Almost mid-air video

[Flyingmonk]

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane

Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.

The Monk

[tom418]

Barry, I always wondered: Were there ever any close calls between skydivers
and traffic on Route 91, on a windy day?
"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 May 2006 17:47:34 -0700, "Flyingmonk" >
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
> >
> >Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
>
> A few years ago, we had a C172 vs. skydiver @ Northampton, MA.
>
> The pedestrian knocked the tail off the plane and suffered a broken
> leg. All aboard the aircraft perished.
>

[.Blueskies.]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message ups.com...
> http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
>
> Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
>
> The Monk
>

Really gives you an understanding about how fast the chute is coming down.

[Dallas]

"Flyingmonk"
> http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
> Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.

So much for the "Big Sky Theory".


Dallas

[muff528]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
>>
>> Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
>>
>> The Monk
>>
>
> Really gives you an understanding about how fast the chute is coming down.
>

Looks like the jumper was in freefall until just before crossing the flight
level of the a/c.
You can see his left hand catch the riser as the canopy is deployed.

[.Blueskies.]

"muff528" > wrote in message news:wsb7g.500$W83.7@trnddc07...
>
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
> . com...
>>
>> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message ups.com...
>>> http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
>>>
>>> Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
>>>
>>> The Monk
>>>
>>
>> Really gives you an understanding about how fast the chute is coming down.
>>
>
> Looks like the jumper was in freefall until just before crossing the flight level of the a/c.
> You can see his left hand catch the riser as the canopy is deployed.
>

Oh, yea, ok, looks like that could be it...

[Andrew Sarangan]

Big sky theory really does not apply near airport traffic patterns. I
am not a skydiver, but most skydiving seems to take place at airports.


Dallas wrote:
> "Flyingmonk"
> > http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
> > Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
>
> So much for the "Big Sky Theory".
>
>
> Dallas

[Jim Macklin]

Sky divers are supposed to notify ATC and there are NOTAMS.
Not everybody really knows or follows the rules.

Jump areas are supposed to be approved, but hey, a lot of
jumpers break into buildings, climb bridges and otherwise
break the law.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Big sky theory really does not apply near airport traffic
patterns. I
| am not a skydiver, but most skydiving seems to take place
at airports.
|
|
| Dallas wrote:
| > "Flyingmonk"
| > >
http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
| > > Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
| >
| > So much for the "Big Sky Theory".
| >
| >
| > Dallas
|

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Sky divers are supposed to notify ATC

They are required to notify the ATC facility that has jurisdiction for
where they are jumping.



>
> Jump areas are supposed to be approved,

And the approved area will never be at the airport, always away from it
unless it is for some kind of airshow type demonstration.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> And the approved area will never be at the airport, always away from it
> unless it is for some kind of airshow type demonstration.

Around here, we have several airports where the jump area is right over the
airport. The jumpers land in the grass next to the runway.

[Leonard Milcin Jr.]

Roy Smith skrev:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> And the approved area will never be at the airport, always away from it
>> unless it is for some kind of airshow type demonstration.
>
> Around here, we have several airports where the jump area is right over the
> airport. The jumpers land in the grass next to the runway.

Taking in mind that everybody is circling *around* the airport or being pretty
in line with runway on pretty low altitude that should not pose a problem?

No airplane is supposed to be ,,next to the runway'' or enywhere higher up
from that point, am I right?



Leonard

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>And the approved area will never be at the airport, always away from it
>>unless it is for some kind of airshow type demonstration.
>
>
> Around here, we have several airports where the jump area is right over the
> airport. The jumpers land in the grass next to the runway.

I understand that, that happens all over the place. But have the FAA
come over to your jump club for a Wings type safety presentation and
have the nice FSDO person give you all the FAA reccomendations for jump
operations. They will always reccomend that the landing zone be a few
miles away from the airport, well outside the normal traffic patterns.

[muff528]

>
> Jump areas are supposed to be approved, but hey, a lot of
> jumpers break into buildings, climb bridges and otherwise
> break the law.
>

Yes, and it would be a damn shame if that brazen lawlessness
of the sky skum would happen to rub off on the otherwise
saintly, god-like pilots who claim as much right to airport access
as the skydivers.

FWIW -- people who jump from fixed objects are base-jumpers.
They are facing their own struggle for access to sites that are
suitable for their lawful chosen sport.
Skydivers jump from aircraft.

Just like the general population there are people who follow
the law and there are lawbreakers. -- Oh!... except for pilots!

