Elwood (melb) skydiving

[UnderneathTheRadar]

By 9am this morning I've seen 4 tandem skydivers (2 loads) above Elwood emerging from 7/8 (and I'm being generous - because I can make out some blue) cloud directly above my house and directly over the very frequently used coastal/MB-CBD route.

First two had disappeared from my view for no more than a couple of minutes when a north bound aircraft passed directly across the path the two jumpers had also just taken.

I've always been convinced that day VMC jumping through this busy VFR class G airspace was a very poor idea but if they're going to jump through cloud (or very close to) then that just makes the concept worse.

Be careful transiting the Point Ormond area - apparently not only when the weather is fine.

UTR

[wishiwasupthere]

They're jumping from Class C airspace so I'd assume the pilot wouldn't receive clearance to drop until the area is clear? Even if an aircraft transited the the Class G without a transponder ATC would still get a radar return in that area I'd assume.

[Back Pressure]

I seem to recall something about chutes not being dropped into cloud....must be mistaken.

[Wally Mk2]

SE IFR 'meat bombers' are dangerous bastards!:-) What's a bit of cloud anyway! I can't recall the IMC req's for lawn darts...anyone?:E


Wmk2

[Howard Hughes]

I can't recall the IMC req's for lawn darts...anyone?
They have requirements?:E

[beaver_rotate]

Ladies, the skydiving company can have a 'Cloud Manual' approved by the APF Aus Parachuting Fed... aslong as the aircraft can climb in VMC (or IMC if IFR), it can drop a load but meat bombs CANNOT open in cloud... hence I think 4,000' from memory can be the lowest cloud base. However, I agree, most are loose operators... and YES I am stereotyping. 6 months, northern wet seasons... I survived!! The most unregulated, bull**** I was ever involved in, but it got me my next job so I shouldn't complain. Be safe :ok:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Just to clarify:

- yes - you can have a cloud jumping manual but I'm 99% these guys don't because of the busy airspace they operate it.
- the cloud base was 6k or so by the MB and EN METARS (both indicating BKN or OVC at the time) so they would have been opening after exiting
- the PIC is responsible for not dropping over other aircraft in G, ATC gives a clearance to drop in C and traffic if available below C. I don't know that low level traffic transitting coastal (the tiger moth scenics for example) would even give a primary paint?

All parachute ops (except when covered by a cloud manual) require the landing point to be in view on exit - impossible this morning.

I too have flown for such mobs and the pressure to operate outside the rules is immense and so I no longer am involved.

UTR

[BlatantLiar]

I'll bet all skydive pilots regularly break VMC, whether it be not maintaining distances from cloud above 3000' or clipping the occasional cloud. I wouldn't say what they do is dangerous but unfortunately it's illegal. The pilot of VH-MOO must be under a bit of pressure operating over St. Kilda with all those eyes watching him. If he is reading this thread I'm sure he also biting his lip.

[Jerr]

Hello

Have heard on Melbourne Radar (oops Melbourne Centre) VH MOO request upgrade to IFR, have heard him descend IFR, make visual via the YMMB NDB approach.

JERR

[Aussie Bob]

I'll bet all skydive pilots regularly break VMC

Blatant liar, I see you living up to your name. Your total inexperiance is laughable, perhaps you need another forum to frequent ...

I have worked for two different skydive operations and both were highly professional. I have a dozen or so jumps myself, have been to the Nats and have hung about the drop zone scene as a pilot on and off for years. No pressure has ever been applied to me to break the rules, on the contrary the operators I have seen have been very conservative, safe and have taken their game very seriously indeed.

Blatant liar, spread your BS elswhere.

[Jack Ranga]

The cloud jumping manual is drop zone specific is it not? So the question is, do they have a cloud jumping manual?

I wouldn't be a happy VFR camper transiting that airspace knowing that they have a cloud jumping manual. Surely if a cloud jumping manual was being assessed for this operation the affect it would have on transiting aircraft would be taken into account before being approved?

Poor punters being dropped above 8/8ths, great freefall scenery.......NOT!

[lk978]

1) yes you can jump through cloud.... parachutes must be open by about 4000 feet clear of cloud depending on type of jumps and location.

2) yes they can decent through VFR airspace, hence why there is a little symbol that means there is parachuting in this area that many people take no notice of and the very same people tend not to monitor the area freq...

3) Cloud manual is company specific and even aircraft specific... pilot's must hold an instrument rating

4) Blatant liar, you are an idiot, the operator at st kilda is very professional and senior pilot is a good guy with lots of experience, have a read of the link below

for all of you arm chair experts and bar stool lawyers.... here is and interesting link

About Cloud Jumping - Australian Parachute Federation (http://www.apf.asn.au/Members/Cloud-Jumping/About-Cloud-Jumping/default.aspx)

A simple google search these days save many a person from looking like a D!LL

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Cloud manual is company specific and even aircraft specific... pilot's must hold an instrument rating

No they don't, nor does the a/c need to be IFR so long as you can climb/descend VFR.

[beaver_rotate]

Am I a liar too? I too have worked for 2 skydive operators where I was pressured to fly VFR into IMC (tropics and the big wet). Yes I did t and YES I ain't proud. The words when I burred up "if you don't do it I've got a 100 resumes of guys who will" come to mind. I guess I was selfish and young and only had my aspirations in mind... Again, not proud of it as I'm not a cowboy. Anyway must have dreamt it, I'm off to spread my bs elsewhere! Ciao!

[Aussie Bob]

Am I a liar too?

Certainly not in my books Beaver and the word isn't in your user name either :)

There are cowboys in most industries, I don't profess that the skydive crowd is any different. In my GA career I have been asked to push through crap weather, exceed duty times and more but this ain't the norm either.

[lk978]

Under the radar:

CAAP 152-1(10) begs to differ... if the aircraft is to be operated in IMC then it is required to be IFR. Else it goes down to the manual specification, yes i agree you can climb and decend VMC (there is alternate requirements)

The specific manuals will also stipulate the minimum quals required, but in most places I know of and have flown at CIR was a min.

The motif of the manual where the aircraft is not IFR is for SCT cloud however i agree most operators will take this to the extreme.

Beaver.... Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it, are you saying you would tell someone not to do the exact tame thing as what you did only now because you have got through that stage in your career, buy some kleenex. I think most people have done stuff in there career that they are not proud of.

[kaz3g]

Perhaps it's not so much a question of the legalities of what they are doing but the safety (and even the perception of safety) of it that needs to be considered?

I have watched and listened to them operating in the Yarra Valley for years
And yes, most times they are pretty good at making their landing where they want it. But, just occasionally, they aren't so good.

The strip of land they are mcoming down on is a narrow one. The Bay is prone to strong wind gusts. There is water on one side and dense housing on the other. The bit of sky they fall through is associated with the busiest light aircraft lane in the country.

So when does common sense override adrenalin and the almighty $? Who pays if one of us ploughs into one of them on the way down?

