Video of midair with tow rope

[James D'Andrea]

Dramatic cockpit video of a midair collision with a tow rope getting
caught in the prop of another plane. The pilot was able to deploy his
ballistic parachute and safely descend. No mention of what happened to
the towplane. Video is from CNN on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30

[nimbusgb]

James D'Andrea wrote:
> Dramatic cockpit video of a midair collision with a tow rope getting
> caught in the prop of another plane. The pilot was able to deploy his
> ballistic parachute and safely descend. No mention of what happened to
> the towplane. Video is from CNN on YouTube.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30

The prat should have been keeping a bloody lookout.

OK I dont know the exact circumstances but it LOOKs like he blundered
right into the Tug without even knowing it was there. Being in a
homebuilt he was more than just possibly completely unaware of anything
else in the air!

Ian

[nimbusgb]

Has anyone asked him who was holding the video camera of his incident?
He was!

Damned fool.

[[email protected]]

CNN calls it a "near mid-air". It WAS a mid-air collision.
Unfortunately the commentator does not discuss the fate of the tow and
glider pilots. Can any of our French pilots out there tell us their
fate ? The accident took place near Gap, in the French Alps.

Cheers anyhow, Charles

[Jack]

James D'Andrea wrote:
> Dramatic cockpit video of a midair collision with a tow rope getting
> caught in the prop of another plane. The pilot was able to deploy his
> ballistic parachute and safely descend. No mention of what happened to
> the towplane. Video is from CNN on YouTube.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30


What was it about the collision that made the aircraft unflyable and
required use of the parachute? Apparently the pilot used the parachute
simply because he had it available.

More importantly, what was the outcome for the glider? Was the glider
still being towed, or had it already released prior to impact?

Had a collision not happened this would have been the most boring
possible video. I wonder if the position of the camera obscured the
pilot's view of traffic.


Jack

[[email protected]]

CNN got really interested in the Cirrus parachute thing after the Cory
Lidle crash, in which a parachute wouldnt have helped.

Ive heard a story of a 172 that actually flew into a kite string in
Florida and had to make an emergency landing. I guess that having the
string, or rope in this case, really screws up the engine. I have no
idea why. Maybe it causes enough drag on the prop to stop the engine,
im not sure

I find it funny that a poster on a glider forum declares that just
because someone was flying a homebuilt airplane, they must have been
oblivious to everything going on around them. Why? because that is
what Ive heard for so long from power pilots talking about glider
pilots. and many of us are flying homebuilt gliders! I am, and Im also
listening and talking on my radio.

Jack wrote:
> James D'Andrea wrote:
> > Dramatic cockpit video of a midair collision with a tow rope getting
> > caught in the prop of another plane. The pilot was able to deploy his
> > ballistic parachute and safely descend. No mention of what happened to
> > the towplane. Video is from CNN on YouTube.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30
>
>
> What was it about the collision that made the aircraft unflyable and
> required use of the parachute? Apparently the pilot used the parachute
> simply because he had it available.
>
> More importantly, what was the outcome for the glider? Was the glider
> still being towed, or had it already released prior to impact?
>
> Had a collision not happened this would have been the most boring
> possible video. I wonder if the position of the camera obscured the
> pilot's view of traffic.
>
>
> Jack

[[email protected]]

Gap! What a shock. Gotta keep your eyes wide open around there.

[Jack]

wrote:

> Ive heard a story of a 172 that actually flew into a kite string in
> Florida and had to make an emergency landing. I guess that having the
> string, or rope in this case, really screws up the engine. I have no
> idea why. Maybe it causes enough drag on the prop to stop the engine,
> im not sure

The engine/prop could be so unbalanced that it would be necessary to
shut the engine down to keep it from vibrating heavily enough to damage
the structure of the aircraft. This is what happens when a prop blade is
lost, for example.

However, as we are well aware, an operating engine is not necessary to
continue controlled flight. So the question remains: why was it
necessary to use the parachute? Was the terrain unlandable, or was the
pilot more conscious of the parachute's capabilities than the aircraft's?


