Skydivers Land @ Sub Base

Its ok don't worry we have DHS to protect us. I wonder if the Gov't is going to charge the skydivers like NY might charge the guy who got stranded on the Jet Ski and walked across JFK.
 
Hey! St. Mary's! I was just telling a co-worker about the permanent T(emporary)FR they had put in place over the sub base. I see it's now a Prohibited area.
 
Obligatory:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Missed-it-by-that-much.jpg
    Missed-it-by-that-much.jpg
    63.3 KB · Views: 184
I've jumped at that dropzone. Imho, it'd be pretty difficult to land that far off the airport. You'd have to be very confused about your location or have absolutely no awareness of what the winds are doing.
 
I would imagine that the base is posted with "Deadly Force Authorized" placards in some areas. These tools are lucky the base security team is disciplined. I find it very unlikely this was an "accident".
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I would imagine that the base is posted with "Deadly Force Authorized" placards in some areas.
Click to expand...

The base does have those placards. And they are permitted to shoot you if you're in the wrong place and sneeze funny. Or maybe even if you don't sneeze at all. I wasn't based at Kings Bay, but once upon a time I was in the program to guard nuclear weapons. However I can neither confirm nor deny whether I might have performed such duties.

In this case, the skydivers landed on the baseball field on the main base, well outside the P-51 zone. That is a much lower security area of the base which is accessible to family members and civilian employees without security clearances.

As it turns out, the Navy has a few skydivers of their own and they seem to understand that wind can blow you off course. My understanding is that these two were released, no blood/no foul.
 
bflynn said:
As it turns out, the Navy has a few skydivers of their own and they seem to understand that wind can blow you off course. My understanding is that these two were released, no blood/no foul.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. I have some experience dropping things out of the back of a C-130. I am quite certain that in freefall you track upwind of your target to offset the drift you get once you open your canopy. I am also pretty sure that you have fair maneuverability once under canopy. To miss that badly was either deliberate or grossly incompetent.
 
This occurred near my home and I've had a question.

The airport authority in St. Mary's has told the skydiving business owner that they are not allowed to use the airport anymore because of these incidents.

My local airport authority, not St. Mary's but a rural airfield about 30 miles away and no where near the prohibited area, has been approached by this same business who informed them that it is looking at using this field for their operation as well. My local authority in their regular meetings is discussing and leaning towards telling the business that they can not operate here as well. And if the authority decides to allow them to, the company would have to post a several thousand dollar bond to be able to use the field. For reference the field has no buildings or other facilities, its just a strip of asphalt in the woods. The company would be landing, taking off, picking up passengers (jumpers), and it sounds like using the field as a drop zone.

Politics and naval security and all those issues aside, Can an airport deny an entity the use of an airfield to conduct aeronautical activities, such as sky diving? I don't know what FARs pertain to skydiving operations and whatnot, but I thought a public use airfield could not limit the use of same for the purposes of aeronautical activities. What am I missing?
 
> I thought a public use airfield could not limit the use of same for the purposes of aeronautical activities. What am I missing?


Has the airport taken federal grant money?
 
Skydivers on an airport WILL drive away airplane owners and renters and the airport will get the reputation of a skunk in the flying community...
They are not compatible with airplanes... They are thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies... They tend to be loud, and annoying to non divers.. Picnic tables with blaring music out in front of their hangar, herds of divers and their groupies barging into the pilots lounge to trash the rest rooms, cars parked willy nilly all around, and on, and on... You might as well open the airport to dirt bikers running across the runways as to have divers operating there...
They feel they are entitled to make a muffled, cryptic announcement on the CTAF of divers in two minutes and then silence... Then when there is conflict between a plane entering the pattern and uncontrolled meat bombs coming down at 120 mph they sanctimoniously say, 'we have a right to use the airport too' ...


That's , my neutral opinion and I am sticking to it..
 
You can translate what was written above to: They will bring life to a dead airport. And if a few zombie sofa pilots are driven away what is the loss? Skydivers bring topless young women, beer, life and buy more gas in a weekend then an average dozen old geezer pilots combined do in a year. They aren't the death of an airport they are the airports rebirth and chance at life.
Besides skydivers do have a right to use airports that take federal money. Don't like it pay for an airport yourself.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You can translate what was written above to: They will bring life to a dead airport. And if a few zombie sofa pilots are driven away what is the loss? Skydivers bring topless young women, beer, life and buy more gas in a weekend then an average dozen old geezer pilots combined do in a year. They aren't the death of an airport they are the airports rebirth and chance at life.
Besides skydivers do have a right to use airports that take federal money. Don't like it pay for an airport yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes, very true.