Kaz

[lk978]

kaz3g: I was in a different location but similar circumstances, why does no one these days monitor area freq? parachute aircraft in these areas will broadcast on the area freq, ctaf and any lanes/cta areas? I have had the pleasant experience of explaining this to a number professionals once I had landed back at the airport and they had changed their underwear after seeing lots of "colourful things in the sky"

[UnderneathTheRadar]

CAAP 152-1(10) begs to differ... if the aircraft is to be operated in IMC then it is required to be IFR.

The DZs I've worked with cloud manuals did not operate aircraft IMC. Your logic is a bit skewed - you don't need IFR to drop darts through cloud - only if you want to fly IMC yourself.

why does no one these days monitor area freq

The carriage of radio is not required in G.

I often observe jump pilots cajoling passers-by into moving out of the way or telling them that jumpers are exiting. The law says that the skydivers have to give way to aircraft. In my experience, it's often the jump planes at fault for the underwear staining as they launch the meatbombs knowing that there are aircraft below.

Have heard on Melbourne Radar (oops Melbourne Centre) VH MOO request upgrade to IFR, have heard him descend IFR, make visual via the YMMB NDB approach. I assume (and happy to be corrected) that the Elwood zone does not have cloud dropping approval. If so - how on earth is it necessary for the drop ship to upgrade for an NDB!!!! Flightaware seems to back up the occasional NDB.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not blaming the pilot(s) - it's the tandem-master who has to decide if the vis is ok to jump. The pilot can be doing everything else right.....

UTR

[CaptainMidnight]

why does no one these days monitor area freq? Aircraft in the area can be on any one of a number of frequencies (or none for the non-radio and non-transponder equipped):


135.7 FIA;
EN or MB TWR frequencies (getting an appreciation of the traffic picture and preparing to call;
listening to EN or MB ATIS;
Yarra CTAF
Combine this with navigating close to CTA steps, keeping an eye out for traffic, all in a short period of time and distance - and throw a student pilot into the mix - along with being on a busy VFR route suggests it isn't the best of locations for PJE.

[VH-XXX]

I'd o as far as to say that the majority of aircraft coming into and out of Moorabbin would have two radios so not being on the 135.7 frequency should theoretically not happen often if people use their brains.

[rjtjrt]

Captain Midnight is correct - a significant number of aircraft in that area are not listening to 135.7 for the reasons he alluded to.
It always worries me when transiting there. I like many/most helicopters have one radio and it is on MB freq for a lot of the time.
John

[BlatantLiar]

Aussie bob, I'll ammend my previous statement for you.

All skydive pilots regularly break VMC except for Aussie Bob who is not a yahoo like everyone else. Ever should a day occur where there are 60 tandem punters wanting to jump and the cloud is SCT at 4000' Bob in his ultimate unselfish wisdom will refuse to fly in the interests of keeping everyone safe.

[Wanderin_dave]

Five minutes later a Tigermoth went buzzing by. Perfect timing.

Whoo hoo, I'm famous!

I find it easy to work with/around MOO's ops. But then I'm on the correct frequency and know where/when to expect the chutes.

The rest i'll leave for others to comment on.

[lk978]

Wanderin Dave.... you have hit the nail on the head

Yes there are lots of frequencies to monitor, thats why the PJE give broadcasts on most of them.

I have found it usually takes the in-experienced pilot too long to realise that their position is in conflict of where the drop zone is. For example if you were to say "expect 4 canopies on decent 6 nm North East of XXX field" can be confusing to some, but saying "expect 4 canopies over the marina" is just as confusing to IFR pilot's not familiar with the area. Maybe combining these can help

My whole gripe with this thread is that, most PJE pilot's are professional pilot's (CPL with the aspirations of doing it for a living) it is up to them to fit in with other traffic and make sure everyone is aware of their operation.

HOWEVER I am still not impressed with the level of some of the pilot's these days who through either lack of experience or more likely lack of currency are not able to hold any sort of situational awareness in busy environments. Many times I have asked for current positions and been given "I am left of the field"....:ok:

My rant has finished

[Wanderin_dave]

With regard to your last statement ik978; I can't speak for other operators, but the guy flying MOO (I can only recall hearing one voice) is always on the ball. I know that if I'm doing the right thing then I will have no surprises.

* And I don't know the guy flying MOO from a bar of soap.

More generally; My main concern when operating thru that airspace is mid-air collision. It can be extremely busy airspace with people going to/coming from many many different places on an even greater number of frequencies. This risk applies to all operators alike whatever the op be. Actually the PJE is the lowest of my concerns. Remember that by the time the chutes get to Class G they are already under canopy.

Lookout lookout lookout and try to avoid the busy lanes and levels.

[hung start]

i used to drop meat bombs in another life and gave lots of calls prior to dropping (all good ones i hope ) . The number of other pilots doing navs etc that couldnt get their reported eta,s and actual time over station was within 10 mins was astounding . A lot were chastised by atc for being so far out . Its a big sky for everyone to use , we all have the same level of responsibility too do our best and if you can enlighten another pilot respectfully go for it and if your on the recieving end accept it respectfully ( after all i may be your boss one day , or you may be mine ) . I know i,m still learning after 35 years and will do so till i die . Happy landings .:ok:

[kaz3g]

Hi ik

I certainly monitor area Frequency when going coastal. last time I was coming back from Point Cook, MelRad gave me a heads up call. I had already heard the jump pilot a minute or two earlier and I stayed a mile off shore so my response was:

If we run into one another, we'll all get wet!

I only have one radio but I certainly use it and the transponder so people know where I am and I have an idea where they are, too.

Kaz

[Lancair70]

I first flew skydivers in the days pre GPS. One had to know the local area landmarks and their relative bearings to the DZ by sight, even then the pressure was on to fly above 4/8ths or more. Obviously OVC was not possible, and the aircraft I flew was barely VFR instrument equipped! I still occasionally fly loads of skydivers, the aircraft I fly now is possibly the best C182 for the job in Australia, the pressure is still on to break the rules. Hopefully within weeks, that pressure will be off with the final signature on cloud manual approval.

[fencehopper]

Been jumping since '75. Had more than several long hikes back when people thought they could 'cloud spot'. GPS definately make off DZ landings a smaller risk but it can still happen. The 'Through Cloud' exemption is usually only used in commercial tandem operations. Fun jumpers tend to avoid any cloud where they can lose eye contact with one another. I'm a big fan of 'looking before you leap' no matter who is spotting or where i am on the load. The earlier you know that you have been offed you can decide on how to correct it by tracking home early or opening higher.
if the is VH-MOO then it is the same operator that supplies our clubs aircraft and that we contract the tandooms to. His pilots and TM's are good and stick within the rules. Yes, still are some dodgy operators but they are all slowly being pulled into line by the APF and CASA. Most of the problems with them these days are how they pay their staff. ATO are onto that. Over the next month or so you will see MOO heard back north and WKD our clubs Cresco to take it's place. We are getting a Caravan big engined we hope. I want to say woohoo but i hate refuelling Caravans.
FH

[CaptainMidnight]

I have found it usually takes the in-experienced pilot too long to realise that their position is in conflict of where the drop zone is. The Elwood DZ is on a busy VFR route within a few miles of one of the busiest GA airports, with multiple possible frequency combinations, nil transponder aircraft, complex airspace and yes, a high number of student pilots as well as non-locals who probably don't have a clue where Elwood is and already have their hands full.

