Parachuting at Elwood Park
Aussie Bob,
I think you choose (along with others) to be less than understanding of differing views. Please read my previous comments and don't confuse them with those made by others.
I only head NW when professionally required and use 126.7 on the rarest of occasions. Aviate, navigate, communicate was a valued lesson originally learned some 50 years ago and still holds good.
My commercial requirements have frequently, and will most likely continue to, required coastal transits along the VFR route between Melbourne city and MB in mostly SE helicopters without an overwater option as mooted here by some for FW SE. Mine are many of the 88,000 annual transits of the designated VFR route which are compromised by a commercially advantaged operation that it is my personal opinion could have been more safely located elsewhere.
I applaud any successful GA venture in these tough times, having been there and done that, but I like to think that a tad more thought could have gone into the location of this operation.
I think you choose (along with others) to be less than understanding of differing views. Please read my previous comments and don't confuse them with those made by others.
I only head NW when professionally required and use 126.7 on the rarest of occasions. Aviate, navigate, communicate was a valued lesson originally learned some 50 years ago and still holds good.
My commercial requirements have frequently, and will most likely continue to, required coastal transits along the VFR route between Melbourne city and MB in mostly SE helicopters without an overwater option as mooted here by some for FW SE. Mine are many of the 88,000 annual transits of the designated VFR route which are compromised by a commercially advantaged operation that it is my personal opinion could have been more safely located elsewhere.
I applaud any successful GA venture in these tough times, having been there and done that, but I like to think that a tad more thought could have gone into the location of this operation.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Skipton
Age: 19
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole attraction of the dropzone is the fact that it is convenient for tourists and locals alike not to mention having a nice view. Who wants to drive to the middle of nowhere for a skydive to look at paddocks? If it wasn't where it is then there simply wouldnt be a business case.
You want to know what your problem is John? You're a naysayer, a 'no' person. You're saying the dropzone shouldn't be there on the off chance somebody might clean another person up. Instead, we should play fiddle to the lowest common denominator, the small percentage of pilots who cannot use a map and radio. (CASA probably approved the danger area because they wrongfully assume flying schools are doing their jobs)
Time and time again it's been mentioned that it is a tiny bit of airspace that is occupied by the chutes for small amount of a time during the day, close to 5 minutes in the hour. If going over water is an issue then track over the Nepean. It will add .5 of a track mile to your transit. Like the old silly saying goes but I'll use it this time because its convenient for myself, if you cant afford x then you cant afford to operate!
It's really sad that you cannot be progressive and applaud a successful business idea that obviously took someone a lot of drive and determination to set up. Before you call me out for being somehow involved with this mob, I'm not. I just like seeing these guys landing and seeing reactions from people living life to the fullest. The view of chutes over St. Kilda is just about becoming iconic and the attraction really is an asset to the area.
I was thinking of throwing in an ad hominem in there somewhere but I didn't have the required IQ to conjure one up
You want to know what your problem is John? You're a naysayer, a 'no' person. You're saying the dropzone shouldn't be there on the off chance somebody might clean another person up. Instead, we should play fiddle to the lowest common denominator, the small percentage of pilots who cannot use a map and radio. (CASA probably approved the danger area because they wrongfully assume flying schools are doing their jobs)
Time and time again it's been mentioned that it is a tiny bit of airspace that is occupied by the chutes for small amount of a time during the day, close to 5 minutes in the hour. If going over water is an issue then track over the Nepean. It will add .5 of a track mile to your transit. Like the old silly saying goes but I'll use it this time because its convenient for myself, if you cant afford x then you cant afford to operate!
It's really sad that you cannot be progressive and applaud a successful business idea that obviously took someone a lot of drive and determination to set up. Before you call me out for being somehow involved with this mob, I'm not. I just like seeing these guys landing and seeing reactions from people living life to the fullest. The view of chutes over St. Kilda is just about becoming iconic and the attraction really is an asset to the area.
