Narrative:

I believe that the FAA is also missing the point that currently parachute jumps into class a, B, C, and D airspace (positive control area, TCA, asra, air traffic area, control zone), require specific authorization from the FAA. I think it would be of little or no 'legal consequence' to extend that requirement and necessitate 'LOA's' for jump activity in class east airspace. The FAA's response to my ucr states that they 'cannot stress enough that the final responsibility for the safety of the jump rests with the pilot of the jump aircraft, and we do not believe we should take on that responsibility.' controllers would wholeheartedly agree with that statement. We do not want that responsibility. It would be an unworkable nightmare. We want to enhance the general and overall safety of the procedure, not control more aircraft. I would hope that the FAA does recognize that we do have some responsibility for the aircraft that can potentially collide with the jump aircraft. Chapter 9, section 9 of the 7110.65 (ATC procedures manual) basically says that the controller 'shall' provide advisories to jump aircraft and any other known aircraft transiting the area. They've omitted the phrase 'when workload permits.' in effect, they've taken 'jump aircraft' out of the realm of 'normal VFR traffic.' in so doing, the FAA has already greatly increased their potential liability. During busy periods it is beyond any controller's capabilities to provide that many advisories. It's not being done, in fact, I believe it would come as a surprise to most controllers to learn that we are 'required' to provide advisories at all times. A controller working a busy arrival sector is primarily concerned with the separation of known IFR traffic. Secondarily, he is concerned with providing the approach controller with a workable flow of traffic at consistent altitudes and speeds. Anything that disrupts that flow is a hazard, e.g., if a jet informs us he will not descend through that area, he's going to be higher and faster than those in front of him, forcing either approach to deal with that 'compression' or the center controller to vector him out and everyone behind him. This increases the controller's workload tenfold instantaneously. Likewise, if a turboprop requests vectors around the area everyone behind him has to move. I would anticipate that my proposed solution, requiring LOA's, would end up prohibiting any jump activity above 6000 ft MSL along stars for 3 or 4 1-HR periods of known high density traffic, during a 12 hour day. It would also require the area of operation, altitudes, direction of climb out, etc. Locally, the FAA is attempting to meet with jump operators, airline representatives, FSDO, etc, in an effort to work out LOA's. As I understand it, they are also considering amending current stars to provide clearance with jump areas. While I believe these efforts may provide some relief at ZMP, I have my doubts. The jump operators seem to be complying with the FARS and the expense (environmental studies) and time involved in moving a STAR will probably derail that idea. In any event, the national aspect is still being ignored.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR FEELS THAT PARACHUTE JUMPING IN THE VICINITY OF AIRWAYS, ARR CORRIDORS, DEP CORRIDORS IS NOT SAFE.

Narrative: I BELIEVE THAT THE FAA IS ALSO MISSING THE POINT THAT CURRENTLY PARACHUTE JUMPS INTO CLASS A, B, C, AND D AIRSPACE (PCA, TCA, ASRA, ATA, CTL ZONE), REQUIRE SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FAA. I THINK IT WOULD BE OF LITTLE OR NO 'LEGAL CONSEQUENCE' TO EXTEND THAT REQUIREMENT AND NECESSITATE 'LOA'S' FOR JUMP ACTIVITY IN CLASS E AIRSPACE. THE FAA'S RESPONSE TO MY UCR STATES THAT THEY 'CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THAT THE FINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SAFETY OF THE JUMP RESTS WITH THE PLT OF THE JUMP ACFT, AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY.' CTLRS WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. WE DO NOT WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY. IT WOULD BE AN UNWORKABLE NIGHTMARE. WE WANT TO ENHANCE THE GENERAL AND OVERALL SAFETY OF THE PROC, NOT CTL MORE ACFT. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE FAA DOES RECOGNIZE THAT WE DO HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACFT THAT CAN POTENTIALLY COLLIDE WITH THE JUMP ACFT. CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9 OF THE 7110.65 (ATC PROCS MANUAL) BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE CTLR 'SHALL' PROVIDE ADVISORIES TO JUMP ACFT AND ANY OTHER KNOWN ACFT TRANSITING THE AREA. THEY'VE OMITTED THE PHRASE 'WHEN WORKLOAD PERMITS.' IN EFFECT, THEY'VE TAKEN 'JUMP ACFT' OUT OF THE REALM OF 'NORMAL VFR TFC.' IN SO DOING, THE FAA HAS ALREADY GREATLY INCREASED THEIR POTENTIAL LIABILITY. DURING BUSY PERIODS IT IS BEYOND ANY CTLR'S CAPABILITIES TO PROVIDE THAT MANY ADVISORIES. IT'S NOT BEING DONE, IN FACT, I BELIEVE IT WOULD COME AS A SURPRISE TO MOST CTLRS TO LEARN THAT WE ARE 'REQUIRED' TO PROVIDE ADVISORIES AT ALL TIMES. A CTLR WORKING A BUSY ARR SECTOR IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE SEPARATION OF KNOWN IFR TFC. SECONDARILY, HE IS CONCERNED WITH PROVIDING THE APCH CTLR WITH A WORKABLE FLOW OF TFC AT CONSISTENT ALTS AND SPDS. ANYTHING THAT DISRUPTS THAT FLOW IS A HAZARD, E.G., IF A JET INFORMS US HE WILL NOT DSND THROUGH THAT AREA, HE'S GOING TO BE HIGHER AND FASTER THAN THOSE IN FRONT OF HIM, FORCING EITHER APCH TO DEAL WITH THAT 'COMPRESSION' OR THE CTR CTLR TO VECTOR HIM OUT AND EVERYONE BEHIND HIM. THIS INCREASES THE CTLR'S WORKLOAD TENFOLD INSTANTANEOUSLY. LIKEWISE, IF A TURBOPROP REQUESTS VECTORS AROUND THE AREA EVERYONE BEHIND HIM HAS TO MOVE. I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT MY PROPOSED SOLUTION, REQUIRING LOA'S, WOULD END UP PROHIBITING ANY JUMP ACTIVITY ABOVE 6000 FT MSL ALONG STARS FOR 3 OR 4 1-HR PERIODS OF KNOWN HIGH DENSITY TFC, DURING A 12 HR DAY. IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE AREA OF OP, ALTS, DIRECTION OF CLBOUT, ETC. LOCALLY, THE FAA IS ATTEMPTING TO MEET WITH JUMP OPERATORS, AIRLINE REPRESENTATIVES, FSDO, ETC, IN AN EFFORT TO WORK OUT LOA'S. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY ARE ALSO CONSIDERING AMENDING CURRENT STARS TO PROVIDE CLRNC WITH JUMP AREAS. WHILE I BELIEVE THESE EFFORTS MAY PROVIDE SOME RELIEF AT ZMP, I HAVE MY DOUBTS. THE JUMP OPERATORS SEEM TO BE COMPLYING WITH THE FARS AND THE EXPENSE (ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES) AND TIME INVOLVED IN MOVING A STAR WILL PROBABLY DERAIL THAT IDEA. IN ANY EVENT, THE NATIONAL ASPECT IS STILL BEING IGNORED.

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.