2 skydivers (tandem) killed when their chute fails to open

I operate at several fields that have DZ activities and generally I've found cooperation between their activities and others (even at fields which pretty much are controlled by the DZ). I've made small requests at some (One field was parking their jump plane, while off the taxiway, was close enough that wing tips of larger aircraft which hang over the taxiway were causeing problems. A quick email solved this). I've voluntarily got out of the way of jump runs when flying IFR (ZTL are they jumping at Swan Creek today? How about I deviate ten degrees left to not over fly them?).

Of course we have in my area one rogue operation. They routinely bust the FARs in their jumping and it's dangerous to be flying in a rather congested airpspace (less than 3 miles from a major VOR) when they won't obey the rules with reporting jumps to ATC, etc...
 
Everskyward said:
It's pretty stupid to assume all DZ pilots behave in the same way, just at it's stupid to imply that non-paid pilots shouldn't talk about the "airmanship" of paid ones.
Click to expand...
Thank you, very true.

I don't know of anyone at our airport who dislikes our dropzone. I am professional in how I conduct business and I don't have some magical right of way because I fly for a living. That's a dumb thing to say.
 
Dropzone with only one radio dropping skydivers from 10.5k without warning the pattern until they are already in it? I stood outside with the handheld warning traffic on the CTAF when i was on shift. Had a handful of close calls even then... Another radio was apparently too much weight.


Lots of other things wrong but that was what bothered me the most.
 
It is nice that the jump plane pilot is such a good pilot and can do such amazing things with his aircraft.

I find it disquieting when the jump plane pilot doesn’t use the radio and skydivers rain down on me un-announced.

I find it disquieting when the jump plane pilot doesn’t use the radio and makes a nonstandard pattern entry and steep approach to land.

I would prefer that the jump plane pilot use the radio to announce jumpers away and at least their final approach when making a steep nonstandard entry to the pattern.

There are many jump plane pilots who are very professional and some not so professional.

I have never flown into Lodi so I don’t know what they are like there.
 
Based on where you fly, if you're talking about LPC, last I was there they make all their radio calls both to SB APP and on the local ctaf, as far as nonstandard entry, it's legal and it's money. As far as DZs go, if you're talking the one I think you are, they are probably one of the best run DZs out there.



Tampico Trauma said:
So a CPL is a good excuse to taxi onto an active runway while someone is on short final, using the CTAF?

I hate to pick this battle, because I'm only a 220hr PPL who uses his plane to commute to work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's not exactly what you said before, there is a difference between nosing up to the active and causing a runway incursion.

My comment on airmanship is just based on hearing 172 drivers complain about, well number one; a non standard pattern entry, frankly being on the clock and having to make time, unless it works out heading wise you aren't likely to see working planes doing the standard flight school taught pattern, or calling every single leg of the pattern and wearing out PTT buttons.

For the most part it's a non issue and everyone gets along, my comment merely addressed the low time weekend warrior gods who like to have a fit any time someone doesn't enter the pattern the way they life, or doesn't us the radio to their liking at a uncontrolled field.

Flip side, yeah, there are some working pilots who do dumb chit too, if Lodi did cause a real runway incursion. I would, for sure, light them up too.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
My comment on airmanship is just based on hearing 172 drivers complain about, well number one; a non standard pattern entry, frankly being on the clock and having to make time, unless it works out heading wise you aren't likely to see working planes doing the standard flight school taught pattern, or calling every single leg of the pattern and wearing out PTT buttons.
Click to expand...

Got it, push to talk buttons and being on the clock are both great reasons to ignore and degrade safety. I mean, airline captains aren't ever on the clock or in a rush to get to their destinations like the smaller guys right?

"or doesn't us the radio to their liking at a uncontrolled field"

So you're saying that just dropping skydivers into a traffic pattern with aircraft in it without telling them is a great way to maintain safety?
 
Mike Smith said:
Someone said over on the Red board that the primary chute fouled and the guy deployed the reserve before cutting loose (or whatever you do to get rid of) the main, fouling both.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like it. Extremely rare, like almost non-existent that both fail to open. Especially in a tandem rig where you're dragging a drogue chute behind you.

