RPTR CLAIMS TO HAVE OBSERVED AN ACR EA32 MAKE EVASIVE TURNS AWAY FROM JUMP ACFT JUMP ACTIVITY. RPTR HAD EXCHANGED TFC WITH BOTH ACFT. RPTR ALLEGES JUMP ACFT CHOSE TO MAKE THE JUMP IN FRONT OVER THE ACR. NO INDICATION OF ACR RPTING A NMAC.

Narrative

ACR X INBOUND DSNDING TO 8000 FT MSL. A PARACHUTE ACFT CALLED AND ADVISED INBOUND ON 'JUMP RUN.' TFC WAS PASSED TO BOTH ACFT. THE JUMP ACFT'S PLT CHOSE TO MAKE THE JUMP IN FRONT/OVER INBOUND ACR X. I OBSERVED ACR X MAKE EVASIVE TURNS TO THE W. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW JUMP AREA AND INDICATED THAT IT HAS BEEN IN OPS FOR ABOUT 1 YR. RPTR STATED THE JUMP OPERATOR HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN WORKING AT ANOTHER COUNTY ARPT BUT ALLEGES THE OPS WAS MOVED BY THE COUNTY TO ANOTHER COUNTY ARPT; THE PRESENT LOCATION; DUE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT AT THE OLD JUMP AREA. RPTR STATED THE NEW JUMP AREA IS ON THE FINAL APCH COURSE TO RWY 11 AND WITHIN A VFR FLY AWAY AREA. RPTR STATED THAT ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO THERE WAS A NMAC IN THE SAME AREA INVOLVING A DIFFERENT ACR COMPANY. RPTR INDICATED THAT THE FACILITY HAS REFUSED TO WORK WITH THE OPERATOR ON AN LOA AS THE OPERATOR IS UNCOOPERATIVE AND THE LOCATIONS HE WANTS ARE WITHIN THE CLASS B AIRSPACE. RPTR INDICATED THE PLT OF THE JUMP ACFT GAVE A 1 1/2 MIN WARNING BEFORE RELEASING THE JUMPERS RATHER THAN THE USUAL 2 MINS. RPTR SAID THAT THERE ARE 2 JUMP ACFT WITH ONE BEING A C411 AND THE OTHER A SINGLE ENG TYPE. RPTR DID NOT KNOW THE TYPE USED DURING THIS INCIDENT. RPTR IS UNAWARE IF THE ACR FLC CALLED OR FILED A NMAC.