PLT OF A SCHEMPP-HIRTH; MODEL DISCUS GLIDER HAD CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH SEVERAL SKYDIVERS NEAR HINKLEY; IL; UNCTLED ARPT AT 4000 FT AGL. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS KNOWN SKYDIVING ACTIVITY OVER AND NEAR THE ARPT; HE WAS ALARMED TO SEE THEM COMING OUT OF THE CLOUDS WITH AND WITHOUT OPEN PARACHUTES. THERE WERE NO PARACHUTE JUMPER ANNOUNCEMENTS PRIOR TO SEEING THE JUMPERS.

Narrative

I WOULD LIKE TO RPT AN INCIDENT OF SEVERAL NEAR MISSES WITH SKYDIVERS NEAR HINKLEY ARPT. THIS EVENT OCCURRED ON JUN/XX/97 AT ABOUT XA45; APPROX 1 - 1 1/2 MI S OF HINKLEY ARPT. I WAS FLYING A GLIDER AT 4000 FT AGL UNDER 9/10 CLOUD COVER ESTIMATED AT 5000-5500 FT AGL WHEN 10-20 SKYDIVERS CAME OUT OF THE OVCST ABOVE ME. WHILE FLYING N FROM CUSHING ARPT NEAR NEWARK; IL; TO DEKALB; IL; ARPT; THE CLOUDS NEAR HINKLEY STARTED TO OVERDEVELOP TO THE POINT THAT IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT PRECIPITATE A SMALL RAIN SHOWER. IF THIS DID HAPPEN; I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME SOARING FROM DEKALB BACK TO MY HOME ARPT ABOUT 50 MI TO THE S. I THEREFORE DECIDED TO USE HINKLEY AS MY NORTHERN TURN POINT AND HEAD BACK TO THE S IMMEDIATELY. THE OVERDEVELOPED CLOUD COVERAGE APPEARED TO BE 9/10 TO OVCST WITHIN A 3 MI RADIUS OF HINKLEY ARPT. THE BASES WERE ESTIMATED TO BE 5000-5500 FT AGL. A FEW MINS AFTER THE INCIDENT; I ENCOUNTERED RAIN DROPS ON MY CANOPY WHILE FLYING AT 4000 FT AGL. TO PRODUCE RAIN DROPS; I WOULD GUESS THAT THE VERT DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLOUDS HAD TO BE A MINIMUM OF 2000-5000 FT. I KNOW OF THE SKYDIVING OP AT HINKLEY; HOWEVER; I DID NOT THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE JUMPING THROUGH THE OVCST. ALSO; I HAD BEEN MONITORING FREQ 123.3. THIS IS COMMON PRACTICE FOR GLIDERS ON XCOUNTRY FLTS. IT IS ALSO THE FREQ THAT THE SKYDIVING OP USES TO ANNOUNCE A PENDING JUMP. THE SKYDIVING OP MADE NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF A PENDING JUMP BEFORE THE SUBJECT INCIDENT. WHEN ABOUT 1 1/2 MI S OF HINKLEY ARPT; I SAW AN OBJECT FALLING RAPIDLY. IT WAS FAR ENOUGH AWAY THAT I COULD NOT IDENT IT. A MOMENT LATER I SAW ANOTHER FALLING OBJECT. THIS ONE WAS ABOUT 1000 FT AWAY AND I COULD CLRLY SEE THAT IT WAS A SKYDIVER IN A HEAD DOWN; VERT; TERMINAL VELOCITY DIVE. AS I TURNED AWAY FROM HIM; I ENCOUNTERED 2 SKYDIVERS ABOVE AND IN FRONT OF ME; IN A HORIZ POS WITH ARMS AND LEGS OUTSTRETCHED. THEY APPEARED TO BE CTLING THEIR DSCNT SO AS TO TURN AWAY FROM ME. THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BTWN US MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE ORDER OF 500 FT. AS ITURNED AWAY FROM THEM I ENCOUNTERED 2 MORE JUMPERS IN A HEAD DOWN; VERT; TERMINAL VELOCITY DIVE. I ESTIMATE THEIR DISTANCE FROM ME AS LESS THAN 800 FT. IT WAS HARD TO ESTIMATE THE DISTANCE AS THEY WERE PROBABLY MOVING ABOUT 170 MPH AND WERE IN SIGHT ONLY MOMENTARILY. LOOKING UP; I COULD SEE SEVERAL MORE SKYDIVERS COMING OUT OF THE CLOUDS. TOWARDS THE END OF THE INCIDENT (PROBABLY