Worrying Application for a DropZone SW of Popham
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a point if anyone is reading this and thinking that we all sound a bit anti-parachuting, being NIMBYS etc etc...
In general I'm sure we are all supportive of parachuting and would welcome new drop zones in the same spirit that any increase in general aviation activity is welcome. It is just that in this specific location that has been suggested, one that I at least am very familiar with, it is potentially a bit dangerous. I note the usage outlined in the consultation document but even so the level of traffic there is already quite high and adding parachuting to the mix doesn't seem sensible. I wish the applicant the best of luck in starting a new drop zone, just not in that specific place.
Just the other day despite having a Traffic Info service from Boscombe and being about 500ft within the Middle Wallop MATZ I still came uncomfortably close to a glider that appeared to be transiting above Middle Wallop...but clearly not talking to them. That's another story I guess but my point is that there is a lot of traffic around there...
In general I'm sure we are all supportive of parachuting and would welcome new drop zones in the same spirit that any increase in general aviation activity is welcome. It is just that in this specific location that has been suggested, one that I at least am very familiar with, it is potentially a bit dangerous. I note the usage outlined in the consultation document but even so the level of traffic there is already quite high and adding parachuting to the mix doesn't seem sensible. I wish the applicant the best of luck in starting a new drop zone, just not in that specific place.
Just the other day despite having a Traffic Info service from Boscombe and being about 500ft within the Middle Wallop MATZ I still came uncomfortably close to a glider that appeared to be transiting above Middle Wallop...but clearly not talking to them. That's another story I guess but my point is that there is a lot of traffic around there...
Originally Posted by Jim59 
Has anybody deduced why he wants two overlapping drop zones?
Two different landing points.
G
Has anybody deduced why he wants two overlapping drop zones?
Two different landing points.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is this consultation lasting only 4 weeks, when the government guidelines are: Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible?
http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf
http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Age: 39
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just want to through my 2 cents worth in. As an ATPL holder with coming on 3000 hours, and experience with flying skydivers, many of the comments that have been posted I think are done so without proper knowledge of how the operation works.
To say that there is no see and avoid is rediculous. On every aircraft is a jump master that observes the DZ prior to drop to ensure there are no aircraft in the area. In addition to that there is a DZ controller that is on the ground in constant communication with the aircraft that also will not approve the drop until the area is clear.
Now as good pilots anyone in the area will be monitoring the frequency as they pass so they too can communicate with the dropzone and the pilot to lease with each other. Now with good airmanship either the jump aircraft can hold to let an aircraft pass or an aircraft can hold to allow a drop. Very simple!
I have information on this dropzone and there is not two landing sites only one. The reason for two sites is that due to controlled airspace higher up. The DZ has to be seperated at an altitude as to keep clear of the class A higher up.
This "one man band" is not some cowboy that fancies a go at business he is a highly experienced skydiver and a well educated man. Second to that, hes a nice guy which is why he is inviting all comments to be sent to him. It is impossible to please everyone but if he is willing to communicate with any parties concerned it shows that he is at least trying to please as many people as possible.
There is never a good place to start an operation like this as there is always going to be someone that objects. For the business to be viable it needs good access and transport so cannot be placed in the middle of nowhere.
London Tandem Skydive is exactly what it says it is "Tandem Skydiving" this means there are no rookies jumping out of aeroplanes. These guys know what they are doing and are very aware of the general aviation around them.
I wish him luck and encourage everyone to email him with your concerns rather than post here and speculate as to what may be going on
To say that there is no see and avoid is rediculous. On every aircraft is a jump master that observes the DZ prior to drop to ensure there are no aircraft in the area. In addition to that there is a DZ controller that is on the ground in constant communication with the aircraft that also will not approve the drop until the area is clear.
Now as good pilots anyone in the area will be monitoring the frequency as they pass so they too can communicate with the dropzone and the pilot to lease with each other. Now with good airmanship either the jump aircraft can hold to let an aircraft pass or an aircraft can hold to allow a drop. Very simple!
I have information on this dropzone and there is not two landing sites only one. The reason for two sites is that due to controlled airspace higher up. The DZ has to be seperated at an altitude as to keep clear of the class A higher up.
This "one man band" is not some cowboy that fancies a go at business he is a highly experienced skydiver and a well educated man. Second to that, hes a nice guy which is why he is inviting all comments to be sent to him. It is impossible to please everyone but if he is willing to communicate with any parties concerned it shows that he is at least trying to please as many people as possible.
There is never a good place to start an operation like this as there is always going to be someone that objects. For the business to be viable it needs good access and transport so cannot be placed in the middle of nowhere.