Don't blame the pilots.

[djpil]

The Elwood DZ is on a busy VFR route ...and it would be good if the VFR route was amended to avoid D342.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Point Ormond - being very close to Albert Park Lake - will see aircraft entering/exiting Essendon Zone on 125.1 - not 135.7 - either seeking a clearance or getting permission to close the EN TWR frequency. During my training at MB we were often encouraged to go straight from MB frequencies to EN so as to improve situational awareness of the upcoming Class C ahead.

Not everyone has 2 comms (or uses them) and so the first an aircraft exiting EN might know about parachutes is the drop call.

I still think it's a terrible place for a DZ.

UTR

[topdrop]

Years ago in Cairns, the chutes were cleared to drop at Sugarworld (near Edmonton). The letter of agreement between ATC and the company required the pilot to visually identify the dropsite. Pilot reported chutes away, but he wasn't near Edmonton - seems he misidentified the Showground, with it's surrounding built up area, for the cane paddocks near Edmonton - or perhaps finger trouble with the GPS and couldn't see through the 8 OKTAS.
Chutes all landed OK, but unfortunately no arrivals or departures for 10 minutes due proximity to Cairns aerodrome.

[Jack Ranga]

So, do they have a cloud dropping manual or not?

And how do frequent transitters feel about a dropzone so close to the lane?

And how do the Moorabbin Tower guys feel about having it so close to their patch?

And how's the workload on approach when all this is happening?

[compressor stall]

For my own curiosity, can you hear an approaching aircraft when you are under canopy, or is the wind noise in your ears too high?

[Squeaks]

I'd go as far as to say that the majority of aircraft coming into and out of Moorabbin would have two radios so not being on the 135.7 frequency should theoretically not happen often if people use their brains.

Maybe, maybe not.

Let's see, there's traffic into from MB into EN on 125.1 for a clearance, helicopter traffic into Yarra CTAF on 126.4, traffic from EN over to MB on 118.1, then we'd better use the second radio to check the ATIS before we make the inbound call, what was that about 135.7, I'm only in that bit of coverage for 2-3 minutes so no worries.......

That area has been a nightmare since EN airspace went as far as the beach and Pt Ormond was the entry point. I reckon it's simplistic to expect aircraft to transit a drop zone and be on the right frequency at the right time to hear the calls, let alone be aware of PJs coming through an overcast on a heavy VFR route.

Silly idea :=

[UnderneathTheRadar]

That area has been a nightmare since EN airspace went as far as the beach and Pt Ormond was the entry point. I reckon it's simplistic to expect aircraft to transit a drop zone and be on the right frequency at the right time to hear the calls, let alone be aware of PJs coming through an overcast on a heavy VFR route.

Couldn't agree more. Remember that the call that's important to transit traffic is the '2 minutes to drop' call - the 'chutes away' call is likely to be too late for anyone caught underneath. 2 minutes out traffic leaving EN or MB or Yarra CTAF is very unlikely to be on 135.7.

Even with the 2nd box - I tend not to have it tuned to another enroute frequency due to the risk of missing a transmission intended for me.

Jack - they don't normally jump during cloudy weather - I assume they don't have a cloud manual - and if they do, I'd love to see the risk assessment....

UTR

[mcgrath50]

I'm surprised no ones mentioned as well the the drop zone isn't marked on VTCs, it is notamed but doesn't have the pretty little symbol that makes it all the more obvious.

[Old but not bold]

Not sure if this is rellevant to the thread but some years ago I was transiting Torrence CA to Palm Springs in a lightie and just about to climb past Mt. Baldy (7000') with a cloud base of 9000' and heard a call from a DC3 about to drop a bunch of skydivers. It only seemed like a minute or so and the sky was littered with dozens of colored canopies all around me as they decended onto the baron slopes of the mountain. I am sure this is not where they expected to be and more importantly what I expected to see all around me a few hundred metres away, crazy people, but my passengers were impressed!:confused:

[CaptainMidnight]

and it would be good if the VFR route was amended to avoid D342?

The VFR route is where it is for good reason: ease of navigation, off built up areas, and beaches to potentially land on in the event of engine failure.

Move it out to sea and you have aircraft at low level over water with all the safety issues that entails. Move it inland and there will be environmental issues with noise and mixing with EN<>MB traffic.

I'm surprised no ones mentioned as well the the drop zone isn't marked on VTCsNo-one has mentioned it because it is on the charts as a Danger Area with symbol (since either June or November last year).

[lk978]

<quote> No-one has mentioned it because it is on the charts as a Danger Area with symbol (since either June or November last year). </quote>

Hahahaha my point proven, thank you

[Jack Ranga]

Jack - they don't normally jump during cloudy weather - I assume they don't have a cloud manual - and if they do, I'd love to see the risk assessment....

Risk assessment would not have a bar of a cloud jumping manual in this area :cool: It's bizarre in fact!

[kaz3g]

Hi again Ik

Of course it's marked and one look at the chart shows the coastal VFR route running through it. It also shows just how close it is to the Albert Park reporting point for Essendon entry and in the direct line between MMB and APL.

I appreciate the business attraction tha strip of waterfront represents for jumpers but it still seems a ridiculous safety risk to me.

Who will pay if there is a collision? What if people on the ground are also casualties? The jump pilot and his employer, the dead pilots insurer, ASA...who?

What a dogs breakfast it will be and won't we all, pilots and parachutists, feel the heat from concerned residents driven by an out-of-control media?

I can imagine my colleagues in civil law salivating at the prospects...

Kaz

[mcgrath50]

No-one has mentioned it because it is on the charts as a Danger Area with symbol (since either June or November last year).

Woops! Just went back and checked, it has been marked since the November update. Before everyone worries, I haven't flown that VFR route since being on the June charts! There was at least an update or two that didn't include a marking and people had to rely on NOTAMs. It also from memory wasn't included with an airport but in the general FIR NOTAMs that we all know, people sometimes forget to check.

[CaptainMidnight]

Who will pay if there is a collision? What if people on the ground are also casualties? The jump pilot and his employer, the dead pilots insurer, ASA...who?CASA would be in the firing line I suspect, if they approved the site and operation.

