridor

[Squawk7700]

Note to AirServices - please advise Sunfish in advance when making changes to VTC / VNC / WAC.

Thanks.

[Aussie Bob]

Elwood DZ is a stones throw from the pubs and bars of St Kilda/Elwood. I know, my partner lives there.

Perfect ... crying out for a drop zone then.

What is more important: achievable safety or making money?

John, clearly someone who makes decisions in CASA thinks that a drop zone can exist here with achievable safety. So do I for that matter.

Sorry Sunny and John, clearly I can't talk you guys around, we will just have to have differing opinions on the matter. I see no threat to the prepared pilot or the correctly briefed student. Certainly I am happy flying there.

[BlatantLiar]

The chutes occupy the airspace for 5 minutes at the most over a one hour period. How many proximity events in the last 3 years? Thats right, none.
If somebody somehow manages to out-do the stupidity of one of the many previous posts I might write again but until then I'm done.

[vee1-rotate]

The chutes occupy the airspace for 5 minutes at the most over a one hour period. How many proximity events in the last 3 years? Thats right, none.
If somebody somehow manages to out-do the stupidity of one of the many previous posts I might write again but until then I'm done.

Only takes one "event" for person's life can be lost. Why wait until something happens ?

You don't work for CASA by any chance ?

[GTang]

Yeah why wait. Shut down Angelflight, require AOCs for skydiving, ground RA. That one incident won't happen if nothing is flying. V1 you don't work for CASA by any chance?

Where I have flown for jumpers ATC advises if there is incoming conflicting traffic and if it is not resolved, the drop is cancelled. 3 min, drop complete calls are made on area and CTAF, in addition there is a company ground crew that checks for traffic and gives clearance.

With regard to the Amsterdam conditions, it's not that much different to The st kilda ops if you think about it. Minimum cloud base for parachute ops is around 4000', above CTA. ATC controls traffic above that where parachutist might be in cloud. And do you think that if a plane was flying towards a tandem, the instructor won't steer away?

[cattletruck]

I've regularly seen ambo and police helicopters land in this unofficial zone (North of Point Ormond), I've even seen Bob Jane's A109 land there for him to take a p!ss at Riva Bar (old age I guess).

As a regular bike rider along this route I often come across the parachutists activity, they average about 1 jump an hour in peak daylight on weekends and it wanes off either side of the day and completely stops when summer ends. Weekdays is mostly desolate.

I've seen traffic divert, I've seen the jump delayed, I've even seen a Dash-8 of all planes plough through the jump zone at 3000ft while the jump plane was overhead :eek:.

I've spoken to some of the organisers and can assure you they are not overnight cowboys, they do know there stuff and told me this was in the planning for a few years before it became a reality. Most of them head to the other hemisphere (USA/Canada) in our winter.

One thing that still fascinates me is watching the faces of their first-time-jump clients. About 50% of them are totally blase about stepping out a plane at 5000'+, free falling at over 100km/h and landing on a designated spot safely. So what does that say about how much the general public these days give a hoot about GA?

I think this crowd is doing us all a service in the end so we shouldn't be too critical about their operation.

[GTang]

And im pretty sure ATC provides traffic advice for primary paint as well, for those without a transponder and/ or radio or don't know how to use one.

[John Eacott]

With regard to the Amsterdam conditions, it's not that much different to The st kilda ops if you think about it. Minimum cloud base for parachute ops is around 4000', above CTA. ATC controls traffic above that where parachutist might be in cloud. And do you think that if a plane was flying towards a tandem, the instructor won't steer away?

The minimum VFR requirements for flight visibility and distance from clouds are also applicable to the parachutist. The parachutist must understand the rules for the airspace classes in which the jump is planned.
For example: a jump from above Texel will pass, from top to bottom: Nieuw Milligen TMA A class B airspace, class E airspace and uncontrolled class G airspace. This means at the moment of the jump a required flight visibility of at least 8 km between FL 150 and 3500 ft AMSL, and at least 1.5 km visibility for landing. The minimum distance from clouds is successively 1500 m horizontally and 300 m vertically in class B and class E airspace, and free of clouds and with ground or water in sight in class G airspace.So you have no issue with the JTTB tandems coming through cloud into G, yet the Netherlands require that their parachutists abide by the VFR requirements with minimum distance from cloud in CTA and clear of cloud OCTA, plus 8km vis at departure? Was there such conditions when the jump went a bit haywire yesterday?


