Parachuting at Elwood Park

[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]

Originally Posted by GTang

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:

1. within a permanent or occasional parachute jumping area: a circular column with a radius of 3.7 km around the intended landing area;
2. after authorization by the pilot-in-command of the transporting aircraft;
3. within the daylight period (UDP) (AIP Netherlands GEN 2.7, www.ais-netherlands.nl). For a jump outside UDP a waiver can be obtained from the CAA-NL via the website www.ivw.nl; and
4. 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).

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.

Originally Posted by peterc005

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.

Originally Posted by Aussie Bob

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 .

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]

Originally Posted by GTang

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 .