[Lancair70]

To answer the question posed earlier, would a skydiver be able to hear an approaching aircraft ?
In my limited experience (7-8 canopy descents) absolutely you could hear one coming while under parachute, its amazing what you can hear up there with nothing to deaden sound between you and the source, traffic on the ground and aircraft flying nearby easily. Ive heard tandem passengers screaming under canopy from the ground many times. (My house is less than a mile from the the local DZ)

[fencehopper]

It depends on where the aircraft is in relation to the jumper. If the aircraft is above me i can usually hear it. Below and more often not. Either way if you are at the same level it has come and gone before you hear it and then see it. You do hear it very clearly in close quarters situation as it goes past. Have had two close (couple of hundred meters) passes at near same level with 'weekend warriors' following the freeway at Picton. One real scary with a glider at Corowa along with 30 other jumpers as he thermalled up into us.
his fault not talking and should not have been over head the airport as per notam. He came from deep within Vic.
Back to thread WKD pilot says they do have 'cloud op' for there.

[mrfallan]

To the best of my knowledge this is how it all works;

CASA - didn't approve they can only disapprove if all the criteria isn't met, if the operator ticks all the right boxes they can operate

ASA - can't disapprove but can only delay due traffic

Local council - can approve or disapprove.

VFR lane traffic, not all have two radios, not all are on the correct frequency (at all or when the broadcast is made)

If you fly through, be aware there could be parachutists. If you jump be aware there could be aircraft that have no idea you a there

[02041402]

I can fill in a couple of details to make sure everyone has the facts.

The plane operates VFR and IFR depending on the prevailing weather.
There should generally be no approaches done as cloud is above MVA
There is radar to the ground so traffic is always seen.
The operator has a cloud manual
If jumping through cloud you may not get a view the entire time but you will for the entire canopy ride which is completely clear of cloud
There will be always pressure from operators to get the job done no mater what. Its up to the pilot to have the sack to follow the rules and fly safe
There was a risk assesment to get the cloud manual.
The main thing that needs to be highlighted here is communication. If you are in the lane from laverton BOM tower or rickets point. Just communicate. If you can't divert around during a drop for whatever reason the pilot will just wait. The main thing is awareness not just for parachutists but for other aircraft in the lane.
Broadcasts are made on 123.0, 135.7, 132.1, 129.4 and by EN TWR on 125.1.
Safe flying!!!

[Mish A]

There are some things that are certain in life, one of them is during a busy segment of a CPL test the meat bombers will will advise that they are going to drop where you want to be flying. Will always be thankful for the switched on YMEN Tower controller who greatly assisted with the diversion.

[CaptainMidnight]

There is radar to the ground so traffic is always seen.ATC tell me there is not radar coverage to the ground at the DZ, and to bear in mind the radar site is some 60+ KM northwest of Melbourne. What they see is affected by distance from the site, shielding by city buildings and other obstructions, antenna placement on aircraft etc. Also that there are many non-transponder types around.

Traffic is not always seen.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Skydivers into D314 (Elwood/Moran Reserve) yesterday morning at about 09.20 local...

MB Metar - BKN032
EN Metar - BKN030

From my vantage point it was a solid, stable cloud mass with no variation in base.

When the 3 chutes emerged from the cloud (I didn't see if they were already open), the Williamstown float plane was just over the coast at Point Ormond - and directly in the same airspace at exactly the same time. My estimation of separation >0.5NM

So apart from the lunacy of having parachutes so close to busy traffic lanes and Class D reporting point, I thought:
1. they had to be under canopy by 3000' AGL; and
2. they have to be out of the cloud before the chutes open.
I can't see how they accomplished both of these...

Not to mention that from 3000' I can't image they have much ability to track for the DZ if the drop is slightly off target or the winds not as expected. Given they're aiming for a football oval with houses/roads/trees/powerlines one side and the ocean on the other, doesn't seem to be the wisest option.

I believe it's only a matter of time before something goes wrong with this operation....

UTR

[CaptainMidnight]

you just flew through a drop zone at 500 feet after you were specifically told to divert around or hold 3 miles clear.No-one gets told to divert around or hold 3 miles clear at Elwood.

It is Class G airspace up to and including 2500, and even radio and transponder are not mandatory. If you weren't aware of this, that is a problem.

And you seem to have missed the point UnderneathTheRadar was making -

[VH-XXX]

One of the biggest fears from my experience is when things go wrong and they land in the water. It only takes a bit of wind and some cloud and things can go horribly wrong.

[Old Akro]

My concern about Elwood is that its has:
sightseeing VFR traffic (possibly without TXP)
Traffic entering the MB Class D zone
Transiting VFR (possibly without TXP)
IFR traffic either using the aid at MB or transiting
Approaching that point, traffic can be on MB tower, ML radar, ML departures or possibly ML CTR.

It is an area of busy and complex transitional airspace. I've had a couple of instances of concern with the drop plane when I've been on IFR descent. The canopies might be in class G, but the drop occurs in Class C after departing in class D.

I think UTR's concern is that they appear to be less than meticulous about following the rules.

[Dora-9]

Pilotshute, what about the idiots who drop in the circuit at Caboolture? It can be a busy weekend, but they just announce and drop with absolutely no waiting until the area is clear. Nobody seems to be able or willing to do anything about them, an accident waiting to happen I'd have thought....

[metalman2]

My concern about Elwood is that its has:
sightseeing VFR traffic (possibly without TXP)
Traffic entering the MB Class D zone
Transiting VFR (possibly without TXP)
IFR traffic either using the aid at MB or transiting
Approaching that point, traffic can be on MB tower, ML radar, ML departures or possibly ML CTR.

It is an area of busy and complex transitional airspace. I've had a couple of instances of concern with the drop plane when I've been on IFR descent. The canopies might be in class G, but the drop occurs in Class C after departing in class D.

I think UTR's concern is that they appear to be less than meticulous about following the rules.

Flying through the point ormond area is a real ass tightener , with traffic from two busy airfields converging dumping meat bombs is asking for dramas, YLIL has a drop zone that works well in between the two fields in the valley ,as long as pilots follow the local rules. I'm sure everyone is doing what they can to be safe but it's one spot I don't really enjoy transiting !
Met

[Aussie Bob]

I would go even further than pilotchute and point out that parachutes are aircraft. They were invented before aeroplanes and are a part of our industry.

If you don't like parachuting give up aviation.

Dora9 I think you will find that they are dropped inside the circuit so they can land on the aerodrome. Use your eyes.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Pilotchute

Nothing wrong with skydiving and I've been jump pilot in a couple of DZs as well as having jumped myself. Seeing as you're very quick to point out reporting and nasty letters, do the following quotes from the APF Advisory/CAAP152 warrant any action in your expert opinion?

Opening Height means the height at which the parachutist activates the main parachute. (Not to be confused with the height at which the parachute canopy opens). The parachute must be opened by 1800ft AGL except that on a tandem descent the parachute must be open by 4000ft AGL. (my bold)

Cloud ceiling means the height above the ground or water of the base of the lowest layer of cloud below 20,000FT covering more than one-half of the sky.

How does jumping into Class G with a solid 3200' base combined with the consistent METARs of BKN3200 at MB constitute public safety? exactly?