I was thinking of throwing in an ad hominem in there somewhere but I didn't have the required IQ to conjure one up
BL,
I guess that you missed the bit where the Nepean Highway goes through the same danger area?
Naysayer, huh. You obviously don't know me, only today I was accused of being the proof of there being old, bold pilots. But with a bit of experience comes the ability to stand back and see that inconveniencing and exposing to risk a greater number than those who actually benefit from an operation isn't always the best option.
Close to 5 minutes in the hour. How many hours a day, 8? 10? that's 40 or 50 minutes a day that other operators are expected to divert from their preferred track and increase their costs. Even more when you realise that many operators now make that a SOP since they cannot rely on knowing when a drop is to occur. The original requirement from CASA directed that drop times be NOTAM'd but this seems to have slipped by the keeper since it can be difficult for drops to always run to schedule, so a blanket NOTAM seems to be the only option.
ps Ad hom has oft been used here, but the Oz slang of 'play the ball, not the man' still holds good
I guess that you missed the bit where the Nepean Highway goes through the same danger area?
Naysayer, huh. You obviously don't know me, only today I was accused of being the proof of there being old, bold pilots. But with a bit of experience comes the ability to stand back and see that inconveniencing and exposing to risk a greater number than those who actually benefit from an operation isn't always the best option.
Close to 5 minutes in the hour. How many hours a day, 8? 10? that's 40 or 50 minutes a day that other operators are expected to divert from their preferred track and increase their costs. Even more when you realise that many operators now make that a SOP since they cannot rely on knowing when a drop is to occur. The original requirement from CASA directed that drop times be NOTAM'd but this seems to have slipped by the keeper since it can be difficult for drops to always run to schedule, so a blanket NOTAM seems to be the only option.
ps Ad hom has oft been used here, but the Oz slang of 'play the ball, not the man' still holds good
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Skipton
Age: 19
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touche, the Nepean Highway narrowly clips the danger area by the smallest of margins, its merely a good landmark to stay east of that assures being clear of the dropzone. If you were over the highway and you came anywhere remotely close to a canopy then they royaly screwed up, maybe there was a storm near by? 
I'll meet you halfway and agree with you that flying around it is an extra cost because it is a cost, for sure, albeit a small one. Just please stop spuiking the safety cr@p to push your agenda. So many people on this forum bawl their eyes out from dealing with our usually oppressive, tyrant regulator. In the approving of this drop zone they have applied some open-mindedness. You have a voice and using the safety card when it isnt warranted really is a slap in the face to a lot of people.
If you want the dropzone removed argue that its placing an unfair and unnecessary cost burden on your operations. That at least has some merit. Good luck.
I'll meet you halfway and agree with you that flying around it is an extra cost because it is a cost, for sure, albeit a small one. Just please stop spuiking the safety cr@p to push your agenda. So many people on this forum bawl their eyes out from dealing with our usually oppressive, tyrant regulator. In the approving of this drop zone they have applied some open-mindedness. You have a voice and using the safety card when it isnt warranted really is a slap in the face to a lot of people.
If you want the dropzone removed argue that its placing an unfair and unnecessary cost burden on your operations. That at least has some merit. Good luck.
Blatant liar, what happens when a student in a C172 or Warrior;
(a) Stuffs up radio frequencies and misses a jump call, or
(b) suddenly diverts into the area due cloud or mechanical malfunction or being told by Essendon tower to remain OCTA, and
(b) Melbourne Radar misses the potential conflict through workload pressure, or
(c) The jump aircraft misunderstands communications?
As pilot of the jump aircraft, you are relying on Melbourne Radar and the actions of an unknown VFR pilot to keep your jumpers safe.
My understanding of the Reason model of accident prevention is to prevent the holes in the Cheese lining up by as many means possible. What I am concerned about is that you are relying on a positive action by a VFR pilot (to divert) to keep you safe. This introduces risk because if the VFR pilot fails you are in trouble. If Melbourne radar fails you are in trouble.
