A small plane doing touch-and-go at a small airport caught the parachute of a landing sky diver, crashing the plane, and flipping the sky diver. Neither person was seriously hurt.
They’re blaming each other. Any small plane pilots or sky divers have an opinion on who’s likely at fault here? The runway was grass, so it’s a very small airport. I’d guess pilots talk to each other, and there’s no control tower (but hey, fight my ignorance). One of the articles does say the plane dropping the sky divers did radio that there would be sky divers in the area for the next few minutes.
Is this sort of sharing of an airport between pilots and sky divers a usual occurrence? How is it typically handled so that this doesn’t happen?
It’s not normal and it sounds insane to me, but the airport is so tiny that the danger may have been minimal.
Its also worth noting that neither the middle aged skydiver or the geriatric pilot suffered any serious injury. Needless, to say, the airport skydiving policy is probably being reconsidered.
As to fault… the pilot is 87 year old. Not saying that her age automatically amkes her at fault, but I’d certainly look there first…
The parachutist is not at fault, since you have very little control over where you’re going with a parachute, and can’t realistically get out of the way of a plane.
The pilot of the plane that hit, the pilot of the plane that dropped the parachutist, or the airport traffic controller might any of them be at fault, and knowing which would depend on the flight plans filed by the pilots.
Not sure why that’s relevant to the question of who’s at fault. His age may be relevant, since the elderly often have diminished reflexes, judgment, awareness, and visual acuity.
There’s no control tower at this airport. Basically that means the planes landing and taking off are supposed to follow standardized procedures when taking off and landing - part of which is watching for other traffic. This particular airport includes a warning about skydiving activity, so the pilot should have been watching out for the skydiver. Like sailboats vs. powerboats, I think skydivers have the right-of-way since they can’t halt their descent. Pretty sure the pilot will be held officially responsible.
Skydiver might not be held officially responsible, but he also did not maintain a level of situational awareness commensurate with a healthy sense of self-preservation. Although he can’t halt his descent, he can steer his canopy pretty good. On final approach, he should have been watching for ground traffic. It might have been smart to land parallel to the runway for just this reason, i.e. to avoid crossing the path of inbound/departing aircraft.
It’s been too many years to count since I’ve flown a GA aircraft, but I used to use Unicom freq to announce my intent to land or depart uncontrolled airfields. Seems to me that both the landing a/c and dropping a/c should have been in communication.
I’ve only went parachuting once (static line) but you had plenty of control over where you landed the thing. Unless your in high winds you can get fairly precise on where you want to go.
Seems insane to me that they had a practice of landing parachutes on the airfield.
I’ve flown out of airfields that doubled as parachute drop zones. It was no big deal but it relied on everyone sticking to their patch of grass. The parachutists would operate on the non traffic side of the circuit and the drop plane would radio their intentions. It’s impossible to know who was at fault in this case without knowing what the local procedures are and who was or wasn’t following them.
There are no requirements for planes to have a radio at small airports. The smaller the airport the more likely the activity of such aircraft. Flying into such a place is a see-and-avoid event. When initiating a standard approach as indicated by the airport (left base vs right base, altitude etc…) a pilot is expected to look at the area involved. Also, airports that operate as parachute bases are listed on the map. So pilots should be on the lookout for parachutists. With that said, landing on a runway or into a flight pattern is akin to running into traffic. Drivers are focused on the road and expect people to stay on the sidewalk.
I flew into such an airport as a student pilot and did not hear any radio calls for parachutes. On very short final it started to rain people. The best thing to do was to plant the plane in the shortest distance possible and hope nobody was planning on “running into traffic”.
the parachutist has the responsibility to land away from the traffic pattern and runway. Most airplanes have less visibility than a car. The “ancient Cessna” can’t steer away from what can’t be seen.
to put it into street terms, the parachutist was jay walking.
Well he’d been flying for 60 years and survived a 55 mph cartwheel. I’d say he was in pretty good shape. But then, I’ve seen younger pilots (70’s) who can’t mentally keep up with their plane.
If I have an engine failure I’ll take Bob Hoover in the right seat if he’s an inch from death.
If you don’t want to get hit by an airplane don’t parachute on runways. Because not only are you endangering yourself you put the pilot in a situation where any change in direction away from the runway places the other parachutists in danger. They’re where they’re suppose to be.
Pilots have to prove their skill-sets regularly as well as pass a health exam. If you think the skydiver is at fault then I’ll leave you to argue with yourself.