London Tandem Skydive is exactly what it says it is "Tandem Skydiving" this means there are no rookies jumping out of aeroplanes. These guys know what they are doing and are very aware of the general aviation around them.
I wish him luck and encourage everyone to email him with your concerns rather than post here and speculate as to what may be going on
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Has anyone on the forum discussed the proposal directly with Mr Ivory?
Following along the lines of 'Contacttower', I think posters should restrain themselves to replying with objective and factual comments, rather then personal snides i.e. 'Looks like someone cashing in on the "Charity Jump" trade'.
This is clearly someone wanting to establish a new GA/Skydive business, which we as pilots we should encourage to succeed. With some proper advice and feedback from some of the more experienced members, Mr. Ivory might be able to select a more suitable dropzone. Would be nice if we could help someone, before being forced into defensive action.
Following along the lines of 'Contacttower', I think posters should restrain themselves to replying with objective and factual comments, rather then personal snides i.e. 'Looks like someone cashing in on the "Charity Jump" trade'.
This is clearly someone wanting to establish a new GA/Skydive business, which we as pilots we should encourage to succeed. With some proper advice and feedback from some of the more experienced members, Mr. Ivory might be able to select a more suitable dropzone. Would be nice if we could help someone, before being forced into defensive action.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that the reason for the two drop zones into one landing site is linked to the ceiling (as limited by Q41, which starts at FL065). The temp section of Q41 to the west of the landing zone means that during times when this is inactive, a jump from FL120 may be possible. But it's never possible directly over the planned landing site.
On this basis, I would imagine that the western jump zone would only be active when weather (wind) and Q41 allow. This is just a guess, I don't know the area well and so far I've never jumped out of an aeroplane. Maybe someone who knows more can clarify, perhaps even Mr Ivory?
On this basis, I would imagine that the western jump zone would only be active when weather (wind) and Q41 allow. This is just a guess, I don't know the area well and so far I've never jumped out of an aeroplane. Maybe someone who knows more can clarify, perhaps even Mr Ivory?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish him luck and encourage everyone to email him with your concerns rather than post here and speculate as to what may be going on
I hear what you say Barefoot, but that really is not the impression given.
This "well educated man" has produced an incredibly weak consultation document, that is far less than it needs to be. To pick just two obvious weaknesses: (1) he hasn't used aeronautical charts, and (2) there are numerous local flying organisations not being consulted. Compare his document to the much larger and more robust document produced by Cranfield over a very uncontentious instrument approach onto 03.
He clearly hasn't consulted with people who know that flying area well - since anybody who does (and I've been flying in that area for about 20 years) can see various places that a DZ could be placed at no nuisance to anybody. For example along the south edge of D127, or the NE corner of D126.
But in a location that is already a chokepoint for local traffic, and there is a great deal of non-radio non-transponder traffic (microlights from Chilbolton and Popham, gliders from Lasham and Rivar Hill, traffic from half a dozen very nearby farmstrips), and a great deal of student traffic (Apaches from Wallop, UAS from Boscombe, GA from Thruxton, microlights from Popham, gliders from Lasham)... And traffic that may be talking to Southampton, Bournemouth, Boscombe, Popham, Thruxton, Safetycom, microlight general frequency - all in the same airspace....
There's also no actual evidence of either Popham or Hinton's agreement to the involvement he's stated they'll have in the operation, and that makes me somewhat suspicious.
He'll get I'm sure a lot of intelligent comment from many sources - this thread and discussions elsewhere have ensured that everybody in that area now knows about it and will be commenting. Almost certainly however there will be a near-unanimous rejection of the proposal.
The problem then however is that he's shot himself in the foot. He will probably get helpful and intelligent suggestions and offers of advice, and if he has any sense he will use them. The problem however is that this "consultation" gives the strong impression that he's a dangerous idiot, and he will probably now have to work for years to get rid of that impression.
Hopefully he'll succeed in doing so, and in establishing a location that is safe and sensible, and the co-operation of the local flying organisations. But, he's got a fair bit of work to do now to undo the damage he's done to himself so far.
G
This "well educated man" has produced an incredibly weak consultation document, that is far less than it needs to be. To pick just two obvious weaknesses: (1) he hasn't used aeronautical charts, and (2) there are numerous local flying organisations not being consulted. Compare his document to the much larger and more robust document produced by Cranfield over a very uncontentious instrument approach onto 03.
He clearly hasn't consulted with people who know that flying area well - since anybody who does (and I've been flying in that area for about 20 years) can see various places that a DZ could be placed at no nuisance to anybody. For example along the south edge of D127, or the NE corner of D126.
