Elwood (melb) skydiving
and it would be good if the VFR route was amended to avoid D342
The VFR route is where it is for good reason: ease of navigation, off built up areas, and beaches to potentially land on in the event of engine failure.
Move it out to sea and you have aircraft at low level over water with all the safety issues that entails. Move it inland and there will be environmental issues with noise and mixing with EN<>MB traffic.
I'm surprised no ones mentioned as well the the drop zone isn't marked on VTCs
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<quote> No-one has mentioned it because it is on the charts as a Danger Area with symbol (since either June or November last year). </quote>
Hahahaha my point proven, thank you
Hahahaha my point proven, thank you
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack - they don't normally jump during cloudy weather - I assume they don't have a cloud manual - and if they do, I'd love to see the risk assessment....
It's bizarre in fact!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again Ik
Of course it's marked and one look at the chart shows the coastal VFR route running through it. It also shows just how close it is to the Albert Park reporting point for Essendon entry and in the direct line between MMB and APL.
I appreciate the business attraction tha strip of waterfront represents for jumpers but it still seems a ridiculous safety risk to me.
Who will pay if there is a collision? What if people on the ground are also casualties? The jump pilot and his employer, the dead pilots insurer, ASA...who?
What a dogs breakfast it will be and won't we all, pilots and parachutists, feel the heat from concerned residents driven by an out-of-control media?
I can imagine my colleagues in civil law salivating at the prospects...
Kaz
Of course it's marked and one look at the chart shows the coastal VFR route running through it. It also shows just how close it is to the Albert Park reporting point for Essendon entry and in the direct line between MMB and APL.
I appreciate the business attraction tha strip of waterfront represents for jumpers but it still seems a ridiculous safety risk to me.
Who will pay if there is a collision? What if people on the ground are also casualties? The jump pilot and his employer, the dead pilots insurer, ASA...who?
What a dogs breakfast it will be and won't we all, pilots and parachutists, feel the heat from concerned residents driven by an out-of-control media?
I can imagine my colleagues in civil law salivating at the prospects...
Kaz
No-one has mentioned it because it is on the charts as a Danger Area with symbol (since either June or November last year).
Who will pay if there is a collision? What if people on the ground are also casualties? The jump pilot and his employer, the dead pilots insurer, ASA...who?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the question posed earlier, would a skydiver be able to hear an approaching aircraft ?
In my limited experience (7-8 canopy descents) absolutely you could hear one coming while under parachute, its amazing what you can hear up there with nothing to deaden sound between you and the source, traffic on the ground and aircraft flying nearby easily. Ive heard tandem passengers screaming under canopy from the ground many times. (My house is less than a mile from the the local DZ)
In my limited experience (7-8 canopy descents) absolutely you could hear one coming while under parachute, its amazing what you can hear up there with nothing to deaden sound between you and the source, traffic on the ground and aircraft flying nearby easily. Ive heard tandem passengers screaming under canopy from the ground many times. (My house is less than a mile from the the local DZ)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greta
Age: 67
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on where the aircraft is in relation to the jumper. If the aircraft is above me i can usually hear it. Below and more often not. Either way if you are at the same level it has come and gone before you hear it and then see it. You do hear it very clearly in close quarters situation as it goes past. Have had two close (couple of hundred meters) passes at near same level with 'weekend warriors' following the freeway at Picton. One real scary with a glider at Corowa along with 30 other jumpers as he thermalled up into us.
his fault not talking and should not have been over head the airport as per notam. He came from deep within Vic.
Back to thread WKD pilot says they do have 'cloud op' for there.
his fault not talking and should not have been over head the airport as per notam. He came from deep within Vic.
Back to thread WKD pilot says they do have 'cloud op' for there.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: melbourne
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the best of my knowledge this is how it all works;
CASA - didn't approve they can only disapprove if all the criteria isn't met, if the operator ticks all the right boxes they can operate
ASA - can't disapprove but can only delay due traffic
Local council - can approve or disapprove.
VFR lane traffic, not all have two radios, not all are on the correct frequency (at all or when the broadcast is made)
If you fly through, be aware there could be parachutists. If you jump be aware there could be aircraft that have no idea you a there
CASA - didn't approve they can only disapprove if all the criteria isn't met, if the operator ticks all the right boxes they can operate
ASA - can't disapprove but can only delay due traffic
Local council - can approve or disapprove.
