Narrative:

While giving rides at frazier lake airpark, I was asked if I would drop 2 parachutists. At that point I agreed if I could find another pilot -- since my aircraft could only accommodate one. Several mins later I saw mr Y who owns and flys an small aircraft. I asked mr Y would he like to drop a parachutist. He replied, 'yes' if I would provide some training. Myself having performed this at livermore and watsonville airshows in the past -- along with experienced jumpers. I proceeded to conduct entry and exit procedures, both with mr Y and the jumpers. The jumpers were both advised not to land back on the airport property. They had a driver, and she proceeded approximately 2 1/2 mi to the west of frazier lake airpark. At that point pilots and jumpers departed frazier lake airpark, climbing to 4000 -- radio contact was conducted between aircraft and ATC contacted for advisories and traffic in the vicinity of frazier lake. ATC advised area not radar coveraged. After passing over frazier lake at 4000, ATC was advised that planes were on jump run. ATC's reply to report jumpers away, and when the last jumper was on the ground. To the best of my knowledge this was conducted according to part 105. Now the problem begins -- due to high winds aloft or for other safety reasons the parachutists returned to the frazier lake airport property, a violation of uncontrolled field jumps and airport operating rules. Once I realized the jumpers appeared to be tracking back to the airport, I changed frequencys from ATC to unicom and advised jumpers in the air, and warned all aircraft on the ground that the jumpers were approaching the airport. No accidents occurred. No injuries occurred. There was no property damage -- just upset airport board members. Supplemental information from acn 220164. On returning to frazier lake, I was confronted by a non-board member who proceeded to criticize the jump as being against the use permit conditions under which the airport was approved by the county. I was surprised at the verbal attack and immediately reviewed the far's to find out whether the drop had violated any far's. To my chagrin it appears that several rules were violated, namely 105.14, 105.17, and 105.23. A close reading of these rules will disclose that it was my responsibility to make sure that 1) a NOTAM was filed (105.23), and 2) that I contacted ATC directly, not depend on the lead pilot to do so (105.140), and 3) make sure the 'airport management' approved the jump. In this case a majority of the board of directors probably constituted the 'management' not just 1 of 9 board members.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 BIPLANES DROP 2 JUMPERS WHO LAND BACK AT ARPT. NO NOTAM, ONLY 1 IN COM WITH ATC, NO PRIOR APPROVAL. VIOLATION OF PART 105.

Narrative: WHILE GIVING RIDES AT FRAZIER LAKE AIRPARK, I WAS ASKED IF I WOULD DROP 2 PARACHUTISTS. AT THAT POINT I AGREED IF I COULD FIND ANOTHER PLT -- SINCE MY ACFT COULD ONLY ACCOMMODATE ONE. SEVERAL MINS LATER I SAW MR Y WHO OWNS AND FLYS AN SMA. I ASKED MR Y WOULD HE LIKE TO DROP A PARACHUTIST. HE REPLIED, 'YES' IF I WOULD PROVIDE SOME TRAINING. MYSELF HAVING PERFORMED THIS AT LIVERMORE AND WATSONVILLE AIRSHOWS IN THE PAST -- ALONG WITH EXPERIENCED JUMPERS. I PROCEEDED TO CONDUCT ENTRY AND EXIT PROCS, BOTH WITH MR Y AND THE JUMPERS. THE JUMPERS WERE BOTH ADVISED NOT TO LAND BACK ON THE ARPT PROPERTY. THEY HAD A DRIVER, AND SHE PROCEEDED APPROX 2 1/2 MI TO THE W OF FRAZIER LAKE AIRPARK. AT THAT POINT PLTS AND JUMPERS DEPARTED FRAZIER LAKE AIRPARK, CLBING TO 4000 -- RADIO CONTACT WAS CONDUCTED BTWN ACFT AND ATC CONTACTED FOR ADVISORIES AND TFC IN THE VICINITY OF FRAZIER LAKE. ATC ADVISED AREA NOT RADAR COVERAGED. AFTER PASSING OVER FRAZIER LAKE AT 4000, ATC WAS ADVISED THAT PLANES WERE ON JUMP RUN. ATC'S REPLY TO RPT JUMPERS AWAY, AND WHEN THE LAST JUMPER WAS ON THE GND. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO PART 105. NOW THE PROBLEM BEGINS -- DUE TO HIGH WINDS ALOFT OR FOR OTHER SAFETY REASONS THE PARACHUTISTS RETURNED TO THE FRAZIER LAKE ARPT PROPERTY, A VIOLATION OF UNCTLED FIELD JUMPS AND ARPT OPERATING RULES. ONCE I REALIZED THE JUMPERS APPEARED TO BE TRACKING BACK TO THE ARPT, I CHANGED FREQS FROM ATC TO UNICOM AND ADVISED JUMPERS IN THE AIR, AND WARNED ALL ACFT ON THE GND THAT THE JUMPERS WERE APCHING THE ARPT. NO ACCIDENTS OCCURRED. NO INJURIES OCCURRED. THERE WAS NO PROPERTY DAMAGE -- JUST UPSET ARPT BOARD MEMBERS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 220164. ON RETURNING TO FRAZIER LAKE, I WAS CONFRONTED BY A NON-BOARD MEMBER WHO PROCEEDED TO CRITICIZE THE JUMP AS BEING AGAINST THE USE PERMIT CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE ARPT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. I WAS SURPRISED AT THE VERBAL ATTACK AND IMMEDIATELY REVIEWED THE FAR'S TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE DROP HAD VIOLATED ANY FAR'S. TO MY CHAGRIN IT APPEARS THAT SEVERAL RULES WERE VIOLATED, NAMELY 105.14, 105.17, AND 105.23. A CLOSE READING OF THESE RULES WILL DISCLOSE THAT IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT 1) A NOTAM WAS FILED (105.23), AND 2) THAT I CONTACTED ATC DIRECTLY, NOT DEPEND ON THE LEAD PLT TO DO SO (105.140), AND 3) MAKE SURE THE 'ARPT MGMNT' APPROVED THE JUMP. IN THIS CASE A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS PROBABLY CONSTITUTED THE 'MGMNT' NOT JUST 1 OF 9 BOARD MEMBERS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.