Jack

[Gary Emerson]

wrote:
> CNN got really interested in the Cirrus parachute thing after the Cory
> Lidle crash, in which a parachute wouldnt have helped.
>
> Ive heard a story of a 172 that actually flew into a kite string in
> Florida and had to make an emergency landing. I guess that having the
> string, or rope in this case, really screws up the engine. I have no
> idea why. Maybe it causes enough drag on the prop to stop the engine,
> im not sure
>
> I find it funny that a poster on a glider forum declares that just
> because someone was flying a homebuilt airplane, they must have been
> oblivious to everything going on around them. Why? because that is
> what Ive heard for so long from power pilots talking about glider
> pilots. and many of us are flying homebuilt gliders! I am, and Im also
> listening and talking on my radio.
>
> Jack wrote:
>
>>James D'Andrea wrote:
>>
>>>Dramatic cockpit video of a midair collision with a tow rope getting
>>>caught in the prop of another plane. The pilot was able to deploy his
>>>ballistic parachute and safely descend. No mention of what happened to
>>>the towplane. Video is from CNN on YouTube.
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30
>>
>>
>>What was it about the collision that made the aircraft unflyable and
>>required use of the parachute? Apparently the pilot used the parachute
>>simply because he had it available.
>>
>>More importantly, what was the outcome for the glider? Was the glider
>>still being towed, or had it already released prior to impact?
>>
>>Had a collision not happened this would have been the most boring
>>possible video. I wonder if the position of the camera obscured the
>>pilot's view of traffic.
>>
>>
>>Jack
>
>

If you've ever caught a vine in a weedeater and let it get wrapped
around the shaft, it'll make a mess in a hurry that will pretty well
seize things up. Not sure if that's what happened here, but it's a
possibility.

[Michael Ash]

Jack > wrote:
> However, as we are well aware, an operating engine is not necessary to
> continue controlled flight. So the question remains: why was it
> necessary to use the parachute? Was the terrain unlandable, or was the
> pilot more conscious of the parachute's capabilities than the aircraft's?

He was also trailing an unknown quantity of rope that was doing unknown
and possibly unpleasant things to his airframe, plus unknown damage from
the collision itself.

And of course, while we do unpowered landings routinely, it's truly an
unexpected and unwelcome emergency for a power pilot. After experiencing
the shock of a mid-air he was faced with a choice of going ahead with an
unfamiliar procedure or hitting the parachute, and I can't blame him for
going with the devil he knew.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Ian]

Michael Ash wrote:

> And of course, while we do unpowered landings routinely, it's truly an
> unexpected and unwelcome emergency for a power pilot. After experiencing
> the shock of a mid-air he was faced with a choice of going ahead with an
> unfamiliar procedure or hitting the parachute, and I can't blame him for
> going with the devil he knew.

How many times had he pulled the parachute? And don't these power boys
practice engine-off landings?

On the bright side, the video should make useful evidence in a
prosecution: failing to spot a glider and tug was completely
inexcusable and I hope they throw the livre at him.

Ian

[Ian]

Jack wrote:

> However, as we are well aware, an operating engine is not necessary to
> continue controlled flight. So the question remains: why was it
> necessary to use the parachute? Was the terrain unlandable, or was the
> pilot more conscious of the parachute's capabilities than the aircraft's?

This is what worries me about ballistic parachutes: they turn a
possible crash into a guaranteed one. He doesn't seem to have spent any
time at all trying to work out whether his plane was flyable, and
although he walked away from the crash in an orchard, he mightt have
been so lucky. One you've pulled the handle you have no choice about
where you land ... Railway line? Road? Electricity substation? Market
place?

Ian

[Lew Hartswick]

nimbusgb wrote:
> Has anyone asked him who was holding the video camera of his incident?
> He was!
>
> Damned fool.
>
I was wondering the same thing. And the title of the bit sounds
like it was the tow planes fault.
But what can one expect from the "media" now-a-days. :-(
...lew...

[KM]

> Has anyone asked him who was holding the video camera of his incident?
> He was!
>
> Damned fool.

Dear Damned Fool,
According to the people who manufacture the kit for the airplane he was
flying, the camera was mounted in the plane.

K Urban

[stephanevdv]

I seem to remember from the discussion on the French forum
www.planeur.net (the forum is down at the moment, so I cannot check)
that the microlight pilot was following another ultralight while
videotaping it. You can see another aircraft slightly left of center if
you look closely. He was probably concentrating on that, rather than on
looking out properly, even if he didn't hold the camera.

As far as I know, the tug and glider were not hit, so this incident
made no victims.

