At 12:25 05-06-02 +1000, Peter Stephenson wrote: >In Australia, there is a NPRM (Notice of Proposal to Rule Making or >something like that - now closed means it is coming in soon) which will >allow parachutists to legally jump through cloud provided there is a >jumpmaster on the ground clearing the drop using a local frequency. The >aircraft will have to have two radios, one on area frequency as well.
Not quite - there are a whole range of risk reduction strategies which will be used, depending on the local circumstances. Two VHF radios is an option that will be used in certain airspace situations. A ground observer is also a part of the scheme - as is use of ATC radar where it is available, transponders in jump aircraft so that aircraft with the "smarts" called TCAS are able to see them, and general education of pilots - for which thanks to many who have written on the topic, as awareness is the primary element of education. Each locality is to be assessed on its individual merits (and of course approvals can be varied or even withdrawn on a local basis too!) > I think this rule should apply to *all* jumps, whether through cloud or >not. It often does - as a member of your local RAPAC you would be aware of the problems that many Drop Zones have with itinerant aircraft passing directly overhead, seemingly unaware of where they are (in a situational awareness sense - maybe also in a navigational one :-) ) and so often avert conflict - in one recent case with two helicopters that both independently tracked towards the DZ as a load of skydivers got out of their aircraft overhead. >PeterS >QSA RAPAC delegate >Brian Wade wrote > > > >An 'interesting' (in a macabre sense) statistic to understand would > > > > be whether there is any significant incidence of collision between > > > > skydivers and powered aircraft. There is - to my knowledge having researched it fairly thoroughly in relation to the aforementioned NPRM - little "significant" history of collisions except for an apparent increase in the last 10 years due largely, I suspect, to traffic density of skydivers increasing. Until last weekend we were aware of only four instances worldwide, all referenced in the NPRM or the Summary of Responses to it that was published on the CASA web site last week. As it happens, one of these was a parachuting drop aircraft in the UK in about 1961, then a glider tug in the circuit area of a controlled aerodrome (Ardmore, NZ) in 1963 - the parachutist in that case being under canopy and not in freefall: it happened at about 700 ft on downwind, when the combination was cleared for take-off believing the parachutist would land on the DZ on the other side of the aerodrome. The collision in France in 1995 or thereabouts that has already been referenced in this discussion group, and the one that is described (see my note) below. > > > > From a US Web site - under a heading relating to parachutists colliding >with > > aircraft: > > > > More than one such accident happened. A parachutist in freefall struck the > > tail of a Piper warrior, knocking it out of control, which caused it to > > crash. The parachutist survived with a broken ankle. All four persons on > > board the Piper perished. The collision occurred at 7,000 feet. Hardly a convincing web site report - the aircraft was in fact a V-tailed Beech Bonanza. Typical US law - the parachutist claimed negligence against Air Traffic Control and was awarded substantial damages in court some years later. This one happened in not only VMC but 8/8 blue, which our parachuting friends tell us is the hardest situation to spot conflicting traffic. But then, the US National Airspace System does not require a radio-equipped aircraft to monitor the Class E ATC frequency because he is 500ft separated from IFR traffic - to quote one bumper-sticker, "Dick Smith before Smith dicks you". > > Make sure you check the notams for parachute jumpings along your route > > and exercise caution in parachute jumping and alert areas. Parachute descents are not routinely notified by NOTAM, either in the US or here - real-time radio broadcasts are required here as several have pointed out. > > FARs prohibit parachute jumps into or through a cloud, and require > > skydiving aircraft to coordinate operations with ATC. Parachute operations > > along federal airways are allowed when weather conditions permit. > > It takes about six minutes for an experienced jumper to fall from >12,500 feet to 2,000 feet AGL, the lowest parachute opening altitude. Absolute bo**ocks, unless they are doing canopy relative work where they do the entire descent under canopy and may take 10 minutes for this - in freefall it is a tad under 60 seconds, allowing 7 seconds for the first 1000 feet and 5 seconds for each subsequent 1000 feet - and experience has bugger all to do with it, except that people who do "freestyle" (gymnastics in freefall) will fall faster than this. > Some skydivers, including new students, tend to open their chutes as high as > > 6,000 feet AGL to orient themselves better and prepare for a good landing. More bo*ll**ks - early freefall students open between 4000 and 3000 feet agl if doing freefall descent training - tandem descents open about 4500' agl, and canopies can be opened anywhere in between - though around 2000' agl is common opening height and under normal circumstances canopies must be open by 1800' agl, though low openings and malfunctions do occur from time to time. Wombat -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