Cattletruck, Bob's A109 went to Davey Jones' locker nearly 20 years ago. And I never landed for him to take a leak, although we did use the helipad at the St Kilda Marina. There's a significant difference between helicopters in transit descending from the cruise to land and a chute descending into a VFR route.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I expressed my reservations at RAPAC 3 years ago, and haven't seen a reason to change my mind. Especially since those same concerns are shared by operators with whom I chat at MB, with enough reports of incidents such that many have modified their routes to avoid the area to their disadvantage. In order that JTTB has a commercial advantage.

[cattletruck]

And I never landed for him....What a coincidence, John I feel I need to apologise if it could be misconstrued as having a go at you, I never even knew you flew for him when I wrote the post above.

But I did recognise that look on poor ol' Bob's face as he rushed to the bar, but I admit that's all I saw....that and the beaming smile on his face on his return 5 minutes later :}.

[GTang]

Enlighten me, what issues would they have coming through cloud in CTA?

It was the wind that put them off yesterday not the cloud.

[nonsense]

Disregarding for the moment the first few thousand feet of drop and the few dozen or so aircraft to be avoided on the way down, does anyone else share my concern about having parachutes landing right next to a busy 4 lane highway (https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ll=-37.879189,144.977818&spn=0.00918,0.013454&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-37.877637,144.977102&panoid=VQPg5RaidvX_nh_CEHabsg&cbp=12,277.03,,0,-5.17), distracting hundreds of drivers of vehicles known to be far more dangerous than aircraft, while they are operating in close proximity to the drop zone and each other?

[GTang]

A lot of residents also raise concerns about houses right before the threshold of runways.

You know that parachutes have been steerable for more than 20 years now...

[Sunfish]

Cattletruck:

I've spoken to some of the organisers and can assure you they are not overnight cowboys, they do know there stuff and told me this was in the planning for a few years before it became a reality. Most of them head to the other hemisphere (USA/Canada) in our winter.

Not Cowboys? How does dumping punters into a full on Northerly/Westerly Port Phillip wind change sound?

Not Cowboys? Only here for the summer? Do they have working visas?

I think I'm going to apply to start a croquet club on the Monash Freeway median strip, usnig G'Tangs logic, what could possibly go wrong?

[GTang]

To jump into there you need the right display license and have done 20 consecutively nominated landings within 1m. I think those guys will miss the highway.

[GTang]

Sunfish what if I told there are professional skydivers in the country that have gained residency from it? Is it that hard to believe that it's easier to get a job skydiving than flying? In fact per load you could probably earn 7 times more as a skydiver than a jump pilot.

[BlatantLiar]

my concern about having parachutes landing right next to a busy 4 lane highway

Yeah too true, may as well shut down Picton, Tooradin and a few more while were at it.

[Aussie Bob]

Yep, shut them all down, they are only having fun after all.

does anyone else share my concern about having parachutes landing right next to a busy 4 lane highway (https://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ll=-37.879189,144.977818&spn=0.00918,0.013454&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-37.877637,144.977102&panoid=VQPg5RaidvX_nh_CEHabsg&cbp=12,277.03,,0,-5.17),Hey nonsense, please don't judge my driving ability based on your own capabilities!

[pistnbroke_again]

Sunfish, do you actually think before you post? Or just like to see your name popping up on here?

[Aussie Bob]

Hey Sunfish, don't you think a lot of what you have written in this thread completely contradicts your excellent post in this thread (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/551168-jabiru-engine-failures-16.html#post8793763)

[j3pipercub]

Good Idea Nonsense,

We should stop them from skydiving, hence it may distract drivers. Following that logic, all billboards, road signs, pedstrians, pretty clouds and all cars other than white will also be banned, to eliminate distraction.

Really hoping what you wrote was a wind-up

j3

[mcgrath50]

He is taking the piss, Marine Parade is hardly a 'busy highway'. It's a 60km/hr road, that has two lanes each way, one of which gets blocked by parked cars outside of peak hours. For the inner city, it's not exactly the busiest stretch of road either.

[Aussie Bob]

He is taking the piss,

He did a good job :ok:

[woodja51]

Great example of the traffic around the DZ.. But you forgot to add the new start up venture doing two ship combat aerobatic flights ex YMMB out over Rickets/ Carrum @1500-4500 ' in a couple of Nanchang's!

See combatflightsmelbourne.com.au ( free plug?)

To be honest the weather the other day was rather sudden ( and I say that as a 18000 hour 330 captain ) and extreme ( I was in the garden at Brighton watching it )

SDTB pilots ( and I know a couple) have so far impressed me with their professionalism and ability. The incident the other day was perhaps unfortunate but ended relatively well. SDTB is one pf the few success stories of aviation to be honest , so let's stop bagging them.

