Narrative:

Approximately 25 NM from las and slightly west of the 190 degree radial, we were advised of a VFR parachute-drop aircraft maneuvering at our 12 O'clock position, that would pass overhead. The first officer and I acquired the aircraft both visually and on TCASII at about 5 NM. It appeared to be a cessna heading north at 11000 ft to 12000 ft MSL. We reported sighting the VFR aircraft and approach cleared us to 8000 ft. The controller then asked the VFR pilot to report sighting the company B737 (our aircraft) to his left and emphasized that he was not cleared to release his jumpers, as our aircraft would pass directly beneath his position, which was now less than 3 NM off our nose. The VFR pilot replied that he had just kicked the last jumper out the door. I reacted immediately as approach gave us a left turn to 340 degrees and warned us of possible parachute jumpers in our immediately vicinity. I had already pulled the power back and begun descending to 8000 ft when the lower half of my vsi displayed a red arc as the TCASII issued an aural traffic alert. I stopped descending, but maintained a 30 degree left bank making it impossible to see the other aircraft. The first officer advised ATC that we had the VFR aircraft in sight but had no contact with the jumpers. Within seconds of the TA we received a 'climb' RA as the red arc on my vsi extended well into the upper half of the display. The VFR aircraft had apparently begun a spiraling left dive to follow his jumpers, resulting in a high rate of closure as he passed through our altitude. At that moment I had no clue as to what rate of turn or descent the other pilot was using. Between the radio xmissions and TCASII alerts I had not heard anything from my first officer that assured me we would clear the other aircraft so I complied with the 'climb advisory. I applied maximum thrust and rotated to go around attitude. The first officer advised ATC that we were climbing to avoid the other aircraft. 2 of our flight attendants were in the process of securing the cabin and were knocked to the floor during the maneuver, but later stated that they had not suffered any injury. The first officer estimated that the other aircraft passed within 1000 ft horizontally in a nearly inverted attitude with its belly towards us. I have no idea if the other pilot was aware of our position or totally focused on trailing his jumpers. We remained busy for the remainder of the flight as ATC slowed and vectored us repeatedly in order to fit us back into the sequence for landing on runway 1L. This incident arose as a result of conflicting usage of airspace in the las terminal area, which is limited due to terrain obstacles and the runway confign in use at the time. However, it would not have posed a threat to operational safety had the other pilot complied with the controller's instructions in accordance with the LOA by which he was bound. I can only speculate as to what other factors may have contributed to this pilot's poor decision making. With las arrival and departure procedures currently in a phase of transition due to problems implementing LNAV operations, it might be a good time to address the issue of whether or not this drop zone can safely co-exist with such a busy airport. However, in fairness to the skydiving operators, prior to this event and throughout my 18+ yrs of operating in and out of las with company, I have never experienced any conflicts with these aircraft. Supplemental information from acn 564762: operating under ATC TA's and FAA LOA aircraft was unable to drop jumpers under radar service at OC7. Pilot canceled radar service, but maintained communication with las TRACON. Dropped jumpers and proceeded to agreed climb/descent box. Was advised by ATC of traffic, and when I raised wing to look, saw B737 closing on position, tightened up turn and increased descent rate. Traffic was then no factor. Improved communication between pilot and controller and earlier notification may have alleviated the problem. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the jump aircraft had been delayed for 30 mins by ATC before being allowed to release jumpers so radar service was canceled. The release was made under the VFR rules of the LOA. After jumpers were released the aircraft proceeded to the approved climb descent area for descent. It was here the conflict occurred. The jumpers were approximately 3 mi away.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CONFLICT BTWN AN ACR B737 AND A C206 WHEN SKYDIVERS ARE RELEASED WITHOUT COORD NEAR LAS VEGAS, NV.