But in a location that is already a chokepoint for local traffic, and there is a great deal of non-radio non-transponder traffic (microlights from Chilbolton and Popham, gliders from Lasham and Rivar Hill, traffic from half a dozen very nearby farmstrips), and a great deal of student traffic (Apaches from Wallop, UAS from Boscombe, GA from Thruxton, microlights from Popham, gliders from Lasham)... And traffic that may be talking to Southampton, Bournemouth, Boscombe, Popham, Thruxton, Safetycom, microlight general frequency - all in the same airspace....
There's also no actual evidence of either Popham or Hinton's agreement to the involvement he's stated they'll have in the operation, and that makes me somewhat suspicious.
He'll get I'm sure a lot of intelligent comment from many sources - this thread and discussions elsewhere have ensured that everybody in that area now knows about it and will be commenting. Almost certainly however there will be a near-unanimous rejection of the proposal.
The problem then however is that he's shot himself in the foot. He will probably get helpful and intelligent suggestions and offers of advice, and if he has any sense he will use them. The problem however is that this "consultation" gives the strong impression that he's a dangerous idiot, and he will probably now have to work for years to get rid of that impression.
Hopefully he'll succeed in doing so, and in establishing a location that is safe and sensible, and the co-operation of the local flying organisations. But, he's got a fair bit of work to do now to undo the damage he's done to himself so far.
G
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This "well educated man" has produced an incredibly weak consultation document, that is far less than it needs to be. To pick just two obvious weaknesses: (1) he hasn't used aeronautical charts, and (2) there are numerous local flying organisations not being consulted.
To say that there is no see and avoid is rediculous. On every aircraft is a jump master that observes the DZ prior to drop to ensure there are no aircraft in the area. In addition to that there is a DZ controller that is on the ground in constant communication with the aircraft that also will not approve the drop until the area is clear.
The issue of monitoring the drop zone frequency is also complicated by the fact that it appears to be partially inside the Middle Wallop MATZ stub and also very close to Solent's airspace.
My essential view as that on the face of it, as much as I'd encourage the guy in general, that this place is not really suitable. I'll send him my views though and I guess we'll see what happens when his consultation period (which I agree is a bit short) is over. I'll also be inquiring as to the views of Thruxton as well since I've been a member there for a while now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back in the real world
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
many of the comments that have been posted I think are done so without proper knowledge of how the operation works.
Now as good pilots anyone in the area will be monitoring the frequency as they pass so they too can communicate with the dropzone and the pilot to lease with each other.
it shows that he is at least trying to please as many people as possible.
Like many of those who've commented, I'm fully in support of all types of air sport ... but this proposal would introduce an unacceptable danger to those taking part and to other users of the sky.
This is a very busy patch of sky with a mix of gliders, light aircraft, and microlights squeezing past the Northern end of the Solent zone. Add-in a mix of military aircraft of various types (mostly rotary these days), the various civil flight schools in the area, the odd maintenance flight into Lasham, and the Solent arrivals and departures and it's hard to think of a worse place to propose a DZ. Also, having experience of the way parachute aircraft are sometimes flown, I think the Popham pilot residents may not be too pleased should this come to pass - the local non-pilots will certainly not appreciate the extra noise.
I will be writing to the proposer, the CAA, and if necessary my MP.
HFD
(Who has considerable personal experience of flying and gliding around the area as an instructor and examiner)
This is a very busy patch of sky with a mix of gliders, light aircraft, and microlights squeezing past the Northern end of the Solent zone. Add-in a mix of military aircraft of various types (mostly rotary these days), the various civil flight schools in the area, the odd maintenance flight into Lasham, and the Solent arrivals and departures and it's hard to think of a worse place to propose a DZ. Also, having experience of the way parachute aircraft are sometimes flown, I think the Popham pilot residents may not be too pleased should this come to pass - the local non-pilots will certainly not appreciate the extra noise.
I will be writing to the proposer, the CAA, and if necessary my MP.
HFD
(Who has considerable personal experience of flying and gliding around the area as an instructor and examiner)
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I sent off an email to the guy today as it was the last day of his consultation. Essentially made two points, firstly that due to the nature of the area a drop zone would channel a large amount of traffic into a very small space and secondly that considering the multiple traffic types, frequencies involved etc it would be a higher than normal risk of drop zone infringement than at other sites.
I guess we'll wait and see...
I guess we'll wait and see...
Yes.
I contributed to a response on behalf of a local organisation. Anybody who wants our (fairly detailed and critical) views, PM me your email address and I'll ask the primary author to send you a copy.
G
I contributed to a response on behalf of a local organisation. Anybody who wants our (fairly detailed and critical) views, PM me your email address and I'll ask the primary author to send you a copy.
G