[Newps]

Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:

> Roy Smith skrev:
>
>> In article >,
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>> And the approved area will never be at the airport, always away from
>>> it unless it is for some kind of airshow type demonstration.
>>
>>
>> Around here, we have several airports where the jump area is right
>> over the airport. The jumpers land in the grass next to the runway.
>
>
> Taking in mind that everybody is circling *around* the airport or being
> pretty
> in line with runway on pretty low altitude that should not pose a problem?

Right, jumpers always hit their target, never come down under the downwind.


>
> No airplane is supposed to be ,,next to the runway'' or enywhere higher up
> from that point, am I right?

No, you're not. It is not uncommon and perfectly legal for say a Super
Cub to use the grass between the runway and taxiway to save wear and
tear on his tundra tires.

[Chris Ehlbeck]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And the approved area will never be at the airport, always away from
>>> it unless it is for some kind of airshow type demonstration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Around here, we have several airports where the jump area is right
>> over the airport. The jumpers land in the grass next to the runway.
>
>
> I understand that, that happens all over the place. But have the FAA
> come over to your jump club for a Wings type safety presentation and
> have the nice FSDO person give you all the FAA reccomendations for jump
> operations. They will always reccomend that the landing zone be a few
> miles away from the airport, well outside the normal traffic patterns.

I'm not a skydiver but know quite a few and have been to quite a few
drop zones. Everyone I've been to has been on the airport property. To
me it doesn't make sense to have the jumpers land several miles away and
then retrieve them and bring them back to the airplane. But it doesn't
make sense to me to jump out a perfectly good airplane either! So long
as everyone does what they're supposed to it can and does work.

And in fact every instance that I'm aware of, an off airport jump for a
demo is the one that requires FAA approval and I've always seen someone
from the FAA there.

Just my $.02 worth,
Chris

[nrp]

Consider a skydiver descending at 30 ft/sec mph on a vertical collision
course with a 150 mph airplane. The skydiver will appear to the pilot
only 8 degrees above the horizon, which should be in a normal pilot's
scan.

All bets are off for free-fall skydivers though.

[[email protected]]

FWIW
This looks like a DH Chipmunk as used a while back
by University Air Squadrons in the UK and quite
possibly before that as RAF initial trainers but I am not sure.
Marking certainly look right for UAS machine but
I think that some still flying in civilian use are still painted
to look the part.

Pilot must have got a shock too.
Little black blob travelling straight down at 150mph turns
suddenly into floating thing very close by. Maybe though
the 'chutist was behind the pilot when the 'chute
opened?

The aeroplane is in the shot for about 4 secs before the
close encounter.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "m" == muff <muff528> writes:

m> Looks like the jumper was in freefall until just before
m> crossing the flight level of the a/c. You can see his left
m> hand catch the riser as the canopy is deployed.

If the jumper had opened his canopy a fraction of a second later he
might have hit the plane. "Oh F***!" indeed.

[Newps]

Chris Ehlbeck wrote:

>
>
> I'm not a skydiver but know quite a few and have been to quite a few
> drop zones. Everyone I've been to has been on the airport property.

The FAA will never tell you you can't jump into a certain place, other
than places like stadiums full of people. That's not thier job. The
fact that there's a jump zone depicted on a chart doesn't mean that it
necessarily was blessed by the FAA.


To
> me it doesn't make sense to have the jumpers land several miles away and
> then retrieve them and bring them back to the airplane. But it doesn't
> make sense to me to jump out a perfectly good airplane either! So long
> as everyone does what they're supposed to it can and does work.

It makes no sense from a safety standpoint to jump into an airport.
It's done because it is convenient.


>
> And in fact every instance that I'm aware of, an off airport jump for a
> demo is the one that requires FAA approval and I've always seen someone
> from the FAA there.

That will be a waiver for jumping in to places like stadiums.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 5/7/06 11:41 AM, in article , "Leonard Milcin
Jr." > wrote:

> Roy Smith skrev:
>> In article >,
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>> And the approved area will never be at the airport, always away from it
>>> unless it is for some kind of airshow type demonstration.
>>
>> Around here, we have several airports where the jump area is right over the
>> airport. The jumpers land in the grass next to the runway.
>
> Taking in mind that everybody is circling *around* the airport or being pretty
> in line with runway on pretty low altitude that should not pose a problem?
>
> No airplane is supposed to be ,,next to the runway'' or enywhere higher up
> from that point, am I right?
>
>
>
> Leonard

If I have to abort my landing because a plane took the runway without seeing
me on final approach, I will move to the right of the runway so I can keep
him in sight as I perform my go-around.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Andrew Sarangan]

If the airport has a very long runway, then a small aircraft could
takeoff and reach pattern altitude before the end of the runway.The
same is true for an approach. A go-around would also place an aircraft
next to the runway where jumpers might be descending.




Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:

>
> Taking in mind that everybody is circling *around* the airport or being pretty
> in line with runway on pretty low altitude that should not pose a problem?
>
> No airplane is supposed to be ,,next to the runway'' or enywhere higher up
> from that point, am I right?
>
>
>
> Leonard

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If the airport has a very long runway, then a small aircraft could
> takeoff and reach pattern altitude before the end of the runway.The
> same is true for an approach. A go-around would also place an aircraft
> next to the runway where jumpers might be descending.

Doesn't even have to be a "small" plane, just a good climber, lightly
loaded, or both.

> Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>> Taking in mind that everybody is circling *around* the airport or being
>> pretty
>> in line with runway on pretty low altitude that should not pose a
>> problem?
>>
>> No airplane is supposed to be ,,next to the runway'' or enywhere higher
>> up
>> from that point, am I right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Leonard
>

[Denny]

My airport has active jump operations... The divers are a threat to
aircraft, buildings, vehicles, and people on the ground... Their
operation is purely a pain in the butt... They cause planes to have to
break off and circle to avoid them.. The last encounter I had, 3
airplanes had to circle for just shy of 20 minutes while the jump plane
dropped students at two different altitudes, who immediately popped
their chutes and leisurely floated down..
We just recently had a jumper out of control land on top of one of the
hangars then slide off the roof hitting a car and breaking his leg...
While we don't have tiedown airplanes on our field that car could have
been my plane sitting on the ramp...
The jump pilot is a relatively nice guy, but his habits are a pain...
He makes one cryptic announcement on unicom a few minutes before the
jumpers leap then right as they leap, and if you immediately call him
back to query as to exactly where they are he won't answer... When I
confronted him on this he says he is too busy with configuring the
plane, talking to ATC (13 miles away on another frequency, and keeping
the jumpers in sight as he descends to answer the unicom calls... In
addition the two calls he does make on unicom are easily missed (and
usually are) in the unicom chatter on a busy weekend and the meat bombs
appear out of no where.....
In a sane world jump operations would be reserved to a jump field...

denny

[Jay Honeck]

> In a sane world jump operations would be reserved to a jump field...

Fly into Deland, Florida, someday, to see chaos in the sky. Two twin
Otters, continually dumping meat bombs over an incredibly busy GA
airport. There's not a moment when the sky isn't full of canopies.

The fact that only one or two jumpers have been killed is, quite
simply, miraculous, in my humble opinion. It's also a tribute to the
skill and cooperative nature of pilots.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-07, Chris Ehlbeck > wrote:
> But it doesn't
> make sense to me to jump out a perfectly good airplane either!

If you've ever seen a skydiver jump ship, you'll realise that they are
NOT jumping out of perfectly good airplanes!

The adage is make the jump ship scary enough that the skydivers don't
want to ride it back down to a landing, but not quite scary enough that
the pilot doesn't want to ride it back to a landing...

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Richard]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Sky divers are supposed to notify ATC and there are NOTAMS.
> Not everybody really knows or follows the rules.
>
> Jump areas are supposed to be approved, but hey, a lot of
> jumpers break into buildings, climb bridges and otherwise
> break the law.
>
>
>

Yep. NOTAM at Waller CC, Waller County Texas, watched a 172 go
lumbering right through a crowd of folks under canopy in beautiful VFR
conditions at 5000' right over the field. I was under canopy there too.
Interesting sight. I always wondered if the pilot (1) was aware of
the NOTAM (2) didn't hear the "jumpers away" call (3) was amazed to see
all these big birds around him (4) had to change his shorts upon landing.

Richard

[soxinbox]

I hear jumpers away calls all the time in my area. They are always over an
airport. I have never heard a call that was not over an airport. On top of
that, the jumpers away calls are very fast and mumbled. I think they have
some kind of policy to say it three times, so they rush through it as fast
as they can. I can never make out which airport it is at. I personally would
take a bit more time knowing someone's life may depend on it.