My concerns are two-fold:
1) assuming they follow the rules, how rigorous was the risk assessment (required by the APF to be agreed by CASA - Where a risk is identified, the applicant, APF and CASA must reach agreement on the level of risk.)?
2) they clearly are not following the rules on frequent occasions.

Your logic that because it happens everywhere, it must be ok seems odd. Your assertion that everyone will be directed to remain clear is a little concerning....

UTR.

[Dora-9]

Aussie Bob:

What utter tosh! They don't drop inside the circuit but aim for their landing zone immediately to the SW of the runway intersection - how do they get there if they drop "inside the circuit"? Since the circuit direction always lies the the east of Rwy 12/30, the primary runway, this must involve crossing the runway at some point.

And the last time I used my eyes, as you so delightfully put it, there were a stick of canopies across the runway, having jumped before the radio call! I can supply date/time if necessary....

They should not be there. Interesting that back in 2003 a ballot of the membership was some 92% in favour of ejecting them. Do you wonder why?

The only good news is that it now seems very likely that the council is about to permit the construction of additional hangars, which will cover their landing area with buildings.

[Aussie Bob]

They should not be there.

Dora, with all due respect, please explain why they should not be there, they are part of the aviation industry

having jumped before the radio call!

This is not a skydiving problem, it is clearly a pilot problem. Plus you admit that your eyes are working.

Tell me: Did you get your license before or after the skydiving industry started ops? It is the height of arrogance to join an industry then seek to have a part of that industry banned or changed. Don't like it? Fly elsewhere!

From my observation there is a lot of envy towards skydivers, they have the young clientele including many young females, the modern machinery and a lot of fun when most of GA is floundering. Whether this is the case at CUD though, I have no idea.

[pilotchute]

If the drop zone is clearly marked on the chart and calls are made on not less than 5 frequencies I can't see how it is a problem. By practicing good airman ship and keeping your situational awareness up you shouldn't have any drama's. Usually when a drop is done class C to G the pilot of the jump plane will make an advisory broadcast on whichever frequency he thinks is appropriate (may be more than one) to advise traffic of the time to drop, what area the drop is being conducted in and for all traffic to remain clear for x amount of time or to track via point y. He will advise the amount of canopies to be expected at what height. He/she will also advise traffic of drop complete. Another poster has stated that broadcasts are being made so who is still unsure of what to do? Maybe the other poster has got it wrong and no broadcasts are being made. Can someone give me clear picture of what is being said over the radio to see if matches what happens at other drop zones that conduct drops for C to G airspace?

If you believe the rules are being broken by this tandem operation dropping over Elwood then it should be brought to the attention of the APF. First you should approach the company conducting the operation first and see what they say.

[Dora-9]

Aussie Bob - PM sent

[sarge75]

You think its only Melbourne?
Cairns, Skydivers land in Edmonton which is right on the Western VFR corridor. It is also right next to the RWY 33 ILS approach path.

Mission Beach, Skydivers land on the Beach which is directly on the VFR coastal route from Cairns to Townsville (During the dry season this route is VERY BUSY). It is also on the IFR route from Cairns to Townsville and is on the edge of an RNAV approach going into Innisfail. Radar doesn't kick in until 6000 feet. No problems.

RWY 33 ILS approach? lol.

Mission Beach, Skydivers land on the Beach which is directly on the VFR coastal route from Cairns to Townsville (During the dry season this route is VERY BUSY). It is also on the IFR route from Cairns to Townsville and is on the edge of an RNAV approach going into Innisfail. Radar doesn't kick in until 6000 feet. No problems.

VFRcoastal route? Like the ILS my charts and DAPS is missing something.

VERY BUSY??? Are you serious, this is just not true.

Near the route not on it, ATC advise of all traffic on IFR route(a few a times a week it's an issue),

5 miles is not on the edge of the RNAV approach

Redcliffe, Skydivers get out over the Aeroclub!

This is just not true, not close to it. They jump on the beach.

[Lancair70]

Where I occasionally fly skydivers @ YBNA, they land 2nm south of the airport they takeoff from.
Broadcasts are mandatory at 4min and 2min prior to drop on BOTH CTAF and area/centre freq and a clearance to drop is req'd if above 8500' as we're in class C (obviously a clearance is req'd to be up there too). Pilots MUST monitor both freq' at all times and liase with traffic in the CTAF as to exact parachute opening area and altitude and the DZ location to ensure seperation. Jump Pilots may ask other traffic to give way, by altering course east of the coast, west of town or to remain inside or over the racecourse when on downwind for either runway (no circuits north of runway except for heli ops), BUT have NO right to demand anything. If the aircraft posing a potential conflict refuses to agree, we can't drop!
As there are published IAL procedures, we CAN NOT drop if an aircraft is conducting a practice approach in VFR conditions, (and we wont be up there if IAL is needed to be landing) UNLESS we have agreement with that aircraft re timing and postions at the time parachutes will be in the air and the centre controller agrees, some dont ever. There are several RPT flights daily, we can not drop within 5min of their expected arrival at the IAF nor can we drop once they have called taxying to depart. We have a "Cloud Manual", which means we may drop parachutists through OVC, BUT, the cloud celiing must be at least 1000' above opening altitude and obviously the aircraft and pilot both suitably rated to perform such flights.

Re the jumpers exit location or parachute opening location, this can be up to 2nm upwind of the DZ wind using C182's and crosswind of the DZ when using a caravan etc.

EDIT: I do agree however that this DZ in question in this thread does sound like one I wouldnt like to fly at, a lot of good points have been brought up. Maybe all the controllers of airspace surounding it should make advisory/re-transmissions of the 4 and 2 min calls re the ops ?

[Old Akro]

Aussie Bob

I don't think anyone on this thread is against skydiving. I'm guessing skydiving would operate at a dozen or more places around Melbourne. This thread is not about skydiving per-se in any way shape or form.

This thread is specifically about the operator based at Australia's busiest flying training airport (in terms of training, I think Moorabbin is busier than Bankstown) and in one of the 3-4 busiest VFR corridors in the country adjacent to the only Melbourne NDB with a published approach.

Additionally, it is complex airspace. The skydivers typically jump in Class C and land in Class G after climbing predominantly in class D. All this within 3nm of 6 reporting points for ML / EN / MB and basically within the EN - MB & EN-YTYA & EN-CWS & EN-FLI tracks. Dropping exactly on the published track that would be used by non transponder and potentially even non radio transiting aircraft.

While traffic should be on radar, I'm sometimes left on ML departures until past this point. Someone who is only a little bit tardy changing frequencies might still be on MB tower and its not far over the border from the area frequency. Someone a little early with their Essendon entry call might be on Essendon tower. Its also possible that an aircraft could be on (say MB tower) at the time of the "chutes away" call, but be in the danger area while the chutes are still descending and so not hear the call. So, I don't think there is any guarantee that the radio calls are adequate.