Regarding stats and safety, worldwide there are a couple million jumps made every year. The worldwide skydiving community loses about 20 people a year, give or take. I'd say half of those kill themselves under perfectly operating canopies by doing something stupid. So parachute failures and the like a pretty uncommon, but they do happen.

The story says the 'veteran' tandem instructor had 700 jumps. That means he was pretty new to the TI game. You need 500 minimum jumps to get a TI rating, at least at a USPA DZ, which Lodi may not be. Either way 700 jumps is not a 'highly experienced instructor', IMO.
 
JCranford said:
That sounds more like it. Extremely rare, like almost non-existent that both fail to open. Especially in a tandem rig where you're dragging a drogue chute behind you.

Regarding stats and safety, worldwide there are a couple million jumps made every year. The worldwide skydiving community loses about 20 people a year, give or take. I'd say half of those kill themselves under perfectly operating canopies by doing something stupid. So parachute failures and the like a pretty uncommon, but they do happen.

The story says the 'veteran' tandem instructor had 700 jumps. That means he was pretty new to the TI game. You need 500 minimum jumps to get a TI rating, at least at a USPA DZ, which Lodi may not be. Either way 700 jumps is not a 'highly experienced instructor', IMO.
Click to expand...
Maybe he had served in the military? Different definition of veteran.
 
While Lodi does call Norcal when they drop, my experience is that beyond that, there are no radio calls for standard air ops.

I don't give a flying fark about standard traffic patterns if you're at least making your intentions known.

I take the same issue with Crop Dusters as well.

Now if you're going to fly a standard pattern and not use the radio (because it's legal to do so at an uncontrolled field) you might get a little more sympathy. But like the day the Twin Otter took off on 30 while I was on downwind for 26.... Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.

Back to the topic though. It pains me to see someone lose their life anywhere in the aviation world. I hope this is more human error than a reflection of a systemic problem with the operation. The caravan crash was a situation that resulted in a great deal of luck for those involved and could have ended a lot worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tampico Trauma said:
While Lodi does call Norcal when they drop, my experience is that beyond that, there are no radio calls for standard air ops.

I don't give a flying fark about standard traffic patterns if you're at least making your intentions known.

I take the same issue with Crop Dusters as well.

Now if you're going to fly a standard pattern and not use the radio (because it's legal to do so at an uncontrolled field) you might get a little more sympathy. But like the day the Twin Otter took off on 30 while I was on downwind for 26.... Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.

Back to the topic though. It pains me to see someone lose their life anywhere in the aviation world. I hope this is more human error than a reflection of a systemic problem with the operation. The caravan crash was a situation that resulted in a great deal of luck for those involved and could have ended a lot worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


He took off when you were on downwind?

What's wrong with that?
 
Nothing...except it was an intersecting runway and he cut in front of me about 100' below and less than 1000' in front of me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So you saw him taking off, a possible conflict, and continued?
 
Your point is?

The PIC of the Twin Otter took off on an intersecting runway while I was established on downwind. Once again, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe nor right.

Sorry, I'll go back to being an inferior PPL and let the big boys rule the skies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dans2992 said:
To what do we attribute the increased safety? Are AADs mandatory now?

They were just a "good idea" 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

AADs dramatically reduced the 'no chute' type accidents. Skydivers made up for it with increased numbers of landing accidents. For a while it was a sign of manliness to jump with smaller and smaller chutes. The higher wing-loading made them fun to fly. It did however require maneuvering close to the ground to gain enough speed to be able to flare. A minor miscalculation would typically buy you the signature tib-fib fracture of at least one leg. A major miscalculation or an in-flight collision with another skydiver frequently ended deadly. For a while, the net number remained stable. Better training and more maturity in community eventually allowed the numbers to come down.
 
Tampico Trauma said:
Your point is?

The PIC of the Twin Otter took off on an intersecting runway while I was established on downwind. Once again, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe nor right.

Sorry, I'll go back to being an inferior PPL and let the big boys rule the skies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Trying to understand the problem. Did you expect him to wait 3 minutes until you landed and cleared the runway?
 
His upwind leg took him right in front of me while I was on downwind. I was using 26 (along with every other a/c except him). He was using 30.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So... If he could have possibly delayed his takeoff an additional 20 seconds until I was past his upwind leg and/or used that little red button on his yoke it could have prevented a seat soiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tampico Trauma said:
So... If he could have possibly delayed his takeoff an additional 20 seconds until I was past his upwind leg and/or used that little red button on his yoke it could have prevented a seat soiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you didn't see him on the ground?

or on his takeoff run?