Stéphane Vander Veken

KM a écrit :

> > Has anyone asked him who was holding the video camera of his incident?
> > He was!
> >
> > Damned fool.
>
> Dear Damned Fool,
> According to the people who manufacture the kit for the airplane he was
> flying, the camera was mounted in the plane.
>
> K Urban

[Stefan]

stephanevdv schrieb:

> I seem to remember from the discussion on the French forum
> www.planeur.net (the forum is down at the moment, so I cannot check)

The server is not down, only some links are broken. You can access the
thread directly: http://planeur.phpnet.org/ivb//index.php?showtopic=5336


Excerpt:

L'attelage venait de décoller et était en montée initiale a une vitesse
comprise entre 110 et 130 kmh : vitesse normale de montée avec un
Duo-Discus en remorquage, D'après le témoin au sol l'ulm et l'avion
volaient sensiblement à la meme vitesse avec des trajectoires convergentes.
....

L'avion remorqueur venait bien de la droite mais ne lui coupait pas la
route : comme on le voit bien sur le film le pilote de l'ULM occupé a
filmer l'autre ULM n'a absolument pas réagi pour éviter l'accident :
aucune manoeuvre d'évitement n'est visible sur le film. Ceci m'a été
confirmé par le témoin au sol : l'ULM n'as pas bougé pour éviter le
remorqueur.

L'avion remorqueur, un DR400, s'est mis en virage "sur la tranche" à
droite (on voit le dessous de l'avion sur le film) pour ne pas prendre
de plein fouet l'ULM, je suis pilote remorqueur et je puis vous assurer
qu'on vire rarement au dela de 30 degrés avec un planeur en remorquage.
D'autre part le pilote remorqueur a largué le cable avant mème d'avoir
ressenti le contact avec l'ULM, l'accident aurait pu etre plus grave si
il ne l'avait pas fait !)

Le pilote du planeur à lui mème manoeuvré pour éviter l'ULM désemparé,
ensuite son altitude lui a permi un retour au terrain avec une partie du
cable de remorquage passant par dessus son aile gauche et trainant
derriere le planeur.

Heureusement l'usage du parachute global de l'ULM à prouvé son
indéniable intéret comme on peut le voir aussi sur l'autre vidéo
concernant les essais de vrille du MCR 01.


Autres commentaires :

Je confirme, les pilotes des deux ULM sont allemands..

Le pilote n'était même pas sur la fréquence, il se contentait de suivre son
copain, et de le filmer. Quand on connait le trafic de Tallard (entre 80 et
90.000 mouvements à l'année), ça fait peur. Ou bien le gars n'avait pas
étudié sa nav, ou alors ses neurones n'étaient pas tous cablés.

[[email protected]]

Following is a translation of the French text posted regarding this
incident:

"The team (tow plane & glider) had just taken off and was in its
initial climb at speed between 110 & 130 kmh (68 - 81 mph), a normal
climb speed with a Duo-discuss on tow. A witness on the ground
confirmed that the ultralight and the towplane flew pretty much at the
same speed with converging tracks. The towplane did come from the
right but did not cross his path. As can be seen on the film, the
pilot of the ultralight, busy with filming the other
ultralightabsolutely did not react to avoid the accident. No avoidance
maneuver is seen on the film. This was confirmed to me by the witness
on the ground. The ultralight did not move to avoid the tow plane.
The tow plane, a DR400, turned knife-edge to the right (one sees the
belly of the plane on the film) in order not to take the full brunt of
the ultralight. I am a tow pilot and can assure you that one very
seldom banks over 30 degrees with a glider on tow. Furthermore the tow
pilot released the rope even before he felt the contact with the
ultralight. The accident would have been much worse if he had not done
so. The glider pilot also maneuvered to avoid the out-of-control
ultralight. His altitude allowed him to return to his field with part
of the cable below his port wing and trailing behind the glider.

Luckily the use of the ballistic parachute on the ultralight proved its
undeniable advantage as can be seen on the other video of the spin
tests of the MCR 01.

Other comments:

I confirm that the two ultralight pilots are Germans. The pilot was
not on the correct frequency, he merely followed his pal and filmed
him. When one knows the volume of traffic at Tallard (between 80,000
and 90,000 flights per year), that's frightening. Either that guy had
not studied navigation or his neurons were not all connected."