The thread was started by UTR, who has observed jumps on a number of occasions which which seem to be in conflict the with cloud base requirement.

I personally have been in solid IMC on IFR descent from Melbourne and heard a parachute drop above me. Maybe they were dropping through a hole that I didn't see, but its anxiety provoking. Its one of those times you hope ML CTR is on top of it all.

[CaptainMidnight]

Clearly no-one here is against skydiving. All that is being said is that some locations bear a high risk of an incident.

And for info, Victorian RAPAC minutes 19 April 2012, see item 6.3 and in particular, 9. Attachments, attachment "8.4 Point Ormond DZ (D342) ATC Issues":

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/rapac/minutes/vic120419.pdf

[uncopilot]

I personally have been in solid IMC on IFR descent from Melbourne and heard a parachute drop above me. Maybe they were dropping through a hole that I didn't see, but its anxiety provoking. Its one of those times you hope ML CTR is on top of it all.

Don't think so. MOS separation standard is 3Nm, however ML TAC use 4Nm for additional assurance. There will NEVER be an aircraft below an aircraft conducting a drop in CTA unless a break in the standard has occurred. OCTA a different story. Jump aircraft broadcast on every possible frequency for the location to give transiting OCTA aircraft the opportunity to avoid a possible conflict, all they have to do is reply to the broadcast.

First you should approach the company conducting the operation first and see what they say.

Most certainly, you may find the real facts are far from what you read here.

My concerns are two-fold:
1) assuming they follow the rules, how rigorous was the risk assessment (required by the APF to be agreed by CASA -

One of the most in depth risk assessments CASA has seen for a cloud manual, one of the reasons the operation was approved.

Skydivers into D314 (Elwood/Moran Reserve) yesterday morning at about 09.20 local...

MB Metar - BKN032
EN Metar - BKN030

From my vantage point it was a solid, stable cloud mass with no variation in base.

When the 3 chutes emerged from the cloud (I didn't see if they were already open), the Williamstown float plane was just over the coast at Point Ormond - and directly in the same airspace at exactly the same time. My estimation of separation >0.5NM

Rubbish. There was no drop between 9am - 10am at Point Ormond on the 15th Sep.

If you have a radio then talk to the jump aircraft and you'll find that they do everything possible to conduct a safe operation and will always go around to avoid a potential conflict. It's the bandits that don't communicate that create a greater risk. If there is non radio equipped traffic transiting the coastal route then they are a greater danger to other traffic in the coastal route than parachutist's that occupy a 1Nm radius Danger Area that is published on approved aeronautical charts for 4 mins per drop (and that includes the time in CTA).

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Rubbish. There was no drop between 9am - 10am at Point Ormond on the 15th Sep.

My bad - 11.20 - not 9.20 (way home from swimming, not way to....)

Actually, Webtrack confirms 11.17 drop followed by the seaplane out of Willy two minutes later and passing just offshore of the DZ at 11.21

4 minutes under canopy, calls on the five frequencies everyone is so proud of - last call on 135.7 with the seaplane possibly still starting up.....

[Old Akro]

Rubbish. There was no drop between 9am - 10am at Point Ormond on the 15th Sep.

By the look of it on webtrack: 9:59, 10:12, 10:20, 10:40 and possibly more.

[Captainnobars]

You guys are hopeless, perhaps instead of sitting on your backsides wasting your day winging you should be commending these guys for the professionalism that they have brought to not only the skydiving industry but also the GA community. There is not many, if any other skydive operators in this country that have gone to the lengths that this operation has gone to to ensure the safety of all parties involved. And it appears that throughout all of this they have kept their professional edge by not being drawn into arguments and trying to defend themselves from people who do not bothered to do their research and do not have their facts 100% correct.

I have conducted a little research, A lot of what they have done to ensure that the operations they have been conducting in and around Point Ormond area have as little conflict on the rest of the operators using the area have not been required of them as operators...they have done this off their own back to make it as obvious too all of their planned activities.

They have listed their operations in the ERSA, NOTAM's, numerous letters to operators (even I received one, and I am not linked to any of the YMMB Operators, I mealy use the area, including the Melbourne Coastal routes regularly for my own private enjoyment), attended airspace meetings / RAPAC meeting's (as I found recently by reading the attendance list), as well as having a Danger area added to the VTC and VNC. I have also since found out after talking to a close friend at ML TAC that these guys make broadcast on five different frequencies, of which only two are required of them.

Do you jump up and down about the huge increase in the number of students / aircraft now using the local GA lanes or the training areas... NO probably not, and nor should you because it is great to see GA on the rise again. But perhaps you don't though because if you did it may directly effect your or your company's positions.

Let me make this clear that I do not work for these guys, nor have I ever in the past, and I am pretty sure I have not even met any of their pilots. I quiet simply feel that they are being crucified because, as usual a few people are not happy having to share "their" beloved airspace with new operators. I am sure that another part of the reason they oppose it is that some pilots have to be more accountable for their actions which perhaps they are not yet prepared for.

I hear these guys regularly whilst I am inbound / outbound out of YMML and they make every attempt to raise any conflicting aircraft, and from what I have read and been told by members of ML TAC they make 5minute and 2minute calls as well as their drop calls on five or six different frequencies... what more can they do. From my observations and feedback obtained, I feel that these pilots have done a pretty damn good job in a harsh and demanding environment.

This is a massive problem in this country, there are to many people that complain each time there is an addition to the GA family instead of encouraging the growth of GA within Australia and therefore we have been left behind and many of you sit back and complain about the wages that you are being paid, and the state of the aircraft that you are flying much of which has to do with the fact that GA is struggling in Australia. I recently read that about 25% of all pilot training conducted within Australian shores is to overseas students, whom are contracted to airlines. If we ever lost these contracts you could imagine how many pilots would be out of work... how much more difficult would it be to find work then?

I questioned a co-pilot of mine yesterday who has a few jumps under his belt and he informed me that it is not an issue to jump through cloud, providing that the operator has an approved Cloud Jump Manual, and please do not quote me on this but, he though around about 3,500ft AGL cloud base, eight eights cloud coverage.

These rumour networks irk me, however this is something that I feel really deeply about, and feel that I would be untruthful to not only myself but many others in the GA community if I did not add my comments is regards to the constant opposition to GA growth within Australia.

If what is stated is correct, and these guys only have parachutes in class G airspace for about 2-3minutes, then surely we can all share this airspace. We need to have a good look at what is happening within GA, and try to embrace any expansion within the industry as it is in all our best interests to see the GA community grow.

May I make a recommendation, which was a great lesson in life that I learnt from a very highly respected instructor of mine that instead of sitting around winging about an issue, approach the operator and discuss your concerns with the Chief Pilot (or whom ever it is that is in charge) and I assure you that it will be far more beneficial than hiding behind your computer shooting from afar.

When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.

Safe Flights!