Narrative: APPROX 25 NM FROM LAS AND SLIGHTLY W OF THE 190 DEG RADIAL, WE WERE ADVISED OF A VFR PARACHUTE-DROP ACFT MANEUVERING AT OUR 12 O'CLOCK POS, THAT WOULD PASS OVERHEAD. THE FO AND I ACQUIRED THE ACFT BOTH VISUALLY AND ON TCASII AT ABOUT 5 NM. IT APPEARED TO BE A CESSNA HEADING N AT 11000 FT TO 12000 FT MSL. WE RPTED SIGHTING THE VFR ACFT AND APCH CLRED US TO 8000 FT. THE CTLR THEN ASKED THE VFR PLT TO RPT SIGHTING THE COMPANY B737 (OUR ACFT) TO HIS L AND EMPHASIZED THAT HE WAS NOT CLRED TO RELEASE HIS JUMPERS, AS OUR ACFT WOULD PASS DIRECTLY BENEATH HIS POS, WHICH WAS NOW LESS THAN 3 NM OFF OUR NOSE. THE VFR PLT REPLIED THAT HE HAD JUST KICKED THE LAST JUMPER OUT THE DOOR. I REACTED IMMEDIATELY AS APCH GAVE US A L TURN TO 340 DEGS AND WARNED US OF POSSIBLE PARACHUTE JUMPERS IN OUR IMMEDIATELY VICINITY. I HAD ALREADY PULLED THE PWR BACK AND BEGUN DSNDING TO 8000 FT WHEN THE LOWER HALF OF MY VSI DISPLAYED A RED ARC AS THE TCASII ISSUED AN AURAL TFC ALERT. I STOPPED DSNDING, BUT MAINTAINED A 30 DEG L BANK MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THE OTHER ACFT. THE FO ADVISED ATC THAT WE HAD THE VFR ACFT IN SIGHT BUT HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE JUMPERS. WITHIN SECONDS OF THE TA WE RECEIVED A 'CLB' RA AS THE RED ARC ON MY VSI EXTENDED WELL INTO THE UPPER HALF OF THE DISPLAY. THE VFR ACFT HAD APPARENTLY BEGUN A SPIRALING L DIVE TO FOLLOW HIS JUMPERS, RESULTING IN A HIGH RATE OF CLOSURE AS HE PASSED THROUGH OUR ALT. AT THAT MOMENT I HAD NO CLUE AS TO WHAT RATE OF TURN OR DSCNT THE OTHER PLT WAS USING. BTWN THE RADIO XMISSIONS AND TCASII ALERTS I HAD NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM MY FO THAT ASSURED ME WE WOULD CLR THE OTHER ACFT SO I COMPLIED WITH THE 'CLB ADVISORY. I APPLIED MAX THRUST AND ROTATED TO GAR ATTITUDE. THE FO ADVISED ATC THAT WE WERE CLBING TO AVOID THE OTHER ACFT. 2 OF OUR FLT ATTENDANTS WERE IN THE PROCESS OF SECURING THE CABIN AND WERE KNOCKED TO THE FLOOR DURING THE MANEUVER, BUT LATER STATED THAT THEY HAD NOT SUFFERED ANY INJURY. THE FO ESTIMATED THAT THE OTHER ACFT PASSED WITHIN 1000 FT HORIZLY IN A NEARLY INVERTED ATTITUDE WITH ITS BELLY TOWARDS US. I HAVE NO IDEA IF THE OTHER PLT WAS AWARE OF OUR POS OR TOTALLY FOCUSED ON TRAILING HIS JUMPERS. WE REMAINED BUSY FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FLT AS ATC SLOWED AND VECTORED US REPEATEDLY IN ORDER TO FIT US BACK INTO THE SEQUENCE FOR LNDG ON RWY 1L. THIS INCIDENT AROSE AS A RESULT OF CONFLICTING USAGE OF AIRSPACE IN THE LAS TERMINAL AREA, WHICH IS LIMITED DUE TO TERRAIN OBSTACLES AND THE RWY CONFIGN IN USE AT THE TIME. HOWEVER, IT WOULD NOT HAVE POSED A THREAT TO OPERATIONAL SAFETY HAD THE OTHER PLT COMPLIED WITH THE CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOA BY WHICH HE WAS BOUND. I CAN ONLY SPECULATE AS TO WHAT OTHER FACTORS MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS PLT'S POOR DECISION MAKING. WITH LAS ARR AND DEP PROCS CURRENTLY IN A PHASE OF TRANSITION DUE TO PROBS IMPLEMENTING LNAV OPS, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS DROP ZONE CAN SAFELY CO-EXIST WITH SUCH A BUSY ARPT. HOWEVER, IN FAIRNESS TO THE SKYDIVING OPERATORS, PRIOR TO THIS EVENT AND THROUGHOUT MY 18+ YRS OF OPERATING IN AND OUT OF LAS WITH COMPANY, I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED ANY CONFLICTS WITH THESE ACFT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 564762: OPERATING UNDER ATC TA'S AND FAA LOA ACFT WAS UNABLE TO DROP JUMPERS UNDER RADAR SVC AT OC7. PLT CANCELED RADAR SVC, BUT MAINTAINED COM WITH LAS TRACON. DROPPED JUMPERS AND PROCEEDED TO AGREED CLB/DSCNT BOX. WAS ADVISED BY ATC OF TFC, AND WHEN I RAISED WING TO LOOK, SAW B737 CLOSING ON POS, TIGHTENED UP TURN AND INCREASED DSCNT RATE. TFC WAS THEN NO FACTOR. IMPROVED COM BTWN PLT AND CTLR AND EARLIER NOTIFICATION MAY HAVE ALLEVIATED THE PROB. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE JUMP ACFT HAD BEEN DELAYED FOR 30 MINS BY ATC BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO RELEASE JUMPERS SO RADAR SVC WAS CANCELED. THE RELEASE WAS MADE UNDER THE VFR RULES OF THE LOA. AFTER JUMPERS WERE RELEASED THE ACFT PROCEEDED TO THE APPROVED CLB DSCNT AREA FOR DSCNT. IT WAS HERE THE CONFLICT OCCURRED. THE JUMPERS WERE APPROX 3 MI AWAY.

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.