Narrative:

I landed at laurel airport in delaware with a student for short/soft field practice at this uncontrolled grass strip. While we were taxing to the T. O. End to depart we heard on the CTAF that 'jumpers were away over laurel,' we taxied to the end of the runway, and observed for aircraft traffic. None was observed so we pulled on the runway and waited for the jumpers to land, we had several jumpers in sight and they landed in a bunch down for the jumpers to land, we had several jumpers in sight and they landed in a bunch down the runway about mid field just off the right side. Seeing no further jumpers at the time we started a takeoff roll and accelerated to vr. At this time several more jumpers dropped into view above the airport and we debated on aborting or continuing. As we would have stopped just under the jumpers and it was clear that they were at the time not directly over the runway we continued our takeoff roll and passed underneath by 2-300. Both the student pilot and instructor were experienced jumpers and both of us were shaken by the experience for two reasons. One was that it was difficult to determine how many jumpers there were, how many had landed and if anyone was still inbound to the runway area, and 2) there were no clear markings as to the runway environment nor the drop zone and neither of us expected the jumpers anywhere near our position. As we were rolling on takeoff and near rotation speed when it became obvious that the second set of jumpers was overhead, it wasn't clear to us the best plan of action. Our decision to do so was not in hindsight the proper one, another aircraft was behind us waiting for takeoff and encouraged us to go as they operated out of laurel and said that they were used to the jumpers and this was routine. We should have continued to hold on the runway until were absolutely positive there was no chance other jumpers would be in the air. After our departure we never did hear another CTAF announcement that the airspace was clear. I feel that the contributing factors were 1) our lack of familiarity with the jump operations at laurel, our lack of familiarity with the airport itself, the fact that the drop zone was not clearly marked. We didn't figure that there would have been so many jumpers in one load, and that they would be so unsafe as to jump onto the immediate runway environment at a public use airport. It is obvious in hindsight, as we were not familiar with the jump operations, we should not have attempted to depart until we had waited a bit longer. Other factors were the failure of the jump operators to either close the runway off by flagging or another means if the jumpers were going to be that close and to perhaps post a sign near the T. O. Ends of the runway warning that the touch down zone was close to the active. In addition if the sport parachute activity used a handheld radio they could contact pilots to warn them of the activity. This lack of communication was a serious problem. Both of us were very shaken by this incident as we felt that we were in danger as we could not predict the actions of the jumpers, and while our actions kept us clear of the jumpers we should not have been in such a hurry to depart. It has been 25 yrs since I landed at an airport with skydiving activities and I just couldn't believe that this type of activity was allowed actually on the runway environment. Clearly my expectations of running sport parachute jumpers in the past had a negative effect on my judgments. I felt that although I was not able to count all of the jumpers in the initial group it easily was a plane load and this proved to be incorrect and compounded a bad decision. I should have actually stopped and if unsure either returned to question the jump activity as to their methods of operation or should have pulled off the runway and let the other plane operate rather than feel pushed to make a decision by their lack of patience, that was no excuse for my bad decision. I would not operate out of laurel again until I had visited by car, spent some time at the airport and determined how the jump operations were conducted. It isobvious that the method of acceptable operations have changed over the yrs and that the current methods in use at laurel are not sufficiently safe for me to feel comfortable using the field. I am determined now that I want to visit a couple of sport parachute activities and talk with them about their methods of operations so that I can better inform my students to educate both them and myself in the best mode of operation around these facilities. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter did not have much to add to his initial report. He did check the NOTAMS and found nothing unusual to report regarding the drop activity or procedures. He had not been to N06 before and did not know who operated the drop aircraft. He said that a total of about 7 chutists landed off the side of they runway. He plans on going back for additional research of the operation next year.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA-28 INSTR PLT RPT ON THE HAZARDOUS PROCS USED DURING PARACHUTE JUMPING ACTIVITY AT LAUREL, DE, A NON TWR ARPT, WITH DROPS LNDG NEAR THE RWY AT N06, DE.