In fact, the other day they canned jumps in 25 knots at Barwon when I flew in with my Nanchang - and found it a tad of a handful in the all cross wind grass landing! So they do think about what they are doing, it appears to me.

I also agree that chutes deployed at 4-5000 feet are easy to see and unlikely to be an issue if you generally avoid the DZ by a small margin and keep your eyes and if needed, ears out.

As for the sausage factory out of Moorabbin etc, everyone has to learn somehow, and yes it might be onerous (to a point) transitting the area, but all the peripheral procedures can ( more or less ) be forgotten if you look outside enough.

Personally, I have only recently got back into a single pilot operation after 20 years multi crew and find the whole Port Philip Bay flying a pleasure.. I know I don't get all the procedures correct but I come back to my point on the VFR lookout concept.

Ready to take incoming criticism if I appear too cavalier ?

[John Eacott]

He is taking the piss, Marine Parade is hardly a 'busy highway'. It's a 60km/hr road, that has two lanes each way, one of which gets blocked by parked cars outside of peak hours. For the inner city, it's not exactly the busiest stretch of road either.

Codswallop.

It's a dual carriageway with two dedicated lanes plus parking bays plus a cycle lane (between the parking bays and the left traffic lane) southbound, and three traffic lanes northbound until just past the marina where it matches the southbound.

It's also a very busy road, regardless of the speed limit.

Not that I think that the proximity of the road is relevant to this debate. I just think that the drop through busy G is unnecessary and a better location could have been chosen.

[BlatantLiar]

a better location could have been chosen

Suggest one and I will tell you why its not.

[nonsense]

Actually, no, I wasn't taking the piss.

It is a busy 4 lane highway with bumper to bumper traffic several hours each morning and afternoon peak hour.

Moving video billboards are also a well recognised hazard that councils such as Bayside (corner of South Road and Nepean Highway, for example) are just coming to grips with.

Pedestrians, road signs, cyclists and non-white cars are normal everyday components of the traffic. Clouds are above car drivers' normal sight line, just as falling parachutes are above pilots normal sightline when looking out for other traffic.

If a broken down vehicle or a minor crash is sufficient to cause a traffic bottleneck and further crashes (and surely we've all seen that many times), a bunch of parachutes suddenly appearing right next to traffic can't be good either.

And Aussie Bob, while I'm delighted to hear that one of the cars around me is being driven by a superior driver such as yourself, by definition, 1 in 20 of the cars around me is being driven by a 5th percentile driver, and according to police random breath testing stats, about 1 in 200 is being driven by someone who is drunk.

[kaz3g]

And Aussie Bob....by definition, 1 in 20 of the cars around me is being driven by a 5th percentile driver, and according to police random breath testing stats, about 1 in 200 is being driven by someone who is drunk.

We all learned to drive while drunk when I was young. It's the drugs you should be worried about!

Kaz

[John Eacott]

Suggest one and I will tell you why its not.

One which doesn't drop into a busy (88,000 movements per year) VFR traffic lane in G.



(I notice that you have erroneously entered your IQ instead your nominated age, but I'm sure that PPRuNe can amend that for you)

BlatantLiar (http://www.pprune.org/members/384680-blatantliar)

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Skipton
Age: 10
Posts: 168

[Aussie Bob]

While this thread is dropping into the comedic ...

One which doesn't drop into a busy (88,000 movements per year) VFR traffic lane in G.

It's so easy to avoid John. Simply head northwest and join the other country bumkins. Here we can listen to your endless circuit commentary's on 126.7 as you struggle with identifying yourself.

Back in the real world of 88,000 movements, the pilot of average ability knows that a 1nm wide column is easy to avoid. This same pilot is also more than happy to see at least one GA business succeeding.

[John Eacott]

Aussie Bob,

I think you choose (along with others) to be less than understanding of differing views. Please read my previous comments and don't confuse them with those made by others.

I only head NW when professionally required and use 126.7 on the rarest of occasions. Aviate, navigate, communicate was a valued lesson originally learned some 50 years ago and still holds good.

My commercial requirements have frequently, and will most likely continue to, required coastal transits along the VFR route between Melbourne city and MB in mostly SE helicopters without an overwater option as mooted here by some for FW SE. Mine are many of the 88,000 annual transits of the designated VFR route which are compromised by a commercially advantaged operation that it is my personal opinion could have been more safely located elsewhere.

I applaud any successful GA venture in these tough times, having been there and done that, but I like to think that a tad more thought could have gone into the location of this operation.

[BlatantLiar]

The whole attraction of the dropzone is the fact that it is convenient for tourists and locals alike not to mention having a nice view. Who wants to drive to the middle of nowhere for a skydive to look at paddocks? If it wasn't where it is then there simply wouldnt be a business case.

