Free preliminary screening tool

Drop zone and landing-field risk screener

Seventeen questions for an established drop zone, a temporary innhopp or demonstration, foreseeable off-field landings, or a mixed operation. In about ten minutes you get a weighted advisory result, context-specific recommendations and a compact preliminary record you can print or save locally as PDF.

Who it is for

Jump leaders, instructors, display teams, clubs, pilots, event organisers and safety roles making an early check of a landing area and its operating interfaces.

What you get

A 0 to 100 priority score, five-area breakdown, attention flags, two largest gaps, a recommendation for the selected context and a field-friendly preliminary record.

What it is not

The result is not proof that a site is safe, approved or suitable, and it is not a regulatory or operational authorisation. A person with the right competence still has to make the real decision.

Before you start

Answer for the actual people, canopies, aircraft, landing options, forecast conditions and ground activity you expect. Use Not known instead of guessing. The first question selects the context and carries no points.

Keep the record minimal. Do not enter medical details, occurrence reports, names other than the assessor, aircraft registrations or confidential information. The assessment stays in this browser unless you voluntarily send a summary.

Preliminary screening record

A compact field record, not proof of site safety, approval or regulatory compliance. Required fields stay in this browser unless you voluntarily submit the summary.

Landing area or site name Assessor name Assessor role (optional) Assessment date and time Planned activity (optional) Planned activity date (optional) Notes or reference (optional, no personal or confidential details)

0 / 17 questions answered

Section A · 30 of 100 pointsLanding area, alternatives and physical hazards

Whether the intended landing area, overshoot, undershoot and alternate areas provide usable space for the people and canopies involved, including surface conditions, obstacles and access.

Q1 · Operating context · Screening question, not scoredWhich operating context best describes the assessment you are completing?

Established drop zone with the intended landing area on the operating sitePlanned temporary or off-site jump, demonstration or organised innhoppForeseeable exposure to an unplanned off-field landing or retrievalMixed operation combining two or more of these contexts

Q2 · Primary landing area · 8 pointsHow well does the intended landing area fit the canopy types, jumper competence, landing directions and realistic traffic for this activity?

Usable dimensions, approaches and landing directions are verified for every planned jumper and canopy groupThe area is established and normally suitable, with today's differences checked before activity startsSpace or approach margins are tight for some jumpers, canopies or likely landing directionsThe intended area is unverified, clearly marginal or unsuitable for part of the planned groupNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q3 · Overshoot and alternatives · 8 pointsHow usable are the overshoot, undershoot and alternate landing areas if the intended area cannot be reached or safely used?

Several identified areas are reachable, briefed, largely clear of major hazards and matched to likely windsAt least one practical alternate is identified and normally usable, with known limitations briefed todayAlternates exist but access, reachability, surface, obstacle or ownership limitations reduce their practical valueNo credible alternate is identified, or likely overshoot and undershoot areas contain severe unavoidable hazardsNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q4 · Hazards around landing · 8 pointsHow completely have obstacles and special hazards on and around likely landing areas been identified and made usable in the brief?

Current ground and aerial views identify power lines, water, buildings, roads, woods and smaller hazardsKnown major hazards and avoid areas are marked, with a recent check for temporary additionsSome hazards are known but not mapped, visible from all approaches or translated into avoid areasA serious hazard may be unrecognised, hidden on approach or left without a practical avoidance planNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q5 · Surface and access · 6 pointsHow suitable are surface condition, slope, crops, fences, vehicles and access for landing, retrieval and emergency response today?

Surface and access were checked today, restrictions are marked, and emergency routes remain usableConditions are normally suitable and a responsible person has checked significant changes before the activityWet ground, crops, slope, stock, fencing or parked vehicles create material but partly managed exposureSurface or access is unknown, seriously obstructed, or likely to delay rescue from a foreseeable landing areaNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Section B · 19 of 100 pointsWind, weather and spot

How current wind and weather information, drift, visibility and the selected spot are translated into a usable landing plan and clear stop criteria.

Q6 · Wind and stop criteria · 7 pointsHow are surface and upper wind information converted into limits and stop criteria for this site, group and activity?

