Narrative:

I was asked to fly a skydiving demonstration. When I asked where, the demonstration was to be on a beach of a lake, with the exit occurring over water. The persons witnessing the jump would be the patrons of a water fun- park but would view the event from a distance that would not constitute an open air assembly of persons that the jumper would descend into, but rather a safe distance away. On exit, the target was visible and matched the description of not constituting a group of persons that the jumper would descend into. The entire beach of 100 or so yards was clear from the water and opposing areas. In short, the jumper for whatever reason descended onto a person, who sustained minor injuries. A few days later, I was notified that the jump may have been in violation of far 105 that states that no jumper may descend into a group of persons. The FAA said that a waiver may have been required. Upon further review of part 105, it does mention that a jumper may fly over a group of persons but not land among them. My contention is that the group of persons was not part of the target and safe measures were planned. The jumper I cannot speak for. From my perspective, he seemed to have trouble accurately landing himself despite a fully functioning canopy. The fault does lie with him. The spot was good, it was merely an unfortunate lack of judgement on his part. The ground crew may have also unintentionally allowed spectators closer to the target than previously planned. Solutions for similar sits seem to point to stricter licensing of skydivers who perform demonstration jumps and more responsibility of ground crew members. It seems that I was the only person who did my job correctly, but I am the only person whom someone wants to blame.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF A C182 DROPPED SKYDIVER OVER A CROWD OF SPECTATORS RESULTING IN MINOR INJURY TO ONE WHEN A SPECTATOR WAS HIT BY THE DSNDING SKYDIVER. THE RPTR DID NOT HAVE A WAIVER.

Narrative: I WAS ASKED TO FLY A SKYDIVING DEMONSTRATION. WHEN I ASKED WHERE, THE DEMONSTRATION WAS TO BE ON A BEACH OF A LAKE, WITH THE EXIT OCCURRING OVER WATER. THE PERSONS WITNESSING THE JUMP WOULD BE THE PATRONS OF A WATER FUN- PARK BUT WOULD VIEW THE EVENT FROM A DISTANCE THAT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AN OPEN AIR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS THAT THE JUMPER WOULD DSND INTO, BUT RATHER A SAFE DISTANCE AWAY. ON EXIT, THE TARGET WAS VISIBLE AND MATCHED THE DESCRIPTION OF NOT CONSTITUTING A GROUP OF PERSONS THAT THE JUMPER WOULD DSND INTO. THE ENTIRE BEACH OF 100 OR SO YARDS WAS CLR FROM THE WATER AND OPPOSING AREAS. IN SHORT, THE JUMPER FOR WHATEVER REASON DSNDED ONTO A PERSON, WHO SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES. A FEW DAYS LATER, I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE JUMP MAY HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF FAR 105 THAT STATES THAT NO JUMPER MAY DSND INTO A GROUP OF PERSONS. THE FAA SAID THAT A WAIVER MAY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED. UPON FURTHER REVIEW OF PART 105, IT DOES MENTION THAT A JUMPER MAY FLY OVER A GROUP OF PERSONS BUT NOT LAND AMONG THEM. MY CONTENTION IS THAT THE GROUP OF PERSONS WAS NOT PART OF THE TARGET AND SAFE MEASURES WERE PLANNED. THE JUMPER I CANNOT SPEAK FOR. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, HE SEEMED TO HAVE TROUBLE ACCURATELY LNDG HIMSELF DESPITE A FULLY FUNCTIONING CANOPY. THE FAULT DOES LIE WITH HIM. THE SPOT WAS GOOD, IT WAS MERELY AN UNFORTUNATE LACK OF JUDGEMENT ON HIS PART. THE GND CREW MAY HAVE ALSO UNINTENTIONALLY ALLOWED SPECTATORS CLOSER TO THE TARGET THAN PREVIOUSLY PLANNED. SOLUTIONS FOR SIMILAR SITS SEEM TO POINT TO STRICTER LICENSING OF SKYDIVERS WHO PERFORM DEMONSTRATION JUMPS AND MORE RESPONSIBILITY OF GND CREW MEMBERS. IT SEEMS THAT I WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO DID MY JOB CORRECTLY, BUT I AM THE ONLY PERSON WHOM SOMEONE WANTS TO BLAME.

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.