You want to know what your problem is John? You're a naysayer, a 'no' person. You're saying the dropzone shouldn't be there on the off chance somebody might clean another person up. Instead, we should play fiddle to the lowest common denominator, the small percentage of pilots who cannot use a map and radio. (CASA probably approved the danger area because they wrongfully assume flying schools are doing their jobs)

Time and time again it's been mentioned that it is a tiny bit of airspace that is occupied by the chutes for small amount of a time during the day, close to 5 minutes in the hour. If going over water is an issue then track over the Nepean. It will add .5 of a track mile to your transit. Like the old silly saying goes but I'll use it this time because its convenient for myself, if you cant afford x then you cant afford to operate!

It's really sad that you cannot be progressive and applaud a successful business idea that obviously took someone a lot of drive and determination to set up. Before you call me out for being somehow involved with this mob, I'm not. I just like seeing these guys landing and seeing reactions from people living life to the fullest. The view of chutes over St. Kilda is just about becoming iconic and the attraction really is an asset to the area.

I was thinking of throwing in an ad hominem in there somewhere but I didn't have the required IQ to conjure one up

[John Eacott]

BL,

I guess that you missed the bit where the Nepean Highway goes through the same danger area?

Naysayer, huh. You obviously don't know me, only today I was accused of being the proof of there being old, bold pilots. But with a bit of experience comes the ability to stand back and see that inconveniencing and exposing to risk a greater number than those who actually benefit from an operation isn't always the best option.

Close to 5 minutes in the hour. How many hours a day, 8? 10? that's 40 or 50 minutes a day that other operators are expected to divert from their preferred track and increase their costs. Even more when you realise that many operators now make that a SOP since they cannot rely on knowing when a drop is to occur. The original requirement from CASA directed that drop times be NOTAM'd but this seems to have slipped by the keeper since it can be difficult for drops to always run to schedule, so a blanket NOTAM seems to be the only option.



ps Ad hom has oft been used here, but the Oz slang of 'play the ball, not the man' still holds good :p

[BlatantLiar]

Touche, the Nepean Highway narrowly clips the danger area by the smallest of margins, its merely a good landmark to stay east of that assures being clear of the dropzone. If you were over the highway and you came anywhere remotely close to a canopy then they royaly screwed up, maybe there was a storm near by? :}

I'll meet you halfway and agree with you that flying around it is an extra cost because it is a cost, for sure, albeit a small one. Just please stop spuiking the safety cr@p to push your agenda. So many people on this forum bawl their eyes out from dealing with our usually oppressive, tyrant regulator. In the approving of this drop zone they have applied some open-mindedness. You have a voice and using the safety card when it isnt warranted really is a slap in the face to a lot of people.
If you want the dropzone removed argue that its placing an unfair and unnecessary cost burden on your operations. That at least has some merit. Good luck.

[Sunfish]

Blatant liar, what happens when a student in a C172 or Warrior;

(a) Stuffs up radio frequencies and misses a jump call, or

(b) suddenly diverts into the area due cloud or mechanical malfunction or being told by Essendon tower to remain OCTA, and

(b) Melbourne Radar misses the potential conflict through workload pressure, or

(c) The jump aircraft misunderstands communications?

As pilot of the jump aircraft, you are relying on Melbourne Radar and the actions of an unknown VFR pilot to keep your jumpers safe.

My understanding of the Reason model of accident prevention is to prevent the holes in the Cheese lining up by as many means possible. What I am concerned about is that you are relying on a positive action by a VFR pilot (to divert) to keep you safe. This introduces risk because if the VFR pilot fails you are in trouble. If Melbourne radar fails you are in trouble.

The chances of both failing at the same time (holes lining up) is not zero, better if the DZ was moved.

And on a personal note, if I'm inbound for a city orbit at Albert park from Moorabbin and the Tower asks me to wait, as happens frequently, then I'm orbiting right through that drop zone. The Hobsons Bay area is already crowded and a mid air is just waiting to happen.

[Squawk7700]

Swiss cheese Sunny, Swiss cheese.

[Aussie Bob]

One of the huge problems in Australia is that people want laws, not for themselves, but for other people.

You can play "what if" all you like. Like what if your boat sinks Sunny?

I don't need any rules to keep me safe, I just try to do it myself. Why don't you blokes do the same and stop trying to change stuff for other people.

Skydiving is a legitimate aviation activity, it you were trying to ban helicopters from the area because they posed a risk to skydivers it would be just as stupid. Get over it.