The earlier comment reminds me of a Yogi Berra quote "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" Stop by a airport with skydiving and you will usually see a full pattern.
 
Dr. O said:
Skydivers on an airport WILL drive away airplane owners and renters and the airport will get the reputation of a skunk in the flying community...
They are not compatible with airplanes... They are thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies... They tend to be loud, and annoying to non divers.. Picnic tables with blaring music out in front of their hangar, herds of divers and their groupies barging into the pilots lounge to trash the rest rooms, cars parked willy nilly all around, and on, and on... You might as well open the airport to dirt bikers running across the runways as to have divers operating there...
They feel they are entitled to make a muffled, cryptic announcement on the CTAF of divers in two minutes and then silence... Then when there is conflict between a plane entering the pattern and uncontrolled meat bombs coming down at 120 mph they sanctimoniously say, 'we have a right to use the airport too' ...


That's , my neutral opinion and I am sticking to it..
Click to expand...

That's too bad you have had that experience.

The skydive outfits at 3 of the last airports I have been party to were courteous, fostered a good relationship with the airport community, had drivers that communicated well while in the air, and brought life and dollars to the airport.
 
Yes, federal grant money is involved in both airports.

I understand that there needs to be extra safety involved when dodging the meat missiles. However, for an airport that has no other business, and was only recently reopened after being closed for several YEARS while the runway was repaved, a local public sentiment that it was a useless waste of money because there are no planes based there and very seldom is one seen even dropping in for a touch and go, no fuel services, only a port a john, not even a picnic table for the divers to put their radios on so they can attract the topless girls. They talk a big game of wanting to attract people to the airport and there are lots of on going improvement projects lined up, but I feel they need to show the community that it is being used and start trying to attract people there.

Then a diving business wants to come and they are hem-hawing around and talking about denying them use of the airport, when I didn't even think they had the authority to deny in the first place.

So to answer, Rainsux's question; yes they have taken federal grant money.
 
Coming back from Lexington, KY one day, I diverted to an airport in Western MD for fuel, I forget the name, but it had a very active skydiving club on the field. I thought I had walked into a surfing shop. Tie die everywhere. I walked up to a guy who looked, acted, and sounded like Spicoli from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", who seemed to be the "man" in charge. I had previously walked to a different building which seemed like the FBO but that was closed. I asked about buying fuel for my plane and Spicoli said they didn't have any. Now, right before I asked him, I saw a fuel truck filling a jump plane with 100LL, so I knew they had fuel. He said the FBO had closed and the fuel was now solely for the skydiving operation, and he couldn't sell me any. I had cash, and could get by with 10 gallons to get home (with reserves) so I offered him a $50 bill for 10 gallons which at the time was way above market price. He still refused. I ended up flying to another field and getting gas there, but it was a needless stop. In the big picture no big deal, but still annoying.

Anyway, I'd still prefer an active airport, even if it is a circus with a skydiving club to a dead one with a few old men standing around grumbling about the old days.
 
Anthony said:
Coming back from Lexington, KY one day, I diverted to an airport in Western MD for fuel, I forget the name, but it had a very active skydiving club on the field. I thought I had walked into a surfing shop. Tie die everywhere. I walked up to a guy who looked, acted, and sounded like Spicoli from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", who seemed to be the "man" in charge. I had previously walked to a different building which seemed like the FBO but that was closed. I asked about buying fuel for my plane and Spicoli said they didn't have any. Now, right before I asked him, I saw a fuel truck filling a jump plane with 100LL, so I knew they had fuel. He said the FBO had closed and the fuel was now solely for the skydiving operation, and he couldn't sell me any. I had cash, and could get by with 10 gallons to get home (with reserves) so I offered him a $50 bill for 10 gallons which at the time was way above market price. He still refused. I ended up flying to another field and getting gas there, but it was a needless stop. In the big picture no big deal, but still annoying.

Anyway, I'd still prefer an active airport, even if it is a circus with a skydiving club to a dead one with a few old men standing around grumbling about the old days.
Click to expand...


Yeah... I would have been pi$$ed too.... If they could not spare 10 gallons to a fellow aviator then I rank them as pond scum..:yesnod::mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top