Elwood (melb) skydiving
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.
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.
Last edited by Dora-9; 17th Sep 2012 at 03:20.
They should not be there.
having jumped before the radio call!
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.
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.
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.
Aussie Bob - PM sent
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: australia
Age: 49
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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!
Last edited by sarge75; 17th Sep 2012 at 07:33.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Last edited by Lancair70; 17th Sep 2012 at 08:33.
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.
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.
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/_asset.../vic120419.pdf
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/_asset.../vic120419.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Up der
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
First you should approach the company conducting the operation first and see what they say.
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 -
1) assuming they follow the rules, how rigorous was the risk assessment (required by the APF to be agreed by CASA -
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
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
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).
When you live....
Thread Starter
Rubbish. There was no drop between 9am - 10am at Point Ormond on the 15th Sep.
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.....
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TBA
Age: 48
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Credit where Credit is Due
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!
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!
It's the bandits that don't communicate that create a greater risk
Captainnobars
these guys make broadcast on five different frequencies, of which only two are required of them
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
(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)
Last edited by VH-XXX; 18th Sep 2012 at 13:37.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Squeaks; 18th Sep 2012 at 23:58.
When you live....
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
VH-XXX - if you could fly a drifter in this area I would expect that you'd automatically track clear of the Danger area.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: FNQ
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!)
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!)
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: FNQ
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 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.
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.
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?'
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?'
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?'
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.