Current winds at relevant levels are checked against written local limits, with a named stop decision ownerReliable observations are available and experienced staff apply agreed limits consistently throughout the dayLimits are generic, observations are intermittent, or responsibility for stopping is not completely clearRelevant winds are unavailable or ignored, or activity continues without defined limits when conditions deteriorateNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q7 · Weather and visibility · 6 pointsHow reliably will cloud, visibility, precipitation and changing weather permit the aircraft, landing areas and drift to remain understood?

Forecast and observations support the full plan, landing areas remain identifiable, and deterioration triggers reassessmentConditions are suitable with adequate margins, and somebody actively monitors the expected changeMarginal or fast-changing conditions could obscure areas, compress choices or make the plan stale between loadsThe landing area may not remain visible or the operation lacks a dependable weather picture and stop responseNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q8 · Spot and drift · 6 pointsHow is the selected spot tested against wind drift, aircraft run-in, group separation and the ability to reach safe alternatives?

A competent person verifies the spot using current winds, observes outcomes and adjusts before margins erodeA standard spot and run-in are checked for today's winds, with corrections communicated between ground and aircraftSpotting relies mainly on habit or one wind value, and landing outcomes are not systematically fed backThe spot is uncertain, communication cannot correct it, or foreseeable drift places jumpers beyond usable areasNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Section C · 18 of 100 pointsJumper competence and canopy traffic

Whether competence, currency, briefing, exit separation, landing patterns and canopy traffic are matched to the site and to each other.

Q9 · Competence and currency · 6 pointsHow well are jumper qualification, currency, canopy characteristics and site familiarity matched to the landing challenge?

Each jumper's current competence and canopy are checked against site-specific demands before assignmentQualifications and recent experience are known, with extra briefing or limits for unfamiliar or returning jumpersSome currency, canopy or site-familiarity gaps remain, although experienced supervision is availableThe planned challenge exceeds known competence, or qualification and recent experience have not been establishedNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q10 · Pattern and canopy traffic · 7 pointsHow clearly will landing direction, pattern priorities, high-performance activity and canopy traffic be separated and followed?

One briefed pattern system covers direction, priority, separation and conflict response, with active observationLanding priorities and direction are agreed, and unusual canopy activity is separated by load or areaDifferent patterns or performance levels may overlap, and priority or conflict response depends on improvisationOpposing or incompatible patterns are foreseeable, or canopy traffic has no agreed direction, priority or separationNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q11 · Daily jump brief · 5 pointsHow complete and specific is the pre-jump brief for exit order, group separation, landing areas, hazards and abnormal situations?

A current site-specific brief confirms jump plan, separation, patterns, hazards, alternates and emergencies for everyoneA standard brief is updated for today's people and conditions, and understanding is checked where neededThe brief misses one important interface or assumes that visitors already understand local practiceNo common brief establishes how groups separate, land, avoid hazards or respond when the plan changesNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Section D · 27 of 100 pointsGround, airspace and emergency interfaces

How public and ground activity, aircraft, airspace, communications, emergency response and rescue are coordinated while the operation is active.

Q12 · Public and ground control · 7 pointsHow are spectators, roads, vehicles, animals and other ground activities kept clear of landing and aircraft movement areas?

Boundaries, marshals or access controls protect every relevant area, with authority to delay the dropGround activity is known and normally controlled, with a named person able to clear temporary conflictsControls rely on signs or assumptions, or one public, road, vehicle or event interface remains weakPeople or vehicles can enter a likely landing area, or inadequate crowd control would not reliably stop the dropNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q13 · Aircraft and airspace · 7 pointsHow are drop aircraft, other aviation activity, airspace users and required notifications coordinated for the operating window?

Current airspace information, notifications and local interfaces are confirmed, activated and closed by named rolesNormal coordination is established and today's operating window and nearby activity have been checkedOne notification, adjacent activity or airspace interface is uncertain, late or dependent on informal contactThe drop may conflict with aircraft or airspace activity, or required coordination and activation are not establishedNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q14 · Operational communications · 5 pointsHow dependable are communications and go, hold, abort and stop signals between ground control, aircraft and jump leadership?

Primary and backup methods, exact signals and decision authority are briefed and tested before activityA familiar communication method and signal set are available, with workable backup through named peopleCoverage, phraseology, backup or authority has a material gap that could delay a hold or abortGround and aircraft cannot share a dependable decision, or an unclear signal could release an unsafe dropNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q15 · Emergency and rescue · 8 pointsHow ready are first aid, rescue, emergency access, manifest accountability and external-service contact for realistic landing and aircraft scenarios?

