87 y/o should have to do it more often than 47 y/o, IMHO. So no cite, then? If he was over the runway at that altitude, but, like I said, I would need more information.
As I read the story, it seemed to say the pilot was doing “maneuvers”, which sounds like practicing his flying skills. It does not say that he was approaching or taking off, so one cannot assume he was on a runway vector. He may have crossed paths with the skydiver in a location that might have otherwise been considered safe, because he was just flying around, not using the runway at the time.
I posted relevant parts of the FARs in the other thread. I don’t see anything in Part 91 mentioning parachutists in the right-of-way section. Part 105 says that parachutists may not be a hazard to aircraft.
The articles I read said he was performing touch-and-goes, which is a ‘maneuver’. In a touch-and-go, the airplane lands as normal; but instead of slowing to a stop and turning off the runway, the pilot accelerates and performs a normal take-off. Touch-and-goes are maneuvers every pilot practices frequently. They are useful for practicing a variety of landing and take-off configurations, and especially useful as an excuse to go flying or to not stop flying.
No skydiver here, but parachutists have parachutes now that can be more easily maneuverable and guide them easier than the old circle chutes. Many are quite good at landing them within a few feet of where they want to go. Parachutists at airports have certain designated areas they are to land at. I don’t think any airport would have them landing at the end of the grass runway where planes take off and land. If this grass airstrip was so small, their only place to land was the grass runway, then that’s just insane. Don’t know enough, but doubt that is the case.
The pilot of the plane said he was aware of parachutists in the area. But also said the parachutist didn’t land in the designated area.
I remember when I was in Middletown, OH a few years back, the parachute school and the pilots at the airport had a strained relationship. Planes full of skydivers were taking off every 30 minutes with about a dozen skydivers or more each ride. This left a very narrow window for planes to take off, land, and get out of their way. But at least the parachutists knew not not to land on the runway!
It would have been nice for the pilot to have spotted him, but gosh, the parachutist, if he had even the most basic skills—barring any freak winds—could have easily landed in the designated area and certainly would have spotted the plane much easier with his visibility. When the dust settles, I bet the parachutist will get the blame.
To be fair, the planes carrying the parachutists have as much right to operate, and must follow the same rules, as any other aircraft. There’s no reason other aircraft can’t operate when skydiver aircraft are flying. It’s just normal integration.
The pilot of the skydiver aircraft may be cited for violation of Section 105.23 for allowing a parachutist to exit his aircraft and cause a hazard to air traffic. The parachutist may be cited for violation of 105.23(c) for creating a hazard to air traffic. The pilot of the Cessna 170 will probably be cited for violating Part 91 for failing to ‘see and avoid’ a hazard.
Personally, I think the 170 pilot has the least responsibility for the collision – even if he was landing short of the threshold. But I think he’ll take the brunt of the enforcement action, and possibly (probably?) lose his medical certificate because he’s old and the FAA will make a case that he’s not fit to fly (as they did with Bob Hoover).
I have to agree, Johnny- I think there is some blame to go around but the skydiver gets the lion’s share. He should have been more aware and should have turned away from the runway while still on the other side of the road.
Oh, and I read on a skydiving forum that the pilot’s medical certificate was out-of-date.
If true, that’s going to bite him. The FAA is not very understanding about that sort of thing. You know their motto: ‘We’re not happy until you’re nor happy!’ If the pilot was medically unfit to fly, he shouldn’t have been flying. If he simply didn’t get around to renewing, he’s going to be blamed anyway because he violated the rules.
Yeah, I’m with you on all of this, particularly if it is a small airport, as this one was, that’s the best place to be doing this sort of stuff. I used to enjoy going out and watching the skydivers at the Grandfield, Oklahoma airport, but they are no longer there. It was a very small airport, well out of the way, and the plane only took up about three or four parachutists at a time, and there wasn’t that many scheduled jumps. I’ve also been to the one outside of the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, at a small grass strip, which had two planes dropping a dozen or so each time. It was so busy, you had to call in with permission in advance to land there. Still, it wasn’t too difficult at all to work around the parachutists. I’m thinking about maybe doing this myself someday.
Busier airports, my attitude changed a bit after my visit to Middletown, Ohio. I remember while my stay there, planes would often be backed up as much as 5 deep and more waiting for all of the parachutists to land, they too, had two big planes dropping a dozen or more. Then there were others already in the air staying outside of the area that were also ready to come in to land. It was very chaotic, but somehow they managed to stay out of the way of each other. Gosh, there is no way I would want that airport as my home base.
I have a feeling you’re right, they will probably cite both of them, but hoping they will take it a bit easier on the old geezer, particularly if he is right about the parachutist not landing in the designated area.
Well at least at Middletown they keep the traffic pattern on the NW side ( opposite the city) so the parachutists consistently have the SE side to land on with a lot of options if it gets dicey.
The Cessna is a high-wing, with excellent forward and below visibility. The 'chute was a huge flag.
The 'chute shouldn’t have been there.
Pilot has no excuse for not seeing and avoiding it. To proceed and hope the 'chute didn’t cross your path was inexcusable. At his age, he should know how to do a go-around.
Most highwings have no view above them. And since pilots sit behind the edge of the windscreen that further limits the view above the front of the plane. The parachutist is by default above the plane the entire time. It’s virtually impossible to see what is above the plane at any given time.
The parachutists on the other hand has a commanding view of what’s below including the runway which they are obligated to avoid.
Doing a go-around puts more people in danger because, again, the pilot cannot see what is above the plane.
There use to be a DC-3 freight operation out of Middletown. Were they renting these for jumping?
Gosh, sorry for the late reply, I didn’t notice it. Actually, I don’t recall the planes being DC-3’s though.
According to the NTSB, the pilot was aware of the jump activity; he just “didn’t see” that jumper (the 4th out of the plane).
The pilot was an owner-resident of the “fly-in community” (subdivisions with airports and taxiways, marketed to pilots with the time/flexibility to fly frequently.
Watch:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140309X03824&key=1
For the investigation.
It was a freighter operation with DC-3’s, B-18’s and Falcons.
The parachutist was at fault. Those damn sky pedestrians never watch where they’re going.
Well he wouldn’t “just see” the jumper who would be above him. The jumper however would see everything below him and would be expected to stay out of the flight path of aircraft. For all practical purposes the jumper ran out in traffic and caused an accident.