VFR lane traffic, not all have two radios, not all are on the correct frequency (at all or when the broadcast is made)
If you fly through, be aware there could be parachutists. If you jump be aware there could be aircraft that have no idea you a there
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 40
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can fill in a couple of details to make sure everyone has the facts.
The plane operates VFR and IFR depending on the prevailing weather.
There should generally be no approaches done as cloud is above MVA
There is radar to the ground so traffic is always seen.
The operator has a cloud manual
If jumping through cloud you may not get a view the entire time but you will for the entire canopy ride which is completely clear of cloud
There will be always pressure from operators to get the job done no mater what. Its up to the pilot to have the sack to follow the rules and fly safe
There was a risk assesment to get the cloud manual.
The main thing that needs to be highlighted here is communication. If you are in the lane from laverton BOM tower or rickets point. Just communicate. If you can't divert around during a drop for whatever reason the pilot will just wait. The main thing is awareness not just for parachutists but for other aircraft in the lane.
Broadcasts are made on 123.0, 135.7, 132.1, 129.4 and by EN TWR on 125.1.
Safe flying!!!
The plane operates VFR and IFR depending on the prevailing weather.
There should generally be no approaches done as cloud is above MVA
There is radar to the ground so traffic is always seen.
The operator has a cloud manual
If jumping through cloud you may not get a view the entire time but you will for the entire canopy ride which is completely clear of cloud
There will be always pressure from operators to get the job done no mater what. Its up to the pilot to have the sack to follow the rules and fly safe
There was a risk assesment to get the cloud manual.
The main thing that needs to be highlighted here is communication. If you are in the lane from laverton BOM tower or rickets point. Just communicate. If you can't divert around during a drop for whatever reason the pilot will just wait. The main thing is awareness not just for parachutists but for other aircraft in the lane.
Broadcasts are made on 123.0, 135.7, 132.1, 129.4 and by EN TWR on 125.1.
Safe flying!!!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skydivers Coastal Route
There are some things that are certain in life, one of them is during a busy segment of a CPL test the meat bombers will will advise that they are going to drop where you want to be flying. Will always be thankful for the switched on YMEN Tower controller who greatly assisted with the diversion.
There is radar to the ground so traffic is always seen.
Traffic is not always seen.
When you live....
Thread Starter
At it again
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
So apart from the lunacy of having parachutes so close to busy traffic lanes and Class D reporting point, I thought:
1. they had to be under canopy by 3000' AGL; and
2. they have to be out of the cloud before the chutes open.
I can't see how they accomplished both of these...
Not to mention that from 3000' I can't image they have much ability to track for the DZ if the drop is slightly off target or the winds not as expected. Given they're aiming for a football oval with houses/roads/trees/powerlines one side and the ocean on the other, doesn't seem to be the wisest option.
I believe it's only a matter of time before something goes wrong with this operation....
UTR
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
So apart from the lunacy of having parachutes so close to busy traffic lanes and Class D reporting point, I thought:
1. they had to be under canopy by 3000' AGL; and
2. they have to be out of the cloud before the chutes open.
I can't see how they accomplished both of these...
Not to mention that from 3000' I can't image they have much ability to track for the DZ if the drop is slightly off target or the winds not as expected. Given they're aiming for a football oval with houses/roads/trees/powerlines one side and the ocean on the other, doesn't seem to be the wisest option.
I believe it's only a matter of time before something goes wrong with this operation....
UTR
you just flew through a drop zone at 500 feet after you were specifically told to divert around or hold 3 miles clear.
It is Class G airspace up to and including 2500, and even radio and transponder are not mandatory. If you weren't aware of this, that is a problem.
And you seem to have missed the point UnderneathTheRadar was making -
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the biggest fears from my experience is when things go wrong and they land in the water. It only takes a bit of wind and some cloud and things can go horribly wrong.
My concern about Elwood is that its has:
sightseeing VFR traffic (possibly without TXP)
Traffic entering the MB Class D zone
Transiting VFR (possibly without TXP)
IFR traffic either using the aid at MB or transiting
Approaching that point, traffic can be on MB tower, ML radar, ML departures or possibly ML CTR.