Named responders, equipment, access routes, manifest and tested contact arrangements cover primary and alternate areasProportionate first aid and rescue arrangements are in place, with current contacts and a ground manifestResponse depends on untested access, limited equipment or uncertain responsibility for one credible scenarioA foreseeable serious scenario lacks timely rescue, accountability, emergency access or a person assigned to callNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Section E · 6 of 100 pointsChange and unresolved-issue screen

These questions are handled separately from the ranked areas. A material unbriefed change or unresolved serious issue cannot be offset by strong answers elsewhere.

Q16 · Changes since brief · 4 pointsHow are changes in wind, surface, hazards, people, public activity, aircraft, airspace or equipment captured after the initial brief?

Named triggers require a pause, reassessment and rebrief, and changes are recorded before activity resumesMaterial changes are normally noticed and briefed by the person directing the operationChanges may be discussed informally without checking every affected interface or recording the decisionA material change has occurred or is expected without a defined reassessment, rebrief or stop decisionNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Q17 · Unresolved issue screen · 2 pointsWhat serious unresolved concern, barrier failure, occurrence lesson or disagreement remains open for this activity?

None known, or previous concerns are closed with evidence and reflected in today's planMinor tracked issues remain with owners, controls and a clear point for reviewA significant concern or uncertain critical barrier remains open while planning continuesAn unresolved severe scenario, failed critical control or material disagreement remains without a safe planning basisNot knownScored the same as the highest exposure. Uncertainty is treated as risk-sensitive, not neutral.

Nothing is sent when you calculate. The scoring happens in your browser.

Your result

Answer all 17 questions above, then choose Show my result.

Discuss the screening with NorthSky

If a flag, alternate area or interface remains uncertain, a site-specific review is more useful than forcing a lower score.

A full assessment tests real landing geometry, wind and spot assumptions, jumper and canopy mix, public controls, aircraft and airspace interfaces, emergency access, decision ownership and stop criteria. The preliminary record helps frame that work but cannot replace it.

Your answers and record fields stay in your browser unless you choose to send a summary. See the privacy notice before submitting.

Common questions

Is the printed record evidence that the landing area is safe?

No. It is evidence only that this preliminary screening was completed with the recorded inputs and model version. It is not proof of safety, approval, suitability, regulatory compliance or a completed site-specific risk assessment.

Can I use the tool for a planned innhopp or demonstration?

Yes. Select the temporary or off-site context. The result will highlight a site visit, public and event interfaces, credible alternate landing areas, emergency access and explicit stop criteria, but the tool does not provide permission to conduct the activity.

How does the tool handle a possible unplanned off-field landing?

Select the off-field exposure context when that is the main concern. Answer for likely reachable areas, hazards, retrieval and emergency access, and the competence, wind and spot margins that determine whether exposure remains foreseeable and manageable.

Why is the first question worth zero points?

The four contexts are categories rather than levels of risk. The selection changes the context flag and recommendation shown in the result, but it must not make a temporary jump automatically score higher than an established operation.

What happens when I choose Not known?

Not known receives the same points as the highest-exposure answer. On decision-critical questions it also raises a separate flag. That is conservative by design because an early landing-field decision should not hide uncertainty behind a low total.

Does the result replace the jump leader or operational decision?

No. The tool organises an early review and produces a compact record. It cannot observe changing weather, judge a jumper, coordinate airspace, inspect the surface or decide whether the actual activity should start, continue, pause or stop.

Does any information leave my browser?

Calculation and print generation are local in the browser. Nothing is transmitted merely because you answer or print. Information leaves the browser only if you voluntarily use an available submission form after reviewing the privacy notice.

Sources and basis

Scope of NorthSky's work

NorthSky provides operational risk decision support and advisory guidance. Outputs do not constitute regulatory certification, aerodrome licensing, compliance verification, or formal authority determinations.

How this tool scores

Questions Q2 to Q17 carry weights that total 100 across landing areas, wind and spot, jumper and canopy factors, ground and airspace interfaces, and the change screen. Each graded answer contributes zero, one third, two thirds or all of its question weight. Q1 only selects the operating context.

This is model version 0.9. Its weighting and four advisory bands are professional judgement and remain uncalibrated against completed drop zone assessments. Flags can raise the advisory band independently, while context flags tailor the recommendation without changing the score.