IFR Meat Bombs?
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An operator in YSSY was given approval on a trial basis some time back to conduct IFR PJE ops.
A little bird from within the APF told me that although the trial period had ended, they have not been oficially told to cease ops under IFR and are contuing on their merry way.
A little bird from within the APF told me that although the trial period had ended, they have not been oficially told to cease ops under IFR and are contuing on their merry way.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would you know when to open the canopy if you couldnt see the ground?
Alimeter perhaps.
Seriously though, in addition to the purpose designed altimeters available, there are also audible and visual alerting systems commonly called a Dytter which is mounted by the ear inside a helmet. Set it on the way up to the desired alarm height (usually about 1,000 ft above planned opening) and on descent it emits a series of loutd beeps. Some have a little LED incorporated which is positioned in the field of view so you get both an audible and visual warning. If all that fails, there is an emergency device as part of the parachute system called a CYPRES which has a barometrically controlled cutter. If the rate of descent below 1,000ft AGL, which is set on a daily basis, exceeds a certain value then it fires off the reserve. Problems have occurred where some of our whacky weed affected meatbombs have gone low and pulled the main at the same time the as the CYPRES activation. Single jumper downplanes are pretty nasty, ie two canopies inflated, pointing away from each other and diving for the ground.
Back to the original point in question. I believe that the trial was designed to show that jumpers can safely exit or pass through cloud in freefall. The requirement to be clear of cloud when under canopy still exists.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, QNIM, if this organisation have permission to drop through cloud, they have to get up there first. This would then mean that the pilot is IFR and they put in an IFR flight plan for each drop, right? Or do they find a hole that suddenly opens and and closes again?????
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon its madness, even with an IFR plane and pilot.
I wonder if anyone has been IFR on a distinctly IMC day and amazed to hear a VFR plane flown by a VFR pilot, all the way to 10,OOO. Flying in those conditions staying out of cloud must be a real challenge. I cannot believe any responsible para operator would attempt that but then perhaps those holes really do open just when they need them to.
As for the prospect of a pair of size 12's coming through the windscreen.....
I just stay well away from THOSE jump sites in any bloody weather.
I wonder if anyone has been IFR on a distinctly IMC day and amazed to hear a VFR plane flown by a VFR pilot, all the way to 10,OOO. Flying in those conditions staying out of cloud must be a real challenge. I cannot believe any responsible para operator would attempt that but then perhaps those holes really do open just when they need them to.
As for the prospect of a pair of size 12's coming through the windscreen.....
I just stay well away from THOSE jump sites in any bloody weather.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meatbombs in cloud
At the risk of identifying myself 
I offer the following comment
No parachuting operator has been approved to drop meatbombs through cloud as of now. When the time comes there will be strict requirements for IFR rated pilots if the drop aircraft flies in IMC and strict requirements for meatbombs to be VMC before opening life-saving umbrellas.
Also real-time radio broadcasts must be made prior to drop and the drop delayed if there is conflicting traffic. Meatbombs must be "Visual" 1000 ft above opening height (minimum 2200' above DZ) or above relevant LSALT. A pilot education program for itinerants as well well as drop pilots is part of the big piccy.
Them wot don't stick to the rules can expect to get nudged by Constable Plod's size 17 from both the guys who do want to get it right and from the dark side.
The risk calculations are all there and rely on people doing the right thing - remember when sex was safe and parachuting was dangerous
I offer the following commentNo parachuting operator has been approved to drop meatbombs through cloud as of now. When the time comes there will be strict requirements for IFR rated pilots if the drop aircraft flies in IMC and strict requirements for meatbombs to be VMC before opening life-saving umbrellas.
Also real-time radio broadcasts must be made prior to drop and the drop delayed if there is conflicting traffic. Meatbombs must be "Visual" 1000 ft above opening height (minimum 2200' above DZ) or above relevant LSALT. A pilot education program for itinerants as well well as drop pilots is part of the big piccy.