[CaptainMidnight]

It's the bandits that don't communicate that create a greater riskNon-transponder and no radio aircraft - and others with radio but who happen to be on other frequencies at the time a broadcast is made - are not bandits; they are legitimate users of the airspace. As you say they create a greater risk, I assume that risk is one identified and mitigated in the risk assessment.

Captainnobars
these guys make broadcast on five different frequencies, of which only two are required of themYour research clearly hasn't included AIP. ENR 5.5 Parachuting operations states that broadcasts are required on ALL relevant frequenciies. In this case there are indeed 5 or 6 different frequencies required.

Not sure what if anything you are inferring re your discussions with ML TMA, but you might take the time to read the letter to Industry from them at the link I provided.

[VH-XXX]

If I'm not mistaken I can legally fly an RA-Aus registered wind in the face Drifter merrily past Elwood without a radio, transponder or anything else technical...... I wonder if THAT is in the risk assessment?

(not an anti RA-Aus aircraft comment, the comment is about no radio, transponder, under the radar, slow and open cockpit, so not your typical 172 and would not have been notified by mail)

[Squeaks]

captainnobars,

We all understand that there is a massive attempt to mitigate/minimise exposure by the operation, but it still fails to accept that the location is a dangerous one. They have an obligation to broadcast on all frequencies: your assertion that they are doing a favour by covering more than two is indicative of your lack of knowledge on this issue. Allowing 30 seconds per broadcast and retune, that's ~3 minutes from the first broadcast until the end of the last. Another 2 minutes to dispatch, another minute or so before the chutes appear, and you have easily five minutes elapsed before a chute appears at 3000ft.

In that time a helicopter can start, lift and depart the Yarra Bank helipad and transit to Pt Ormond, totally unaware of chutes in the air. Or a training aircraft depart MB, change frequencies along the coast and bimble along northbound unaware of objects dropping from above. We all like to keep a decent lookout but how often does your scan take in a vertical aspect?

Local (MB) operators are now avoiding the coastal route and tracking inland to avoid the airspace: did someone say something about "sharing"? Suitable forced landing areas are few and far between inland as opposed to the beach/coastal route. Safety first?

Compromises are being made, but in a negative manner for the majority of airspace users in order to accommodate a minority. Safety is being compromised, and should not be.

That is the issue, and I don't believe that it can be resolved as long as we dance around believing that every operator has a God given right to access airspace regardless of the outcome it has on others.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Nobars

Reinforcing Squeaks comments - I'm sure there has been a massive effort to get the cloud manual approved - if more than anywhere else then probably not from the generosity of the operator but due to the recognition from CASA that it's the most complex skydive operation around and them being forced to jump through many hoops - there was a very large gap between when the jumps were 'announced' and when they started which smacks of delays getting approvals.

But - it becomes a bit moot if they're going to break the rules (I assume their manual requires tandems to be open at 4000' in the clear as per the APF adivsory/CAAP - if it doesn't I'd love to see how that played out in a coroners court - given the built up area and proximity to water).

It's not just pilots being precious - April's RPAC minutes include notes about the Point Ormond DZ including concern from GAPAN specifically relating to helicopters. A memo from ASA TAC also lists concerns about the complexity the jump operations cause in a very dynamic traffic environment and the minutes also list 4 reports being raised within ASA. The last sentence from the ASA memo - "The large chunk of airspace required to drop chutes, combined with too many variables outside out control, compromise safety outcomes from the start."

The main culprit I can see is a commercial operator determined to make money by jumping into an area clearly unsuitable for doing so.

I questioned a co-pilot of mine yesterday who has a few jumps under his belt and he informed me that it is not an issue to jump through cloud, providing that the operator has an approved Cloud Jump Manual, and please do not quote me on this but, he though around about 3,500ft AGL cloud base, eight eights cloud coverage.

It is quite safe - but you cannot open your canopy in cloud - that isn't safe. Keep doing your extensive research on CAAP152 which lists a minimum opening height of 4000' for tandems, much less for single canopies. The issue with emerging from cloud then opening low is the less/limited time to track to the DZ - something that should be a massive concern at this DZ as there is no easy solution if you discover you can't track back.

VH-XXX - if you could fly a drifter in this area I would expect that you'd automatically track clear of the Danger area.

[Elevator Driver]

well seeing as there is so much speculation going on here, I actually took a moment to ask the operator what call's they do make & how they space them out & this is what i was told (and it's pretty consistent with what I've heard flying around ymmb)

Broadcasts before the drop

At 5mins to drop ML CEN 135.7

At 4mins to drop Yarra CTAF 132.1

At 3mins to drop YMMB TWR 123.0

At 2mins to drop ML CEN 135.7

Once 'chutes away'

Calls on

ML CEN 135.7

Yarra CTAF 132.1

YMMB TWR 123.0

advising number of chutes away over PT Ormond.

additional call to either ML CEN 135.7 or DEP 129.4 (depending on which frequency they've been handed to) advising canopy's clear of CTA

I was also informed now that they're using the larger A/C they only do 1 drop an hour & the skydivers are only in the air for about 5mins from leaving the a/c to landing.

Simply if your looking to sail past Pt Ormond & aren't sure what's happening all you have to do is ask! ML CEN 135.7 knows where the skydive a/c is. hell no doubt YMMB tower can tell you where they are.


So I personally can't see what the big fuss is all about?? (as long as they're not breaking the rules!)

[Old Akro]

I don't think there is any "fuss" about radio calls at all.

The "fuss" is about 2 things:
1. Potential breaking of the rules relating to parachute drops in cloud.
2. Concern about the appropriateness of Pt Ormond due to the complexity of the airspace and high traffic AND over the preferred route for non TXP non radio aircraft.

The 1st & 2nd points combine to increase risk. I doubt anyone much cares if the rules on parachuting through clouds are stretched a bit in places like Tooradin. All its going to do is scare some seagulls. But see & be seen doesn't work very well for an aircraft following the aircraft lane at 2500 ft if chutes can pop out of a 3000 ft overcast. Conversely in 8/8 blue there is not much concern.

In relation to specifically to calls, if the web reference I found to jump time is correct, I will travel around 30 nm between the chutes away radio call and the sky divers being in class G airspace. That opens up another 3 frequencies that conflicting traffic could potentially and correctly be on at the time of the jump calls, not counting CTAF frequencies.

[Elevator Driver]

The "fuss" is about 2 things:
1. Potential breaking of the rules relating to parachute drops in cloud.
2. Concern about the appropriateness of Pt Ormond due to the complexity of the airspace and high traffic AND over the preferred route for non TXP non radio aircraft.

1. no arguments there.