It is an area of busy and complex transitional airspace. I've had a couple of instances of concern with the drop plane when I've been on IFR descent. The canopies might be in class G, but the drop occurs in Class C after departing in class D.
I think UTR's concern is that they appear to be less than meticulous about following the rules.
sightseeing VFR traffic (possibly without TXP)
Traffic entering the MB Class D zone
Transiting VFR (possibly without TXP)
IFR traffic either using the aid at MB or transiting
Approaching that point, traffic can be on MB tower, ML radar, ML departures or possibly ML CTR.
It is an area of busy and complex transitional airspace. I've had a couple of instances of concern with the drop plane when I've been on IFR descent. The canopies might be in class G, but the drop occurs in Class C after departing in class D.
I think UTR's concern is that they appear to be less than meticulous about following the rules.
You think it's only Melbourne?
Pilotshute, what about the idiots who drop in the circuit at Caboolture? It can be a busy weekend, but they just announce and drop with absolutely no waiting until the area is clear. Nobody seems to be able or willing to do anything about them, an accident waiting to happen I'd have thought....
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My concern about Elwood is that its has:
sightseeing VFR traffic (possibly without TXP)
Traffic entering the MB Class D zone
Transiting VFR (possibly without TXP)
IFR traffic either using the aid at MB or transiting
Approaching that point, traffic can be on MB tower, ML radar, ML departures or possibly ML CTR.
It is an area of busy and complex transitional airspace. I've had a couple of instances of concern with the drop plane when I've been on IFR descent. The canopies might be in class G, but the drop occurs in Class C after departing in class D.
I think UTR's concern is that they appear to be less than meticulous about following the rules.
sightseeing VFR traffic (possibly without TXP)
Traffic entering the MB Class D zone
Transiting VFR (possibly without TXP)
IFR traffic either using the aid at MB or transiting
Approaching that point, traffic can be on MB tower, ML radar, ML departures or possibly ML CTR.
It is an area of busy and complex transitional airspace. I've had a couple of instances of concern with the drop plane when I've been on IFR descent. The canopies might be in class G, but the drop occurs in Class C after departing in class D.
I think UTR's concern is that they appear to be less than meticulous about following the rules.
Met
I would go even further than pilotchute and point out that parachutes are aircraft. They were invented before aeroplanes and are a part of our industry.
If you don't like parachuting give up aviation.
Dora9 I think you will find that they are dropped inside the circuit so they can land on the aerodrome. Use your eyes.
If you don't like parachuting give up aviation.
Dora9 I think you will find that they are dropped inside the circuit so they can land on the aerodrome. Use your eyes.
When you live....
Thread Starter
Pilotchute
Nothing wrong with skydiving and I've been jump pilot in a couple of DZs as well as having jumped myself. Seeing as you're very quick to point out reporting and nasty letters, do the following quotes from the APF Advisory/CAAP152 warrant any action in your expert opinion?
(my bold)
How does jumping into Class G with a solid 3200' base combined with the consistent METARs of BKN3200 at MB constitute public safety? exactly?
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 -
)?
2) they clearly are not following the rules on frequent occasions.
Your logic that because it happens everywhere, it must be ok seems odd. Your assertion that everyone will be directed to remain clear is a little concerning....
UTR.
Nothing wrong with skydiving and I've been jump pilot in a couple of DZs as well as having jumped myself. Seeing as you're very quick to point out reporting and nasty letters, do the following quotes from the APF Advisory/CAAP152 warrant any action in your expert opinion?
Opening Height means the height at which the parachutist activates the main parachute. (Not to be confused with the height at which the parachute canopy opens). The parachute must be opened by 1800ft AGL except that on a tandem descent the parachute must be open by 4000ft AGL.
Cloud ceiling means the height above the ground or water of the base of the lowest layer of cloud below 20,000FT covering more than one-half of the sky.
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 -
Where a risk is identified, the applicant, APF and CASA must reach agreement on the level of risk.
2) they clearly are not following the rules on frequent occasions.
Your logic that because it happens everywhere, it must be ok seems odd. Your assertion that everyone will be directed to remain clear is a little concerning....
UTR.