Narrative: I LANDED AT LAUREL ARPT IN DELAWARE WITH A STUDENT FOR SHORT/SOFT FIELD PRACTICE AT THIS UNCTLED GRASS STRIP. WHILE WE WERE TAXING TO THE T. O. END TO DEPART WE HEARD ON THE CTAF THAT 'JUMPERS WERE AWAY OVER LAUREL,' WE TAXIED TO THE END OF THE RWY, AND OBSERVED FOR ACFT TFC. NONE WAS OBSERVED SO WE PULLED ON THE RWY AND WAITED FOR THE JUMPERS TO LAND, WE HAD SEVERAL JUMPERS IN SIGHT AND THEY LANDED IN A BUNCH DOWN FOR THE JUMPERS TO LAND, WE HAD SEVERAL JUMPERS IN SIGHT AND THEY LANDED IN A BUNCH DOWN THE RWY ABOUT MID FIELD JUST OFF THE RIGHT SIDE. SEEING NO FURTHER JUMPERS AT THE TIME WE STARTED A TKOF ROLL AND ACCELERATED TO VR. AT THIS TIME SEVERAL MORE JUMPERS DROPPED INTO VIEW ABOVE THE ARPT AND WE DEBATED ON ABORTING OR CONTINUING. AS WE WOULD HAVE STOPPED JUST UNDER THE JUMPERS AND IT WAS CLR THAT THEY WERE AT THE TIME NOT DIRECTLY OVER THE RWY WE CONTINUED OUR TKOF ROLL AND PASSED UNDERNEATH BY 2-300. BOTH THE STUDENT PLT AND INSTRUCTOR WERE EXPERIENCED JUMPERS AND BOTH OF US WERE SHAKEN BY THE EXPERIENCE FOR TWO REASONS. ONE WAS THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE HOW MANY JUMPERS THERE WERE, HOW MANY HAD LANDED AND IF ANYONE WAS STILL INBND TO THE RWY AREA, AND 2) THERE WERE NO CLR MARKINGS AS TO THE RWY ENVIRONMENT NOR THE DROP ZONE AND NEITHER OF US EXPECTED THE JUMPERS ANYWHERE NEAR OUR POS. AS WE WERE ROLLING ON TKOF AND NEAR ROTATION SPEED WHEN IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE SECOND SET OF JUMPERS WAS OVERHEAD, IT WASN'T CLR TO US THE BEST PLAN OF ACTION. OUR DECISION TO DO SO WAS NOT IN HINDSIGHT THE PROPER ONE, ANOTHER ACFT WAS BEHIND US WAITING FOR TKOF AND ENCOURAGED US TO GO AS THEY OPERATED OUT OF LAUREL AND SAID THAT THEY WERE USED TO THE JUMPERS AND THIS WAS ROUTINE. WE SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO HOLD ON THE RWY UNTIL WERE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE THERE WAS NO CHANCE OTHER JUMPERS WOULD BE IN THE AIR. AFTER OUR DEP WE NEVER DID HEAR ANOTHER CTAF ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE AIRSPACE WAS CLR. I FEEL THAT THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE 1) OUR LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE JUMP OPS AT LAUREL, OUR LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE ARPT ITSELF, THE FACT THAT THE DROP ZONE WAS NOT CLEARLY MARKED. WE DIDN'T FIGURE THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SO MANY JUMPERS IN ONE LOAD, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE SO UNSAFE AS TO JUMP ONTO THE IMMEDIATE RWY ENVIRONMENT AT A PUBLIC USE ARPT. IT IS OBVIOUS IN HINDSIGHT, AS WE WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE JUMP OPS, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DEPART UNTIL WE HAD WAITED A BIT LONGER. OTHER FACTORS WERE THE FAILURE OF THE JUMP OPERATORS TO EITHER CLOSE THE RWY OFF BY FLAGGING OR ANOTHER MEANS IF THE JUMPERS WERE GOING TO BE THAT CLOSE AND TO PERHAPS POST A SIGN NEAR THE T. O. ENDS OF THE RWY WARNING THAT THE TOUCH DOWN ZONE WAS CLOSE TO THE ACTIVE. IN ADDITION IF THE SPORT PARACHUTE ACTIVITY USED A HANDHELD RADIO THEY COULD CONTACT PLTS TO WARN THEM OF THE ACTIVITY. THIS LACK OF COM WAS A SERIOUS PROB. BOTH OF US WERE VERY SHAKEN BY THIS INCIDENT AS WE FELT THAT WE WERE IN DANGER AS WE COULD NOT PREDICT THE ACTIONS OF THE JUMPERS, AND WHILE OUR ACTIONS KEPT US CLR OF THE JUMPERS WE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN SUCH A HURRY TO DEPART. IT HAS BEEN 25 YRS SINCE I LANDED AT AN ARPT WITH SKYDIVING ACTIVITIES AND I JUST COULDN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY WAS ALLOWED ACTUALLY ON THE RWY ENVIRONMENT. CLEARLY MY EXPECTATIONS OF RUNNING SPORT PARACHUTE JUMPERS IN THE PAST HAD A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON MY JUDGMENTS. I FELT THAT ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT ABLE TO COUNT ALL OF THE JUMPERS IN THE INITIAL GROUP IT EASILY WAS A PLANE LOAD AND THIS PROVED TO BE INCORRECT AND COMPOUNDED A BAD DECISION. I SHOULD HAVE ACTUALLY STOPPED AND IF UNSURE EITHER RETURNED TO QUESTION THE JUMP ACTIVITY AS TO THEIR METHODS OF OP OR SHOULD HAVE PULLED OFF THE RWY AND LET THE OTHER PLANE OPERATE RATHER THAN FEEL PUSHED TO MAKE A DECISION BY THEIR LACK OF PATIENCE, THAT WAS NO EXCUSE FOR MY BAD DECISION. I WOULD NOT OPERATE OUT OF LAUREL AGAIN UNTIL I HAD VISITED BY CAR, SPENT SOME TIME AT THE ARPT AND DETERMINED HOW THE JUMP OPS WERE CONDUCTED. IT ISOBVIOUS THAT THE METHOD OF ACCEPTABLE OPS HAVE CHANGED OVER THE YRS AND THAT THE CURRENT METHODS IN USE AT LAUREL ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SAFE FOR ME TO FEEL COMFORTABLE USING THE FIELD. I AM DETERMINED NOW THAT I WANT TO VISIT A COUPLE OF SPORT PARACHUTE ACTIVITIES AND TALK WITH THEM ABOUT THEIR METHODS OF OPS SO THAT I CAN BETTER INFORM MY STUDENTS TO EDUCATE BOTH THEM AND MYSELF IN THE BEST MODE OF OP AROUND THESE FACILITIES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO ADD TO HIS INITIAL RPT. HE DID CHECK THE NOTAMS AND FOUND NOTHING UNUSUAL TO RPT REGARDING THE DROP ACTIVITY OR PROCS. HE HAD NOT BEEN TO N06 BEFORE AND DID NOT KNOW WHO OPERATED THE DROP ACFT. HE SAID THAT A TOTAL OF ABOUT 7 CHUTISTS LANDED OFF THE SIDE OF THEY RWY. HE PLANS ON GOING BACK FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH OF THE OP NEXT YEAR.

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.