Skydiving Here? No Way!

0

I got a tidy little lesson in confirmation bias that I wasn’t quite expecting on Tuesday afternoon. The local airport manager held a meeting in the town hall to discuss a proposed skydiving operation that wants to start operations in Venice. Heretofore, when the city has been approached on this topic, it has rejected the idea, ostensibly due to safety concerns. This time, the FAA weighed in and noted that skydiving is a legitimate aeronautical activity and if the town wanted to continue receiving federal AIP dollars, it had better have a good reason for saying no again. Hence the meeting.

About 35 people attended to hear a hired consultant explain the operational and safety issues involved in a skydiving operation co-existing on the airport. I’d describe the atmosphere in the room as respectfully skeptical; no one was pounding the table in opposition, but no one was swooning over doing their first tandem near the beach, either. I went in intending to argue in favor of the proposal until the consultant threw up a slide of five potential landing spots on the airport. Are you kidding? I thought. Every one of them had a potential conflict with a runway or a pattern. I was beginning to think the skydiving proposal was a bad idea after all.

As the meeting wore on, someone asked who would decide the issue and how. Ultimately, it would be the FAA, based on risk analysis. Further probing caused the scales from eyes to slide away. There is absolutely no numerical metric, no logical path or framework to assign risk to such a thing. First, there’s no useful accident or incident data to work with and second, there are far too many variables. So it’s done on gut feel and emotionalism, a theme readers of this blog will recognize as an obsession of mine. And I was doing it myself. When I looked at those five circles representing potential landing areas, I thought they would conflict impossibly with aircraft traffic, but on further consideration, they were no better or worse than other airports I’ve jumped into. At Zephyrhills, where I regularly jump, there’s mixed traffic just as Venice has, including gliders operating on the same runway as skydiving aircraft do. This mix has co-existed satisfactorily for years and probably will for years to come. Despite legitimate fears raised by many, including me, I think the same would be true of our little airport.

I’ve noticed that pilots and airport communities sometimes adopt a circle-the-wagons reaction to fringe operations that aren’t down the center lane. Skydiving is one. Powered parachutes and gliders another. There’s a tendency to spring immediately to no, then figure out reasons to support that view. To its credit, the FAA is saying that’s not going to work this time, so better come up with some good explanations. That will be difficult for the reasons I’ve stated above because the usual emotional, anything-could-happen argument can’t be supported by anything remotely resembling a demonstrated fact pattern, even if the risk really is as high as the imagined worst-case scenarios.

I think the best way is a push to test. I asked the airport manager if the skydiving operation could be given a 60-day, no-fault trial period to see how things work out. He said maybe. My guess is that few would even notice, if the skydiving operator does his duty in respecting other airport users. In my experience, that’s where skydiving operations get sideways with the airports that host them. It often starts with an aggressive jump aircraft pilot cutting someone off in the pattern followed by arguments and finger pointing. Drop zone operators have to understand the importance of not letting this happen.And all pilots have to do is remember to descend to pattern altitude well away from the airport and keep their eyes open for canopies that will probably be opening above them, if they see any skydivers at all. A little courtesy and communication goes a long way toward a peaceful, productive relationship, just as it always has.

LEAVE A REPLY