Them wot don't stick to the rules can expect to get nudged by Constable Plod's size 17 from both the guys who do want to get it right and from the dark side.
The risk calculations are all there and rely on people doing the right thing - remember when sex was safe and parachuting was dangerous
11 000hrs and 1 200 jumps. Simple fact is SKYDIVING IS DANGEROUS!!!
Anyone taking part in jumping is aware of this. If jumping through cloud offers slightly increased risk, who cares? If jumpers cared, they'd take up chess. The chances of an IMC jumper ever being a risk to an aircraft is miniscule. And if you don't like those odds, STAY CLEAR OF DZS!!!. They are promalgated as "D" (For "Danger") Areas for a reason!!!
And remember, climb through less than 4/8th, operations above and then descent through less than 4/8th as all legal.
Who are you guys mad at? Who are you trying to protect?
People want to jump. Pilots want to lift them. Why is it your problem?
Anyone taking part in jumping is aware of this. If jumping through cloud offers slightly increased risk, who cares? If jumpers cared, they'd take up chess. The chances of an IMC jumper ever being a risk to an aircraft is miniscule. And if you don't like those odds, STAY CLEAR OF DZS!!!. They are promalgated as "D" (For "Danger") Areas for a reason!!!
And remember, climb through less than 4/8th, operations above and then descent through less than 4/8th as all legal.
Who are you guys mad at? Who are you trying to protect?
People want to jump. Pilots want to lift them. Why is it your problem?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Wombat Too I had a feeling that was true saw one lot a few weeks ago appearing out of total overcast 600'cloud base most didn't even make the drop zone. I was informed later by an rpt jock that the cloud extended to over 10000'and there were other a/c movements at the time. Me still thinks SPLAAT 
Wizofoz,
MJ
a) I don't think personal insults were called for.
b) How does jumping through cloud affect your safety? Did you think you could "See and Avoid" a jumper descending vertically at 120kts?
c) The biggest airspace danger I have observed whilst jumping is pilots steaming through active DZs because "It's "Only" a Danger area and I'm entitled too. "
d) I certainly don't advocate aircraft operating IMC unless IFR equipped and licensed. The DZs doing these operations legitimatley have just this.
e) Though widley practiced worldwide both legally and illegaly, I know of no incident involving a jumper/aircraft colision in IMC. There have been a couple in the states in CAVOK, highlighting the fact that DZs are dangerous places to transit regardless of weather.
Yes you use the airspace, so do I. If we both do so responsibly we won't meet by accident.
a) I don't think personal insults were called for.
b) How does jumping through cloud affect your safety? Did you think you could "See and Avoid" a jumper descending vertically at 120kts?
c) The biggest airspace danger I have observed whilst jumping is pilots steaming through active DZs because "It's "Only" a Danger area and I'm entitled too. "
d) I certainly don't advocate aircraft operating IMC unless IFR equipped and licensed. The DZs doing these operations legitimatley have just this.
e) Though widley practiced worldwide both legally and illegaly, I know of no incident involving a jumper/aircraft colision in IMC. There have been a couple in the states in CAVOK, highlighting the fact that DZs are dangerous places to transit regardless of weather.
Yes you use the airspace, so do I. If we both do so responsibly we won't meet by accident.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now it seems to be getting personal, there is no need for it MJ, an understanding of each others basic needs is all that should be required.
Both (types of operations) are no more entitled to use the airspace than the other (save for special use and/or Military or Civillian control zones). Agree?
Both (types of operations) have the right to expect the airspace be as safe as possible. Also?, then we are getting close to an understanding.
Wiz, unfortunately not all DZ's are marked on the charts as danger areas, or even with a parachute symbol. I used to fly at one of the oldest established operating parachute clubs in the country, which operates in one of the more used (transient a/c) airspace areas - it even has multiple navaids that are used many times each day for navaid practice and training by others within a few miles each side, and with the DZ being situated in a Valley, the throughflow each way could delay a jump run by up to 15 minutes sometimes.
