Parachute site infringement

[bad bear]

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/New_assessed_reports/Airprox%20Report%202016212.pdf

My view is that the professional pilots should be obliged to cary a 1:500,000 map like the rest of the airspace users if they are going to fly outside controlled airspace.

bb

[S-Works]

We are.......

[Jan Olieslagers]

a 1:500,000 map
Where is that stated? I never saw anything but "suitable" as a requirement for maps - not even "official".

Then again, in decent areas the FIS in charge will warn people if their route comes near active paradrop areas.

[NorthSouth]

But they didn't in this particular case.

[The Ancient Geek]

Yebbut having a drop zone so close to a standard departure route is probably not the best idea to begin with.
The holes in the swiss cheese lined up (as they have a habit of always doing eventually) but fortunately the result was only an airprox this time.

[NorthSouth]

Yebbut having a drop zone so close to a standard departure route is probably not the best idea to begin with.
The holes in the swiss cheese lined up (as they have a habit of always doing eventually) but fortunately the result was only an airprox this time.Indeed. As I said in the Dundee thread, poor show by Flybe ops people in not giving the crews a safe departure procedure.

[dont overfil]

There seems to be a bit of confusion among the airprox board as to whether the airprox was intended to be reported against the aircraft or the parachutist. It would seem one was a technical alert triggered by the DHC8 TCAS although the pilots of the respective aircraft could see each other. The other was reported by the pilot of the parachute aircraft who saw how close the DHC8 got to the parachutist.

I know from a meeting held by FlyBe a few weeks later they were not aware of the incident with the parachutist.

[kui2324]

I pointed the pilot to the report after it was posted here and he again said the report was filed about the canopy and the DHC8 not the C182.

[floppyjock]

There seems to be a bit of confusion among the airprox board as to whether the airprox was intended to be reported against the aircraft or the parachutist. It would seem one was a technical alert triggered by the DHC8 TCAS although the pilots of the respective aircraft could see each other. The other was reported by the pilot of the parachute aircraft who saw how close the DHC8 got to the parachutist.

I know from a meeting held by FlyBe a few weeks later they were not aware of the incident with the parachutist.



Two reports were submitted. One by Flybe against the C182. The other was submitted by the parachutist. Flybe were not aware that a parachutist was in the air at the time and looked a bit shocked when they found out

BTW I was the parachutist and I was at that meeting as well.

Floppy