Two planes flying in formation getting ready to roll out skydivers. I don't know if the top plane went down or the lower plane came up, but they had a fender bender. All are safe. Luckily they were dressed for it.
I heard the pilot that bailed had to put his chute on, but can't confirm that by the text. (supposed to have it on).
Video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/skydiver-plane-collision_n_4215804.html
I heard about the accident and was wondering if anyone had a GoPro strapped on.
The wings came off that plane easier than I expected...
It doesn't take much. I would expect a bunch of skydivers to make it out, but glad to hear the pilots survived as well.
I wish all planes had parachutes under the seat or something. I know I know, commercial jet liners fly to high too use them anyway, but I know I'd feel better.
I should not have clicked on that, seeing as how I'm getting on a plane in a few hours.
Never getting on a plane again. Hell, I'm not even gonna' walk up the stairs.
PHeller wrote: I wish all planes had parachutes under the seat or something. I know I know, commercial jet liners fly to high too use them anyway, but I know I'd feel better.
Too high?! I guarantee that before a commercial jetliner crashes, it will be low enough to use a parachute! 
Tis morning's news interviewed one of the sky divers who was briefly pinned between the planes.
Also, they did make it sound like the pilot DID have to put his "emergency" chute on.
Yeah, that is miraculous that all survived.
It's pretty crazy that the pilot of the plane that lost the wing got out.
Pretty stupid situation though. No reason why that should have happened (unless there was some sort of wild control failure in the lower plane). The pilot should obviously ALWAYS keep visual contact of a plane you are flying close to, much less in formations with!!
I am really surprised that the guy hanging off the wing of the top plane didn't get any injuries when the low plane crushed him. That was some of the wildest footage I've ever seen. And the pilot of the upper plane has giant brass ones for getting that bird back down.
Also, the pilots don't have to wear chutes.
I wonder how much of it was the weight shift of 4 people grabbing onto the right wing support. The sky divers where on the side that the plane vered toward. My understanding is the planes are not being flown much above stall speed during jump so the pilot may of simply not had sufficient control authority to respond to the shifted weight resulting in veerinf right and loosing altitude. Couple that to the fact that the other plane had already had people leaving so if the pilot had some amount of left stick in for the weight shift and was gaining altitude due to weight loss it would seem the lower plane would be veerinf up and left. Seems like bad formation for launch with 1 plane low/right if the jumpers exit on the right. Seems like high/right would be safer.
Javelin wrote: Also, the pilots don't have to wear chutes.
I believe they do. Go to the 4th bullet under Aircraft Modifications.
http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/libview_normal.aspx?id=7721
In reply to 914Driver:
I should say, all of the skydiving planes I've been up in, the pilots didn't wear chutes. I don't know if that varies by geographical area, or if it's changed in the 10+ years since I've been up.
Call me chicken, but I would. 
Not that this is an exhaustive review, but it is from the FAA, and it does mention pilot parachutes if the door is removed: http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/libview_normal.aspx?id=7721
Some interesting bullet points, though:
The first thing is probably what caused the collision (either the lower plane had too much input and veered up/left when they deployed, or the upper plane didn't have enough control, and the bunching of jumpers at the door dropped him), but the second is what saved both pilot's bacon.
In reply to 914Driver:
I found the same source as you did while replying to you. Notice that it only said the parachute was required for a removed or modified door. If you go to 0:34 on the video, you can see the door hinged upwards. I don't know if that's modified (plus it isn't the pilot that had to bail), but that could have been the distinction that meant the other guy didn't have his parachute on.
I'm with you though, I imagine he'll have it on no matter what now!!!
1988RedT2 wrote: Too high?! I guarantee that before a commercial jetliner crashes, it will be low enough to use a parachute!
Just don't fly over Everest! :)
914Driver wrote:Javelin wrote: Also, the pilots don't have to wear chutes.I believe they do. Go to the 4th bullet under Aircraft Modifications. http://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/libview_normal.aspx?id=7721
I've never flown anywhere around another plane but how would the prop wash and wing turbulence affect the top plane? The clips that NBC news showed, which must have been shot from one of the departing jumpers,made it look like the top plane may have been sucked toward the bottom plane and then downward. But it could have just been as said before the pilot wasn't paying enough attention to the lower plane.
That's an interesting theory. At those speeds the wash should be pretty minor, but very turbulent (because of the angle of attack). They did a test of it in a Mythbusters episode using RV's (the plane), and at cruise speed it was very noticeable.
Perhaps the wash of the first plane cause the right wing to stall (as noted above). They get pretty slow when they release the jumpers, so a stall seems like a possibility. I would need to look at the video again to see if it looks like the upper plane is going down, or the lower going up (perspective wise, you tend to assume the lower one comes up).
The lower plane has the right of way. I can't tell if the lower plane came up or the top plane went down.....
Why look- its a whole wad of crazy berkeleyers who are not dead. Yet.
Also interesting how the separated wing immediately caught fire. Cessna's have the fuel in the wings just outboard the wing root, so having fuel spill is reasonable, but what set it alight? I am guessing the exhaust of the upper plane (looks like a 180)? Still pretty crazy that simple exhaust would set off vaporize fuel in high winds. Maybe a backfire from what I assume would be a prop strike?
Javelin wrote: In reply to 914Driver: I found the same source as you did while replying to you. Notice that it only said the parachute was required for a removed or modified door.
If the door is opened while in flight, it has been modified. The safety interlock has been bypassed.
Plus, I think the FAA requires removal of the door when jumping (even though that one was not).
FAA does require jump pilots to wear parachutes. My former boss (who had never jumped in his life) had a plane, and occasionally piloted for jumpers. He had to wear a parachute (even though he did not know how to use it).
SVreX wrote: ...The safety interlock has been bypassed....
"Safety Interlock". Clearly, you have never been in a small Cessna before.
Parachutes are required for any acrobatic flying (getting out of some planes would be very difficult), which is technically anything beyond a 45 deg bank (as I remember). So I can see how requiring them for jump planes is believable.
You'll need to log in to post.