"The big picture" is maintained by diligent use of radio and the mark 1 eyeball, and some allowances for persons not entirely sure of the area with their position broadcasts possibly out by up to 5 nm at times. Now the fun starts......
If it were VFR underneath, and VFR on top, and I were to find a legal "hole" in which to climb to altitude through (say a layer of 7.9/8ths approx 500 feet thick, at an alt of say between 6000 and 6500), what can actually stop me from conducting a jump run from 10K if I can effectively pin point with GPS and also finetune the run with my eyeball using glimpses of the ground - holes large enough to see the ground, and it's main identifying features, and after the jumpers exited the a/c they could descend though one of these said holes?
Those against..... are you sure that from your elevated observation platform (your cockpit), your view from and out of your window straight ahead, might be somewhat of an acute angle to the base of the cloud (ie; what holes are you actually missing in your slant view of the cloud), rather than looking either straight up or down, as is the case of the humble DZ jump flyer?
The humble DZ pilot has probably been at the DZ all day (as he has done many times before), and has watched the wx build and disperse, and has more of an idea of the way the local wx is "trending" than a pilot who has taken-off at an aerodrome 50 miles or more away. This pilot puts this local knowledge to good use when he says "fly" or "no fly", and isn't usually dumb enough to charge-off into 10 thousand feet of CU's and CB's etc, but will look at the calibre of the jumpers that he has on board for this load, and make a decision accordingly based on their wishes and experience.
There are, of course, exceptions to EVERY rule, and these persons most probably are being pressured to do something they don't really want to do, but I have never seen it, or had any undue pressure put on me to fly jumpers when nature wouldn't enjoy your company up there.
We have all made decisions we aren't proud we made afterwards, but what we need here is to understand the respective position and needs of the other airspace users, and realise that the more users we have directly translates to a healthier GA industry, with the follow-on effects of more jobs, more fuel used, and a brighter outlook for our industry as a whole, no matter how hard those "self-appointed guardians" of our industry try and wreck it with their lack of consultation and understanding of everyones basic needs.
Regards,
4/J.
Both (types of operations) are no more entitled to use the airspace than the other (save for special use and/or Military or Civillian control zones). Agree?
Both (types of operations) have the right to expect the airspace be as safe as possible. Also?, then we are getting close to an understanding.
Wiz, unfortunately not all DZ's are marked on the charts as danger areas, or even with a parachute symbol. I used to fly at one of the oldest established operating parachute clubs in the country, which operates in one of the more used (transient a/c) airspace areas - it even has multiple navaids that are used many times each day for navaid practice and training by others within a few miles each side, and with the DZ being situated in a Valley, the throughflow each way could delay a jump run by up to 15 minutes sometimes.
"The big picture" is maintained by diligent use of radio and the mark 1 eyeball, and some allowances for persons not entirely sure of the area with their position broadcasts possibly out by up to 5 nm at times. Now the fun starts......
If it were VFR underneath, and VFR on top, and I were to find a legal "hole" in which to climb to altitude through (say a layer of 7.9/8ths approx 500 feet thick, at an alt of say between 6000 and 6500), what can actually stop me from conducting a jump run from 10K if I can effectively pin point with GPS and also finetune the run with my eyeball using glimpses of the ground - holes large enough to see the ground, and it's main identifying features, and after the jumpers exited the a/c they could descend though one of these said holes?
Those against..... are you sure that from your elevated observation platform (your cockpit), your view from and out of your window straight ahead, might be somewhat of an acute angle to the base of the cloud (ie; what holes are you actually missing in your slant view of the cloud), rather than looking either straight up or down, as is the case of the humble DZ jump flyer?
The humble DZ pilot has probably been at the DZ all day (as he has done many times before), and has watched the wx build and disperse, and has more of an idea of the way the local wx is "trending" than a pilot who has taken-off at an aerodrome 50 miles or more away. This pilot puts this local knowledge to good use when he says "fly" or "no fly", and isn't usually dumb enough to charge-off into 10 thousand feet of CU's and CB's etc, but will look at the calibre of the jumpers that he has on board for this load, and make a decision accordingly based on their wishes and experience.