Cheers, Charles

[[email protected]]

> On the bright side, the video should make useful evidence in a
> prosecution: failing to spot a glider and tug was completely
> inexcusable and I hope they throw the livre at him.
>

See and be seen means just that. If indeed this was a tug and glider
there were at least two other sets of eyes that were supposed to be
looking!! Let us not be too quick to cast stones. This is another in
a long list of incidents we should be aware of and learn from.
Thankfully this one ended well.

Fly SAFE--

Skip Guimond

[bagmaker]

after years on the road motorcycling, gliding was supposed to be a "safe" sport.

I used to ride with the firm knowledge that everyone else on the road was a d**head trying to kill me. The days end was a bonus when they didnt get away with it.

The video illustrates well that there are folks out there with no lookout skills.

If you fly with the theory that you are the only one looking out, you will lookout a whole heap harder!

The attitude of the tug seems to show him banking up and away from Mr Ballistic, perhaps he saw the threat, they are still all lucky to be alive


bagger

[Ian]

wrote:
> > On the bright side, the video should make useful evidence in a
> > prosecution: failing to spot a glider and tug was completely
> > inexcusable and I hope they throw the livre at him.
> >
>
> See and be seen means just that. If indeed this was a tug and glider
> there were at least two other sets of eyes that were supposed to be
> looking!!

.... in a combination whch had right of way over our hero.

> Thankfully this one ended well.

Inasmuch has he is a) alive and b) deprived of his aircraft, yes, I
think we can count it a happy ending.

Ian

[Michael Ash]

Ian > wrote:
>
> Michael Ash wrote:
>
>> And of course, while we do unpowered landings routinely, it's truly an
>> unexpected and unwelcome emergency for a power pilot. After experiencing
>> the shock of a mid-air he was faced with a choice of going ahead with an
>> unfamiliar procedure or hitting the parachute, and I can't blame him for
>> going with the devil he knew.
>
> How many times had he pulled the parachute? And don't these power boys
> practice engine-off landings?

But the parachute has a huge amount of confidence-inspiring paperwork that
goes with it which says that it'll function as claimed. Of course we know
that this is no guarantee of success, but I can certainly envision a type
of pilot who would trust a parachute manufacturer that he can sue if
something goes wrong over his ability to land his plane unpowered.

Supposedly they do practice engine-off landings but I get the impression
that they really don't like the idea at all.

For what it's worth I agree with you completely that the parachute should
have been avoided. I can just see why someone in that situation might risk
the parachute rather than his rusty off-field engine-off landing skills.

> On the bright side, the video should make useful evidence in a
> prosecution: failing to spot a glider and tug was completely
> inexcusable and I hope they throw the livre at him.

I can understand failing to spot it until it was very close, it can be
hard to see things. What I don't understand is that even when the tow
plane went right in front of him, he did almost nothing. From the video it
seems there was at least a full second from when the tow plane came on
camera to when impact occurred. During this time, the pilot did nothing
but raise the nose a bit. I would like to think that I would have
instantly put in full rudder and aileron to turn and drop out of the way,
and one second is plenty of time to get such a maneuver underway.

I try to give this guy the benefit of the doubt simply because I don't
have all the information and it makes it much less embarrassing to face up
to my own mistakes when they inevitably happen.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Andy[_1_]]

Michael Ash wrote:
>Supposedly they do practice engine-off landings but I get the impression
>that they really don't like the idea at all.

Not sure if that was aimed at trike and utralight pilots or power
pilots in general. My observation is that most trike landing are made
with engine at idle but I have not flown one.

As a power pilot and instructor I practice and teach accuracy landings
with simulated engine failure. It's not quite as easy to land exactly
on the chosen spot as with a glider but it's just as much fun to try.

Some power pilots even look out of the windows as they fly!

Andy

[[email protected]]

Michael Ash wrote:
> hard to see things. What I don't understand is that even when the tow
> plane went right in front of him, he did almost nothing. From the video it
> seems there was at least a full second from when the tow plane came on
> camera to when impact occurred.

Fairly typical reaction time. Within that second things like

"What the hell was that"
"Ok, it was a plane"
"****, that was a plane, and it had a cable behind it"
"Bugger, now what"
"Ok, probably should try and do something to avoid the cable"
"Up, or down"
"That cable probably had a glider on the other end, if I go down that
could be worse"
"Up"
"Ok arm, pull back on that there sticky thing"

are going through his head. It will take a surprisingly long time to
react to a situation like that, you have to examine the situation,
think of a plan, and implement that plan, a second is probably pretty
good.