The chances of both failing at the same time (holes lining up) is not zero, better if the DZ was moved.
And on a personal note, if I'm inbound for a city orbit at Albert park from Moorabbin and the Tower asks me to wait, as happens frequently, then I'm orbiting right through that drop zone. The Hobsons Bay area is already crowded and a mid air is just waiting to happen.
(a) Stuffs up radio frequencies and misses a jump call, or
(b) suddenly diverts into the area due cloud or mechanical malfunction or being told by Essendon tower to remain OCTA, and
(b) Melbourne Radar misses the potential conflict through workload pressure, or
(c) The jump aircraft misunderstands communications?
As pilot of the jump aircraft, you are relying on Melbourne Radar and the actions of an unknown VFR pilot to keep your jumpers safe.
My understanding of the Reason model of accident prevention is to prevent the holes in the Cheese lining up by as many means possible. What I am concerned about is that you are relying on a positive action by a VFR pilot (to divert) to keep you safe. This introduces risk because if the VFR pilot fails you are in trouble. If Melbourne radar fails you are in trouble.
The chances of both failing at the same time (holes lining up) is not zero, better if the DZ was moved.
And on a personal note, if I'm inbound for a city orbit at Albert park from Moorabbin and the Tower asks me to wait, as happens frequently, then I'm orbiting right through that drop zone. The Hobsons Bay area is already crowded and a mid air is just waiting to happen.
Swiss cheese Sunny, Swiss cheese.
One of the huge problems in Australia is that people want laws, not for themselves, but for other people.
You can play "what if" all you like. Like what if your boat sinks Sunny?
I don't need any rules to keep me safe, I just try to do it myself. Why don't you blokes do the same and stop trying to change stuff for other people.
Skydiving is a legitimate aviation activity, it you were trying to ban helicopters from the area because they posed a risk to skydivers it would be just as stupid. Get over it.
You can play "what if" all you like. Like what if your boat sinks Sunny?
I don't need any rules to keep me safe, I just try to do it myself. Why don't you blokes do the same and stop trying to change stuff for other people.
Skydiving is a legitimate aviation activity, it you were trying to ban helicopters from the area because they posed a risk to skydivers it would be just as stupid. Get over it.
Blatant liar, what happens when a student in a C172 or Warrior;
(a) Stuffs up radio frequencies and misses a jump call, or
(b) suddenly diverts into the area due cloud or mechanical malfunction or being told by Essendon tower to remain OCTA, and
(b) Melbourne Radar misses the potential conflict through workload pressure, or
(c) The jump aircraft misunderstands communications?
(a) Stuffs up radio frequencies and misses a jump call, or
(b) suddenly diverts into the area due cloud or mechanical malfunction or being told by Essendon tower to remain OCTA, and
(b) Melbourne Radar misses the potential conflict through workload pressure, or
(c) The jump aircraft misunderstands communications?
How about Coldstream and Tooradin where aircraft are landing on a runway that is perhaps 100 metres from the parachute landing area ???
Oh the humanity Sunfish!
Out of interest, does anyone know some numbers over the last 20 or 30 years of actual collisions between parachutists under canopy and other aircraft in Australia? Is the statistical risk any higher than it is for a mid air collision with any other fixed wing or rotary aircraft?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: AUS
Age: 39
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Students flying on a runway near parachute landings oh no. Disaster. Ban it all.
To name a few more off the top of my head Moruya, coffsharbour, innisfail, Goulburn, Tully, warnervale, Canberra (bit more than 100m but parachutes flying around and landing at the mint). Camden NSW, Maitland nsw back in the day.
To name a few more off the top of my head Moruya, coffsharbour, innisfail, Goulburn, Tully, warnervale, Canberra (bit more than 100m but parachutes flying around and landing at the mint). Camden NSW, Maitland nsw back in the day.