2. Easy lets make it safer for all airspace users (including the skydivers) by making the Melbourne coastal route & other high volume traffic area's both radio and TXP mandatory. After all we're talking about safety for everyone here. :hmm:

Now that we've got that all sorted, use that shiny new radio & just ask a simple question 'what is the status of parachuting at Pt Ormond?' :ok:

[Squeaks]

2. Easy lets make it safer for all airspace users (including the skydivers) by making the Melbourne coastal route & other high volume traffic area's both radio and TXP mandatory. After all we're talking about safety for everyone here. :hmm:

Now that we've got that all sorted, use that shiny new radio & just ask a simple question 'what is the status of parachuting at Pt Ormond?' :ok:

If it were only that simple: do you know the area?
You can be coming out of the Yarra CTAF on your way to MB, from 132.1 over to 123.0
You can be coming out of Essendon to MB, from 125.1 to 135.7 to 123.0 (or 118.1)
You can be transiting coastal northbound, coming off 123.0 onto 135.7 (or 125.1 for clearance to EN) or 132.1 for Yarra CTAF, while getting the ATIS before calling
You can be transiting from Westgate Bridge on 135.7 to Dandenong/Yarra Valley remaining on 135.7
You can be checking ATIS for EN or MB going each way
You can be in CTA on whichever frequency is appropriate

and so on......

It is one of the most heavily traffic'd areas in Victoria, and has been a source of near misses for as long as I can remember. EN CTA used to come all the way to the beach, and Pt Ormond was a nightmare with aircraft on fewer choices of frequencies then. The added Yarra CTAF and 135.7 has made it more of a gamble to be on the right freq at the right time.

[sarge75]

My bad - 11.20 - not 9.20 (way home from swimming, not way to....)

Actually, Webtrack confirms 11.17 drop followed by the seaplane out of Willy two minutes later and passing just offshore of the DZ at 11.21

4 minutes under canopy, calls on the five frequencies everyone is so proud of - last call on 135.7 with the seaplane possibly still starting up.....

Gee, you'd make a great eyewitness.

Seriously if you are going to come on here and make accusations (make things up??), you'd think you might even get the time vaguely right.

Love your attention to detail, but it's all good, thanks to your "my bad" it was after your 2 hour swim you were confused on the time, but every thing else you say must be accurate. :ugh:

[ubeaut]

Ok, Underneath the Radar... I take it your name depicts the way you like to live your life... you try to sneak around spreading fictitious rumours without taking any accountability's for your own actions. Pretty Gutless I'd Say. You have caused a lot of issues on a number of different posts on different topics for a while now, and people are very quickly beginning to understand that a lot of what you are posting is far from the truth.

I take it you still haven't contacted the operator as a number of people have suggested... perhaps again showing the vendetta that you have against this particular operator and not being big enough to discuss the matters away from a site where you can hide behind a computer.

The Point Ormond Drop zone was the main topic of our monthly catch up with the group of 15 aircraft operators that I generally fly with, and the general consensus was that pilots operating in the Melb Coastal Route and Point Ormond area must take more accountability of their own actions and stop making excuses as to the different frequencies that they could be on.

It has been proven here this operator makes broadcasts on all appropriate frequencies and YMMB TWR, YMEN TWR, ML CEN, and ML DEP, all inform approaching traffic whenthe PJE aircraft is airborne and parachutes are in the air. If you still are not aware when/if parachutes will be in the air, then do as we do and either ask ML CEN and/or give the operators a call... C'mon sense right.

If you are not willing to make an effort, than it is due to your own laziness and stupidity that you are putting yourself and your passengers in danger.

As for your comments / accusations in regards to jumping through cloud, give it up, you obviously have a vendetta against them and I believe that on three different occasions that you have made such accusations you have been proven to be blatantly wrong each time. I understand that your complaints to the relevant bodies have been dismissed each time due to the evidence supplied by the operator... Video footage with a rerecorded date and time doesn't lie... Sounds like they are quiet a professional bunch that have covered all bases.

Video footage of the jumps in question prove beyond doubt that the skydivers did not enter cloud at anytime whilst the parachute was open and below 4000ft. A simple chat with the guys at the Point Ormond landing area and they were more than happy to oblige to show me the exact footage, proven by cross reference of the manifest with passenger name, date, time etc. You should pop in and have a look to put your mind at ease.

Also please go back and do your research a little better and you will notice that between the time that you went to swimming and the two hours later that you returned the YMEN and YMMB AWIS had obviously changed... actually did you wish to amend your previous observations and now suggest that you may have witnessed the skydivers jumping through cloud whilst you were staring at the bottom of the pool, beach, lake whatever it was that you were swimming in. No doubt it would be another fixation of your imagination... you would write a great childrens novel, probably go with one of the choose your own adventure type books, seems you are good at them.

Why am I / We so fed up with this? well that's because a number of my fellow aviator's have to waste our / their time responding, investigating and reporting on these false accusations. We have better things to use the resources of Airservices, CASA, APF, not to mention the operator in question on then wasting our/their valuable time, and money to once again investigate the matter in question only to find out that once again the aqusations are far from the truth.

If they are operating outside the rules, then quiet simply we will take action, but please do not waste our time chasing dead ends which once again this turned out to be.

So now that we have put issue number one to bed being:
1. "Potential breaking of the rules relating to parachute drops in cloud"...That they were not breaking any rules.

Tim to focus on Issue 2:
2. "Concern about the appropriateness of Pt Ormond due to the complexity of the airspace and high traffic AND over the preferred route for non TXP non radio aircraft".

Fair call perhaps but it has been approved with all required documentation provided. We along with most if not all operators in the local area received a letter outlining their intentions, operations etc from the operators in advance of when they first commenced operations and again the week before they began. This was the time to speak up and discuss any issues with the authority's / operator.

We as a group did speak to a member of management from the operator and discussed our concerns that perhaps they were going to be another cowboy skydive operator not willing to cooperate with the local operators. Upon completion of the hour long discussion we came away with a completely different attitude as they have proven to be a very well run and organised operation. They have been very courteous, cooperative and professional every time that we have spoken with them.

Anyway back to Issue 2.

Is a parachute in the airspace below 2500ft for approximately two (2) minutes every 60minutes as big a danger as the traffic flying around the area with no transponder and/or radio?

We personally do not think so, at least we know the parachutists are predictable and know what they are going to do, and where they are tracking for and attempting to land... far easier to safely manoeuvre around when you know their intentions and and speak to the PJE aircraft or ML CEN (not to mention YMMB and YMEN TWRs).

Elevator Drivers suggestion makes the most sense..."lets make it safer for all airspace users (including the skydivers) by making the Melbourne coastal route & other high volume traffic area's both radio and TXP mandatory". That would make life a lot easier for all of us.

Or is the number different frequencies available for use in that area the real issue? We believe that with correct training and education the frequencies in that area are very manageable. If you have an issue with the amount of frequencies then do it through the correct avenues and bring it up at an Industry or RAPAC meeting for discussion, websites such as this will get you nowhere.

At the end of the day, if you are unsure ask the question as to whether the parachutists are in the air, or for those aircraft that are not radio equipped, make a phone call during your flight planning stages and ask the operator. But most importantly do as we do and as most pilots do and keep a good lookout when flying through / past that area for not only the skydivers but other traffic. As pilots we all need to take responsibility and ownership of sharing our airspace.