[Squawk7700]

Blatant liar, what happens when a student in a C172 or Warrior;

(a) Stuffs up radio frequencies and misses a jump call, or
(b) suddenly diverts into the area due cloud or mechanical malfunction or being told by Essendon tower to remain OCTA, and
(b) Melbourne Radar misses the potential conflict through workload pressure, or
(c) The jump aircraft misunderstands communications?



What about Euroa, Nagambie, Coldstream & Tooradin when the same thing happens?

How about Coldstream and Tooradin where aircraft are landing on a runway that is perhaps 100 metres from the parachute landing area ???

Oh the humanity Sunfish! :ouch: :{

[kingRB]

Out of interest, does anyone know some numbers over the last 20 or 30 years of actual collisions between parachutists under canopy and other aircraft in Australia? Is the statistical risk any higher than it is for a mid air collision with any other fixed wing or rotary aircraft?

[GTang]

Students flying on a runway near parachute landings oh no. Disaster. Ban it all.

To name a few more off the top of my head Moruya, coffsharbour, innisfail, Goulburn, Tully, warnervale, Canberra (bit more than 100m but parachutes flying around and landing at the mint). Camden NSW, Maitland nsw back in the day.

[Squawk7700]

Oh no, Sunfish will have a conniption when he finds out that at some airfields they skydive at NIGHT, whilst low hour sausage factory students are doing circuits at this UN-controlled aerodrome! Oh the humanity :suspect: :ouch:

PS: No mention of NVFR parachuting at Elwood as yet...

[GTang]

Sunfish you missed point b2); what if student drops map on floor and enters inadvertent turn into imc, then jams rudder with his Swiss cheese lunch and enters the drop area.

You mentioned all the things that happen to reduce the risk of a mid air canopy aircraft collision. What is the chance of something slipping past;

1) jump plane - student radio contact. Jump pilot broadcasts twice to all freq jumpers pass through
2) melbourne atc traffic warnings
3) ground control on dropzone not seeing aircraft overhead and giving clearance
4) jump pilot not seeing aircraft
5) student pilot not seeing aircraft / canopies then no avoidance action
6) skydivers not seeing aircraft then no avoidance action
7) canopy and student in aircraft on collision course

The danger area is clearly marked on maps, students should be trained on what to do, jump pilots and atc would naturally be cautious of students transiting the area.

Once you work the chance of all that happening you can do a cost benefit analysis.

As with all activities there is only one real way to reduce all risks to zero.

But I guess you don't care about the part of GA which are all "thrill seekers and people having too much fun. There can't possibly be sensible people making a living or benefit from that. Plenty of jobs for the students that can't navigate around a danger zone in aviation going around these days".

[Sunfish]

I'm off to play hopscotch on the Monash Freeway this morning. Car drivers have been warned about the "Hopscotch zone". What could possibly go wrong?

I also occasionally fly into Tooradin, transit Nagambi and other places where skydiving takes place, I also transit Mangalore. However there is plenty of room to divert and plenty of time to think,, listen on the frequencies and plan at those locations.

What I am saying is that there is a lot going on over the Elwood/ Point Ormond area even without Skydivers and there are a lot of students in transit as well. It is also in the nature of students to make mistakes - which is why we call them students.

[Squawk7700]

I should add that probably 4-5 aircraft a day fly through the active drop zone at Tooradin on weekends, and that many again plan to but are advised by radio to keep away. Luckily the system just works....

[pistnbroke_again]

I would rather fly with my eyes closed through the Elwood dropzone then over mangalore. Especially when a bit of cloud is around and IF training is going on

[BlatantLiar]

plenty of time to think

Sounds like you need a fair amount of said time.

[Sunfish]

Time to think? I can count to Twenty if I take my shoes and socks off....slowly.

[Fliegenmong]

I can count to 21...if i get undressed ..... :}

[Back Pressure]

There's a guy who can get up to 22 if he drops his dacks !!!

[GTang]

Just ran a query with the APF office ;



There has not ever been any mid-air collision between sports parachutists (under canopy or in freefall) and transiting aircraft in Australia. For that matter, there has not been any in military ops either.

[Di_Vosh]

For that matter, there has not been any in military ops either.

Not through lack of trying.

Had a good mate who was in a military exercise in 1992 who swore he got up close and personal with an F111 when under canopy :eek:


DIVOSH!

[Di_Vosh]

Come to think of it, the last thing I was ever worried about when under a
T10D or an MC1 was collision with an a/c.

We were far more worried about our landing. One one of our exercises we had 11 of 30 jumpers carried off the DZ. :ouch:

DIVOSH!