[Michael Ash]

Andy > wrote:
>
> Michael Ash wrote:
>>Supposedly they do practice engine-off landings but I get the impression
>>that they really don't like the idea at all.
>
> Not sure if that was aimed at trike and utralight pilots or power
> pilots in general. My observation is that most trike landing are made
> with engine at idle but I have not flown one.

Still, having the engine available adds a great deal of reassurance to the
pilot's mental state if he's not well prepared for a true engine-off
landing.

> As a power pilot and instructor I practice and teach accuracy landings
> with simulated engine failure. It's not quite as easy to land exactly
> on the chosen spot as with a glider but it's just as much fun to try.

That's very good, and I'm sure that practice will save somebody's bacon
one day if it hasn't already. I just get the impression that this is more
of the exception than the standard practice. I could easily be wrong, but
then maybe the pilot in question was in the exceptional "didn't practice
it much" group in that case.

I don't mean to denigrate power pilots in any way, I just get the
impression that having your engine quit is a lot more stressful than just
not having one in the first place, and this sort of emergency could easily
put a pilot into a frame of mind where he loses confidence in himself and
just hits the parachute.

> Some power pilots even look out of the windows as they fly!

No doubt. :) I just have doubts about this one guy, not power pilots in
general.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Jack]

Michael Ash wrote:

> I don't mean to denigrate power pilots in any way, I just get the
> impression that having your engine quit is a lot more stressful than just
> not having one in the first place, and this sort of emergency could easily
> put a pilot into a frame of mind where he loses confidence in himself and
> just hits the parachute.

A "pilot" who lacks confidence is a passenger. And yet he is all too
common. The more of them you deal with the less confidence you will have
and the more energy you'll expend looking out the window.

All in all, a very much more healthy state of mind.


Jack

[Mark Lenox]

I fly a motorglider regularly out of a small grass strip that has 99.9%
powered traffic.

You ought to see the crowd that comes out to watch when I'm practicing
landings with the engine off. They honestly think I'm off my rocker.


Mark Lenox, CFIG
Chilhowee


"Michael Ash" > wrote in message
...
> Supposedly they do practice engine-off landings but I get the impression
> that they really don't like the idea at all.

[Roger[_5_]]

Of course the Tug and glider would have the right of way. Not that the
rules of the road will help you avoid a collision with a pilot who is
not looking. Being a power pilot (as well as a glider pilot) I am well
aware that power pilots subscribe to the big sky theory. Once I was
checking out in a Cessna 182 RG and the check pilot/instructor told me
a look at the attitude indicator and establish a 45 degree bank, I
asked him why not just look outside and establish the 45 degree bank.
This instructor looked at me with a dumbfounded look (as if he had
never heard of outside reference) and said I guess you could do that!

Roger

On Jan 1, 2:19 pm, "nimbusgb" > wrote:
> James D'Andrea wrote:
> > Dramatic cockpit video of a midair collision with a tow rope getting
> > caught in the prop of another plane. The pilot was able to deploy his
> > ballistic parachute and safely descend. No mention of what happened to
> > the towplane. Video is from CNN on YouTube.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTemKnL8X30The prat should have been keeping a bloody lookout.
>
> OK I dont know the exact circumstances but it LOOKs like he blundered
> right into the Tug without even knowing it was there. Being in a
> homebuilt he was more than just possibly completely unaware of anything
> else in the air!
>
> Ian

[Vaughn Simon]

"Roger" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Of course the Tug and glider would have the right of way.

I don't think that accident happened in the US of A, so do we really know
that? Do tug & glider have the right of way everywhere in the world?

Also, since the glider apparently released prior to the actual midair, a
lawyer would probably not shrink from arguing that the tug had suddenly lost
it's right of way!

Vaughn

[Robert Ehrlich]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Of course the Tug and glider would have the right of way.
>
>
> I don't think that accident happened in the US of A, so do we really know
> that? Do tug & glider have the right of way everywhere in the world?
>
In France where that accident happened the rule apply. I think this is
an ICAO rule, so it should apply in any country conforming to these rules.

[Stefan]

Vaughn Simon schrieb:

>> Of course the Tug and glider would have the right of way.

> I don't think that accident happened in the US of A, so do we really know
> that? Do tug & glider have the right of way everywhere in the world?