There are, of course, exceptions to EVERY rule, and these persons most probably are being pressured to do something they don't really want to do, but I have never seen it, or had any undue pressure put on me to fly jumpers when nature wouldn't enjoy your company up there.
We have all made decisions we aren't proud we made afterwards, but what we need here is to understand the respective position and needs of the other airspace users, and realise that the more users we have directly translates to a healthier GA industry, with the follow-on effects of more jobs, more fuel used, and a brighter outlook for our industry as a whole, no matter how hard those "self-appointed guardians" of our industry try and wreck it with their lack of consultation and understanding of everyones basic needs.
Regards,
4/J.
Last edited by 429 CJ; 25th May 2002 at 01:25.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizoff and 429CJ
Well said, how many times have I heard people bitch about skydiving because they simply do not understand why people want to do it.
Can someone please explain to me how an IFR meat bomb is more dangerous than an IFR Duchess.
Well said, how many times have I heard people bitch about skydiving because they simply do not understand why people want to do it.
Can someone please explain to me how an IFR meat bomb is more dangerous than an IFR Duchess.
429 CJ,
No sweat, well written and absolutley accurate.
My point, however, is that the thrust amongst the posters here is the fact jumpers may be descending through cloud somehow increases the likelyhood of a collision. Unless you have a window in the roof and spend at least as much time looking up as you do forward, the only way to avoid jumpers is to not be there when they're jumping.
No sweat, well written and absolutley accurate.
My point, however, is that the thrust amongst the posters here is the fact jumpers may be descending through cloud somehow increases the likelyhood of a collision. Unless you have a window in the roof and spend at least as much time looking up as you do forward, the only way to avoid jumpers is to not be there when they're jumping.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one's been in the mill for quite a while now.
Like Wozofoz, I've been around the skydiving scene for quite a while both as jumper and pilot. The question of jumpers descending through cloud should not, if properly controlled, present any greater risks. There are many operators with good aircraft who will have no difficulty providing sound airframes maintained to IFR standard for the job.
The dangers will start to creep in when the shonks start using their clapped out DVFR C182s and the like for this type of op. Unfortunately, most skydivers are oblivious to the requirements of aircraft and pilots for IFR and will now push even harder for inexperienced pilots to put themselves and their meatbomb cargo at greater risk.
Perhaps, just perhaps, when this gets off the ground the IFR qualified pilots might have a bit more bargaining power wrt being paid.
Like Wozofoz, I've been around the skydiving scene for quite a while both as jumper and pilot. The question of jumpers descending through cloud should not, if properly controlled, present any greater risks. There are many operators with good aircraft who will have no difficulty providing sound airframes maintained to IFR standard for the job.
The dangers will start to creep in when the shonks start using their clapped out DVFR C182s and the like for this type of op. Unfortunately, most skydivers are oblivious to the requirements of aircraft and pilots for IFR and will now push even harder for inexperienced pilots to put themselves and their meatbomb cargo at greater risk.
Perhaps, just perhaps, when this gets off the ground the IFR qualified pilots might have a bit more bargaining power wrt being paid.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
sick pun!
Islander jock
When this gets off the ground
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK folks, Just my 5 cents worth.
Low time IFR pilot, (ie someone like myself) charges off into wild grey yonder in suspect "IFR machine" under pressure from jumpers who are keen to go. Said low time(read-low IFR experience)pilot heads off to mix it with the big boys.
I don't think its the jumpers we have to worry about here. Finding good safe IFR drivers who will work for little renumeration may be the problem here, don't you think?
Low time IFR pilot, (ie someone like myself) charges off into wild grey yonder in suspect "IFR machine" under pressure from jumpers who are keen to go. Said low time(read-low IFR experience)pilot heads off to mix it with the big boys.
I don't think its the jumpers we have to worry about here. Finding good safe IFR drivers who will work for little renumeration may be the problem here, don't you think?