I don't understand how this was a seat soiling event.

And 20sec? Please, most GA take FOREVER to fly a pattern, and with 15 jumpers and a pilot in a hot sweaty plane, burning jet fuel x2, you're on downwind, yeah I'd launch too
 
Clearly you're missing the point. I saw him as he was CLIMBING INTO MY FLIGHT PATH.

You obviously can't comprehend that he has any culpability for his actions of taking off from an intersecting runway directly in front of another airplane.

Clearly, I was 100% in the wrong for not leaving the pattern and yielding to the almighty meat rocket dropper until he was clear of the pattern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tampico Trauma said:
Clearly you're missing the point. I saw him as he was CLIMBING INTO MY FLIGHT PATH.

You obviously can't comprehend that he has any culpability for his actions of taking off from an intersecting runway directly in front of another airplane.

Clearly, I was 100% in the wrong for not leaving the pattern and yielding to the almighty meat rocket dropper until he was clear of the pattern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Correct!

If you saw another aircraft, a traffic conflict, and being aware of that you allowed yourself to get within 100'??

Tampico Trauma said:
...100' below and less than 1000' in front of me...
Click to expand...

Yes, you were completely in the wrong, for all you know he could have had a comms issue and not seen you, you saw him but didn't take safe evasive actions and allowed your aircraft to get within 100'. No Bueno
 
Last edited:
Exactly TT. Some ******** in a turbine who wants to cut up traffic in the pattern is always in the right because he's a "professional pilot", y'know. No-one else is even entitled to an opinion!
 
Katamarino said:
Exactly TT. Some ******** in a turbine who wants to cut up traffic in the pattern is always in the right because he's a "professional pilot", y'know. No-one else is even entitled to an opinion!
Click to expand...

Yeah!!! So create a traffic conflict, you'll show em'!


What's the worse that could happen lol
 
It's entertaining to see you openly fabricate things to try and defend your hotshot drop-pilot buddy, but I'm not sure what it proves. It's pretty clear from reading TT's posts that he saw the guy as he cut across his path, 1,000ft (not 100ft) ahead. Given the relative performance of an SEP vs a twin turbine, what's he going to do at that point?
 
James331 said:
Correct!

If you saw another aircraft, a traffic conflict, and being aware of that you allowed yourself to get within 100'??



Yes, you were completely in the wrong, for all you know he could have had a comms issue and not seen you, you saw him but didn't take safe evasive actions and allowed your aircraft to get within 100'. No Bueno
Click to expand...

Your logic/arrogance could get yourself and someone killed.

My choice was to turn right, which would put me pointing right towards him, left which is still a collision course, or push the power to it and climb...which is what I did.

Here's a cute picture to illustrate, feel free to continue to prove me wrong.
b9087724c5e87104a4683ef2468fab2e.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Also continuing from the earlier point, it's like saying taxi/bus drivers have places to be and can't be expected or shouldn't have to use turn signals or obey traffic lights. Because you might break a turn signal from using it too often...

PS love the diagram BTW
 
Tampico Trauma said:
Your logic/arrogance could get yourself and someone killed.

My choice was to turn right, which would put me pointing right towards him, left which is still a collision course, or push the power to it and climb...which is what I did.

Here's a cute picture to illustrate, feel free to continue to prove me wrong.
b9087724c5e87104a4683ef2468fab2e.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories-
 
weilke said:
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories-
Click to expand...

Yes, per the law, the jump plane had the right of way. Doesn't mean he was exercising good decision making. This is also a one sided argument since we don't have both sides here.

Considering the student's experience and the jump pilot's experience, the situation, and the AIM's recommendations, it would have been better for the jump pilot to state his intentions or wait. Just because the letter of the law doesn't forbid something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

"c. Recommended Traffic Advisory Practices1. Pilots of inbound traffic should monitor andcommunicate as appropriate on the designated CTAFfrom 10 miles to landing. Pilots of departing aircraftshould monitor/communicate on the appropriatefrequency from start-up, during taxi, and until10 miles from the airport unless the CFRs or localprocedures require otherwise."