Why do you think Roger lives in the US fo A? But to answer your
question: It's clearly stated in the video that it happened in France.
And yes, in France they have the right of way.

That said, it has always been my desire to have the words "He had the
right of way" written on my tomb stone.

[mart]

Gap tallard airport is a very busy airport in the middle of the French Alps,surrounded by high mountains. Due to the fact that a Brittish glider pilot caught a free falling parachutist a few years ago ( followed by a manslaughter case) there is an exclusion zone of 5km around the airport.(The parachuting business is a 7 day a week operation.) The guy might have been lucky to be hit by a tow rope instead of a bunch of freefalling tourists.

[309]

Michael Ash wrote:
>
> I don't mean to denigrate power pilots in any way, I just get the
> impression that having your engine quit is a lot more stressful than just
> not having one in the first place, and this sort of emergency could easily
> put a pilot into a frame of mind where he loses confidence in himself and
> just hits the parachute.
>

Practice opening up the spoilers all the way, at some point beyond
final glide from the airport, lock them there, try and thermal up to
gain the altitude to make it back to the airport ... oh, and make sure
you're flying a 1-26 or a 2-33 or some similar such brick.

When the mill quits, suddenly, our intrepid power pilot is flying a
"glider" with less than 6:1 glide ratio. Therefore, the stress is
warranted!!! I'm not sure if you and I are in "violent agreement" on
this one.

Yes, I fly both power and glider (if you call my 1-26 a glider).

Yes, EVERYBODY should be looking out a little more.

Power pilots shoud practice more landings at idle power....

....and glider pilots should practice more stuck spoiler landings!!!

-Pete
#309

P.S.: In a more perfect world, I would have added to that list: "The
media should present balanced, factual and intelligent coverage of
events, spectacular or not."

[Michael Ash]

309 > wrote:
>
> Michael Ash wrote:
>>
>> I don't mean to denigrate power pilots in any way, I just get the
>> impression that having your engine quit is a lot more stressful than just
>> not having one in the first place, and this sort of emergency could easily
>> put a pilot into a frame of mind where he loses confidence in himself and
>> just hits the parachute.
>
> Practice opening up the spoilers all the way, at some point beyond
> final glide from the airport, lock them there, try and thermal up to
> gain the altitude to make it back to the airport ... oh, and make sure
> you're flying a 1-26 or a 2-33 or some similar such brick.

I think I'll pass on your experiment, but I see your point.

> When the mill quits, suddenly, our intrepid power pilot is flying a
> "glider" with less than 6:1 glide ratio. Therefore, the stress is
> warranted!!! I'm not sure if you and I are in "violent agreement" on
> this one.

Yes, I basically agree. I didn't mean to imply that I thought the stress
was unwarranted. Having not flown very much power at all, I've never had
the engine quit so I don't really know what it's like, but I try to give
the benefit of the doubt to those who do.

> Yes, I fly both power and glider (if you call my 1-26 a glider).
>
> Yes, EVERYBODY should be looking out a little more.
>
> Power pilots shoud practice more landings at idle power....
>
> ...and glider pilots should practice more stuck spoiler landings!!!

Does it count when you come in so high that they only appear to be stuck?
:)

> P.S.: In a more perfect world, I would have added to that list: "The
> media should present balanced, factual and intelligent coverage of
> events, spectacular or not."

Now you're just going too far.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Andy[_1_]]

mart wrote:
> Gap tallard airport is a very busy airport in the middle of the French
> Alps,surrounded by high mountains. Due to the fact that a Brittish
> glider pilot caught a free falling parachutist a few years ago (
> followed by a manslaughter case) there is an exclusion zone of 5km
> around the airport.(The parachuting business is a 7 day a week
> operation.) The guy might have been lucky to be hit by a tow rope
> instead of a bunch of freefalling tourists.

Not flown in France and not familaiar with Gap although of course I did
hear of the skydiver/glider accident.

What/who is excluded from the zone? What is the airspace type?


Andy

[Robert Ehrlich]

Andy wrote:
>
>
> Not flown in France and not familaiar with Gap although of course I did
> hear of the skydiver/glider accident.
>
> What/who is excluded from the zone? What is the airspace type?
>
>
> Andy
>

see
http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/PDF_AIPparSSection/VAC/AD/2/0701_AD%202.LFNA.pdf
no specific airspace type