Oh no, Sunfish will have a conniption when he finds out that at some airfields they skydive at NIGHT, whilst low hour sausage factory students are doing circuits at this UN-controlled aerodrome! Oh the humanity 
PS: No mention of NVFR parachuting at Elwood as yet...
PS: No mention of NVFR parachuting at Elwood as yet...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: AUS
Age: 39
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish you missed point b2); what if student drops map on floor and enters inadvertent turn into imc, then jams rudder with his Swiss cheese lunch and enters the drop area.
You mentioned all the things that happen to reduce the risk of a mid air canopy aircraft collision. What is the chance of something slipping past;
1) jump plane - student radio contact. Jump pilot broadcasts twice to all freq jumpers pass through
2) melbourne atc traffic warnings
3) ground control on dropzone not seeing aircraft overhead and giving clearance
4) jump pilot not seeing aircraft
5) student pilot not seeing aircraft / canopies then no avoidance action
6) skydivers not seeing aircraft then no avoidance action
7) canopy and student in aircraft on collision course
The danger area is clearly marked on maps, students should be trained on what to do, jump pilots and atc would naturally be cautious of students transiting the area.
Once you work the chance of all that happening you can do a cost benefit analysis.
As with all activities there is only one real way to reduce all risks to zero.
But I guess you don't care about the part of GA which are all "thrill seekers and people having too much fun. There can't possibly be sensible people making a living or benefit from that. Plenty of jobs for the students that can't navigate around a danger zone in aviation going around these days".
You mentioned all the things that happen to reduce the risk of a mid air canopy aircraft collision. What is the chance of something slipping past;
1) jump plane - student radio contact. Jump pilot broadcasts twice to all freq jumpers pass through
2) melbourne atc traffic warnings
3) ground control on dropzone not seeing aircraft overhead and giving clearance
4) jump pilot not seeing aircraft
5) student pilot not seeing aircraft / canopies then no avoidance action
6) skydivers not seeing aircraft then no avoidance action
7) canopy and student in aircraft on collision course
The danger area is clearly marked on maps, students should be trained on what to do, jump pilots and atc would naturally be cautious of students transiting the area.
Once you work the chance of all that happening you can do a cost benefit analysis.
As with all activities there is only one real way to reduce all risks to zero.
But I guess you don't care about the part of GA which are all "thrill seekers and people having too much fun. There can't possibly be sensible people making a living or benefit from that. Plenty of jobs for the students that can't navigate around a danger zone in aviation going around these days".
I'm off to play hopscotch on the Monash Freeway this morning. Car drivers have been warned about the "Hopscotch zone". What could possibly go wrong?
I also occasionally fly into Tooradin, transit Nagambi and other places where skydiving takes place, I also transit Mangalore. However there is plenty of room to divert and plenty of time to think,, listen on the frequencies and plan at those locations.
What I am saying is that there is a lot going on over the Elwood/ Point Ormond area even without Skydivers and there are a lot of students in transit as well. It is also in the nature of students to make mistakes - which is why we call them students.
I also occasionally fly into Tooradin, transit Nagambi and other places where skydiving takes place, I also transit Mangalore. However there is plenty of room to divert and plenty of time to think,, listen on the frequencies and plan at those locations.
What I am saying is that there is a lot going on over the Elwood/ Point Ormond area even without Skydivers and there are a lot of students in transit as well. It is also in the nature of students to make mistakes - which is why we call them students.
I should add that probably 4-5 aircraft a day fly through the active drop zone at Tooradin on weekends, and that many again plan to but are advised by radio to keep away. Luckily the system just works....
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: AUS
Age: 39
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just ran a query with the APF office ;
There has not ever been any mid-air collision between sports parachutists (under canopy or in freefall) and transiting aircraft in Australia. For that matter, there has not been any in military ops either.
There has not ever been any mid-air collision between sports parachutists (under canopy or in freefall) and transiting aircraft in Australia. For that matter, there has not been any in military ops either.