Maybe the jump plane was transmitting on the wrong frequency. Maybe the student didn't hear his transmission.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Play nice, we are all sharing the airspace.

Unfortunate incident, no one got hurt, hopefully it can be learned from.
 
Look, let me say this very clearly, I don't care about the right of way when a possible conflict looks to be about to occur, avoid and take the safest course of action, turn away from the threat.

If you had eyes on him, you let yourself get close enough to soil your seat, no matter the level of error on the DZ pilots side, you noted a dangerous situation and continued, much fault rests on you.
 
Lets stop this silly nonesense and realize what really plagues us in GA:

Helicopter pilots.

At FNL(uncontrolled) there's a Huey that does longlining. Routinely departs right across the active without a single word on the radio. Once I had just taken off (still over the runway) and the huey turns and cuts me off maybe 500' infront of me while I'm only at 150' AGL.

I know I'm not the only one that's happened to either.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Lets stop this silly nonesense and realize what really plagues us in GA:

Helicopter pilots.

At FNL(uncontrolled) there's a Huey that does longlining. Routinely departs right across the active without a single word on the radio. Once I had just taken off (still over the runway) and the huey turns and cuts me off maybe 500' infront of me while I'm only at 150' AGL.

I know I'm not the only one that's happened to either.
Click to expand...
He obviously isn't following the AIM's recommendations either. We should put a stick through his tail rotor. And then run really fast.
 
weilke said:
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories-
Click to expand...
Guessing that was not the case since one was taking off and the other was in the pattern. And that excuse about wearing out the PTT button is one of the lamest I've heard. Even though it's not mandated, it's a good idea to let people know what you are going to do, especially if it's something unusual.
 
James331 said:
What FAR did they break?

Also don't mention airmanship if you've never used your cert to provide for your home.
Click to expand...

There is a similar ***hole skydive operator at Byron. Almost always flying against traffic because their office is on the upwind end of the runway. And that DOES break FARs. It sucks donkeys to have to dodge out of the way from final because he decided the runway was HIS. I can only imagine what the gliders there think.

Yes, he flies turbines (King Air), but the cost argument goes way out the window when he lands gear up (happened about two years ago).

And the Patriots jet team operate out of Byron, and make their money with their tickets, flying rather expensive airplanes. Those guys are a class act, on the runway and off.
 
What we really need to talk about are those jerk aviators that are always hanging out on the runway, never ever use a radio, depart directly in front of any air traffic, and don't pay any ramp or landing fees. I don't think they are even certificated.
 
MAKG1 said:
There is a similar ***hole skydive operator at Byron. Almost always flying against traffic because their office is on the upwind end of the runway. And that DOES break FARs.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't. I had to eat my self righteous rant about that before. There is no FAR to establish a preferred runway at an uncontrollable airport and if an Ag or skydiving operator wishes to take off or land downwind (to minimize the taxi route) it is their choice.
 
weilke said:
Actually, it doesn't. I had to eat my self righteous rant about that before. There is no FAR to establish a preferred runway at an uncontrollable airport and if an Ag or skydiving operator wishes to take off or land downwind (to minimize the taxi route) it is their choice.
Click to expand...

Umm, right of way FARs do not allow you to take off in a way that interferes with an aircraft on final. He can fly against traffic if he wants provided no one has to scatter. But it's a violation as soon as someone on final or in a glider does.
 
To be clear.... It's not helicopters, crop dusters or skydiving pilots. It's the ******* flying that aircraft that you have issue with not the industry they work within.
 
Have you guys ever flown into an airport that has a very busy ag operation going on? They frequently do not fly standard patterns and will come from any direction, cut you off and be operating NORDO while you are flying a standard traffic pattern and making a normal amount of radio calls. I have been on very short final before and seen one approach the numbers from behind me or from my side and barely above the ground to cut me off. You have to keep your head on a swivel at places with special operations types of flying such as ag or skydiving. Once you know their tendencies and adjust for them, you will be fine. However, I do worry about real low time or student pilots who fly into those scenarios. So my thought is that if you are a special ops kind of pilot and you know there is another aircraft in the pattern, especially on final or even base, you might want to consider modifying your "normal' approach to help ensure safety as well as maintain good relations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top