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the approved area will never be at the airport, always away from it
>>>unless it is for some kind of airshow type demonstration.
>>
>>
>> Around here, we have several airports where the jump area is right over
>> the airport. The jumpers land in the grass next to the runway.
>
> I understand that, that happens all over the place. But have the FAA come
> over to your jump club for a Wings type safety presentation and have the
> nice FSDO person give you all the FAA reccomendations for jump operations.
> They will always reccomend that the landing zone be a few miles away from
> the airport, well outside the normal traffic patterns.

[Bob Chilcoat]

I believe that it's perfectly legal to fly NORDO. Tough to hear "Jumpers
Away" under those circumstances. Of course, if I'm NORDO, I'm going to be
very watchful, particularly near an airport.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Richard" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Sky divers are supposed to notify ATC and there are NOTAMS. Not everybody
>> really knows or follows the rules.
>>
>> Jump areas are supposed to be approved, but hey, a lot of jumpers break
>> into buildings, climb bridges and otherwise break the law.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yep. NOTAM at Waller CC, Waller County Texas, watched a 172 go lumbering
> right through a crowd of folks under canopy in beautiful VFR conditions at
> 5000' right over the field. I was under canopy there too. Interesting
> sight. I always wondered if the pilot (1) was aware of the NOTAM (2)
> didn't hear the "jumpers away" call (3) was amazed to see all these big
> birds around him (4) had to change his shorts upon landing.
>
> Richard

[Ron Natalie]

B A R R Y wrote:
> On 5 May 2006 17:47:34 -0700, "Flyingmonk" >
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
>>
>> Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
>
> A few years ago, we had a C172 vs. skydiver @ Northampton, MA.
>
> The pedestrian knocked the tail off the plane and suffered a broken
> leg. All aboard the aircraft perished.
>

Cherokee not a 172, back in 1993.

[Ron Natalie]

Flyingmonk wrote:
> http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
>
> Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
>
> The Monk
>
No, airplane almost hit by meat bomb.

[Flyingmonk]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Flyingmonk wrote:
> > http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1133766000/Almost_Hit_by_an_Airplane
> >
> > Guy almost hit by airplane while skydiving.
> >
> > The Monk
> >
> No, airplane almost hit by meat bomb.

LOL, I suppose you can look at it that way too.

The Monk

[Morgans]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> No, airplane almost hit by meat bomb.

I was thinking the same thing.

Funny, how the "faster, larger" moving thing is always at blame for hitting
the "slower, smaller" thing. Like, in pedestrian vs. car accidents.

It is always put in the news as, "Pedestrian is struck by car."

Many times, it is the pedestrian that steps into the side of, or into the
path of the car.

Anyway, they are both lucky, it ended as a near miss.
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Many times, it is the pedestrian that steps into the side of the car.

This happened to my wife, with the pedestrian shearing off the mirror
and denting the rear door.

The PD did not fault or ticket my wife.

[Skywise]

"Morgans" > wrote in :

<Snipola>
> Many times, it is the pedestrian that steps into the side of, or into the
> path of the car.
<Snipola>

Been there. Done that. Well, let's just say the car was so
close to me while while I was legally crossing the street
that somehow my foot found it's way into the side of the
car's door.

The good thing about having close calls in crosswalks is
it makes me very aware of them as a driver.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skylune]

>>by "muff528" > May 7, 2006 at 04:08 PM


>

Yes, and it would be a damn shame if that brazen lawlessness
of the sky skum would happen to rub off on the otherwise
saintly, god-like pilots who claim as much right to airport access
as the skydivers.

FWIW -- people who jump from fixed objects are base-jumpers.
They are facing their own struggle for access to sites that are
suitable for their lawful chosen sport.
Skydivers jump from aircraft.

Just like the general population there are people who follow
the law and there are lawbreakers. -- Oh!... except for pilots!

<<
Welcome to the world where pilots' "rights" take precedence over all else.
Besides having their hands in all the taxpayer's wallets, they will
destroy residential neighborhoods (most recent example is the decimation
of hundreds of trees in Westerly RI) for increase air safety. The hell
with the neighbors -- they are unimportant and will have to deal with the
consequences -- increase noise and ugliness. Skydivers are just another
nuisance that GA must eliminate. You see, the pilots believe they, and
they alone, have a "right" to free skies. Everyone else must pay to
support this right, and cannot complain about pollution, noise,
destructive land use, runway expansions, etc.

The good news is that they are paying more for AVgas, insurance,
maintenance, etc. When the federal grants are reduced after 2007, they
will begin paying ALOT more.