ABOUT 1 MIN) I SAW A COUPLE OF OPEN CHUTES NEAR CLOUD BASE. I ASSUME THAT THEY OPENED THEIR CHUTE WHILE STILL INSIDE THE CLOUD. I REALLY DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OF JUMPERS. JUST THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL. I SAW 7 VERY CLOSE! THERE WERE MANY MORE. DURING THE INCIDENT; I ANNOUNCED OVER THE RADIO TO A FRIEND AS TO WHAT WAS HAPPENING (IN CASE I DID NOT SURVIVE). THIS CAUSED A THIRD PARTY (WHO I ASSUMED TO BE A GLIDER PLT BASED AT HINKLEY) TO INFORM ME THAT THE HINKLEY GLIDER OP HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SKYDIVING OP TO NOT FLY ON THE UPWIND SIDE OF THE ARPT. THIS IN TURN CAUSED ME TO SCREAM SOMETHING ABOUT I THOUGHT THAT THE SKYDIVERS WERE SUPPOSED TO REMAIN VFR; NOT COME OUT OF CLOUDS. I TRIED TO CONTACT THE SKYDIVING OP BUT RECEIVED NO REPLY. I ALSO TRIED TO CONTACT THEM ON FREQ 122.9 AS PUBLISHED ON THE LATEST CHART. EVIDENTLY; THIS FREQ IS NOT USED BY ANYONE; EVEN THOUGH PUBLISHED ON THE CHART. DURING THE 2 HRS PRECEDING THE INCIDENT; I DO NOT RECALL ANY PREJUMP ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE SKYDIVING OP. IN THE 1 1/2 HRS AFTER THE INCIDENT THERE WERE SEVERAL PREJUMP ANNOUNCEMENTS. RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A VERY SERIOUS INCIDENT. IF I HAD COLLIDED WITH A 200 LB SKYDIVER; MOVING ABOUT 170 MPH; BOTH OF US WOULD MOST LIKELY BE FATALITIES. IF THEIR JUMPING THROUGH THICK CLOUD COVER WAS ILLEGAL; SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO STOP. IF THEY ARE NOT ANNOUNCING A JUMP ALERT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PROC; THEN SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO FOLLOW PROPER PROCS. IF THEIR IFR OP WAS AUTH; THEN THE FAA MUST DEVELOP A PROC (OTHER THAN A PERMANENTNOTAM ADVISING PARACHUTING IN THE AREA) TO ALERT VFR TRANSIENT PLTS THAT SUCH AN EVENT COULD TAKE PLACE; EVEN IF THIS WOULD REQUIRE A RESTR AREA AROUND THE ARPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE EXTENSIVE PARACHUTE JUMPING GOING ON AT THIS LOCATION AND TO BE ON THE ALERT FOR SUCH ACTIVITY. HOWEVER; SINCE HE HAD BEEN MONITORING THE GLIDER ADVISORY FREQ; AND HEARD NO ANNOUNCEMENTS; TOGETHER WITH SUDDENLY OBSERVING SKYDIVERS COMING OUT OF THE CLOUDS OVERHEAD; WITH AND WITHOUT PARACHUTES OPENED; HE WAS ALARMED FOR NOT ONLY THE SKYDIVERS' SAFETY; BUT HIS OWN. HE BELIEVED THAT SINCE THERE WERE SO MANY COMING DOWN THAT HE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AVOID A COLLISION! HE HAS TURNED THIS INCIDENT INTO THE LCL FAA FSDO OFFICE AND DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH AN FAA INSPECTOR. SUBSEQUENTLY; DURING A RECENT FLT BACK TO THE SAME AREA HE HEARD MANY ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE SKYDIVING ACFT PLT THAT GAVE AN UPDATED ACCOUNT OF THE PARACHUTE JUMPERS' ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER; THERE WAS NO CLOUD COVER TO INTERFERE WITH THE JUMPS. HE BELIEVES THAT THE FAA INSPECTOR MUST HAVE TAKEN ACTION TO HELP CREATE A SAFER OP OF THE MIXED AVIATION ACTIVITIES.