Two Parachutists Landed in Santiago Traffic. Why Did the Fine Estimates Differ?

At around 9 p.m. on September 28, 2026, an extraordinary scene unfolded on a busy avenue in Santiago, Chile.

A city bus was moving through traffic when a parachutist descended and landed on the roadway behind it. Seconds later, a second person came down dangerously close to a passing car.

The location was Avenida Vicuña Mackenna, reportedly near its intersection with Avenida Matta. The incident was captured on video from inside a vehicle.

Chile’s Directorate General of Civil Aeronautics (Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil, or DGAC) said it had not authorized the maneuver and announced an investigation. Local media reported that the participants could potentially face fines reaching CLP 276.8 million.

But a closer examination of Chile’s aviation legislation and the local reporting reveals a more complicated story. Another news outlet calculated a substantially lower maximum fine, while the aviation regulation cited in connection with the incident raises a separate question: Does a rule written around jumps from aircraft apply in the same way to someone jumping from a building?

The Traffic Light Turned Green. Then Someone Came Down from the Sky

The video showed the first parachutist landing behind a RED public transport bus. A second jumper descended just meters from the car in which the footage was being recorded.

On September 30, the witnesses, Nicol and Alejandro, described the experience on Chilean television program Tu Día.

According to their account, the traffic light turned green just as the second jumper was approaching. Alejandro, who was driving, moved forward cautiously to avoid the descending person.

Visibility was another concern. It was dark, and the parachute was black, making the jumper difficult to spot against the night sky.

AI-generated illustration. This is not actual dashcam footage and does not reconstruct the precise road conditions or vehicle positions.

Consider a hypothetical car traveling at 60 km/h (about 37 mph). In just one second, it covers approximately 16.7 meters, or 55 feet. That is merely the distance traveled in one second, not the total stopping distance. The time required to recognize the danger and brake would add to the distance needed to stop.

The actual speeds of the vehicles involved have not been established, so this is an illustrative calculation, not an accident reconstruction.

Still, the problem is clear. A person descending from above is not an obstacle drivers would normally expect to encounter on a city street. At night, the risk of noticing that person too late becomes particularly troubling.

What if They Jumped from a Building, Not an Aircraft?

There is another important question about the incident: where did the two parachutists begin their descent?

Chilean outlets including Canal 13 and BioBioChile reported the possibility that they were performing a BASE jump.

BASE stands for Building, Antenna, Span and Earth. The term refers to parachute jumps from fixed structures or natural formations, such as buildings, towers, bridges and cliffs, rather than from aircraft.

Unlike conventional skydiving, BASE jumping can take place at relatively low altitudes. That leaves less time between parachute deployment and landing, and potentially less room to respond to problems.

AI-generated concept illustration of BASE jumping. The building, waterfront and cityscape are fictional and do not depict the actual jump location.

Local television coverage suggested the two may have jumped from a building. However, the precise departure point, any permission to access the structure, the participants’ identities and their motives have not been conclusively established in the public material reviewed for this article.

That uncertainty matters, because it leads directly to an unusual legal question.

The Aviation Regulation Says Something Very Specific: “From an Aircraft in Flight”

Chile has an official regulation governing parachute operations known as DAR Parte 105, formally the Reglamento sobre Operaciones Aéreas para Lanzamientos o Saltos en Paracaídas.

Section 105.5 requires written authorization from the DGAC for operations covered by the regulation. It also requires that such operations not endanger air traffic or people, or damage property on the ground.

Section 105.21 addresses parachute operations over congested areas, cities, towns and outdoor gatherings. It requires DGAC authorization as well as permission from the owner or administrator of the intended landing site.

In other words, the regulation does not impose an absolute ban on every aircraft-based parachute operation over an urban area. It provides a system of permissions and safety requirements.

But the wording of Section 105.3 is particularly interesting.

For the purposes of DAR Parte 105, a parachute jump is defined in terms of one or more people descending from an aircraft in flight.

Section 105.15 reinforces that aircraft-based framework. Among the information required for an authorization request is the registration of the aircraft to be used.

If the Santiago participants really did jump from a building, their activity would not fit that aircraft-based definition in the same straightforward way as a conventional skydive.

That does not make the jump automatically legal. Other laws or regulations may still apply, and the DGAC’s interpretation and findings remain important.

The crucial question is narrower: Which legal provisions would establish a violation, and on what basis would any penalty be imposed?

Until the relevant facts and legal grounds are established, it would be premature to treat the reported maximum fine as an inevitable consequence.

A CLP 276.8 Million Fine? Another Report Calculated Just CLP 178.4 Million

Now for the numbers.

Article 185 of Chile’s Aeronautical Code, established by Law No. 18,916, provides for administrative sanctions for violations of aviation legislation that do not constitute criminal offenses.

The possible sanctions include a written warning, a fine, suspension of permits or licenses for up to three years, and permanent cancellation of permits or licenses.

The statutory fine range is expressed as five to 500 monthly minimum incomes.

That sounds straightforward. But Chile’s minimum monthly income is not represented by a single amount for every legal purpose.

In its September 29 report, T13 used the monthly minimum income of CLP 553,553 applicable to workers aged 18 to 65. CNN Chile, meanwhile, used CLP 356,815, the separate monthly minimum income established for non-remuneration purposes.

Both figures appear in Law No. 21,830 and the official guidance published by Chile’s Labor Directorate.

Recalculating the five-to-500 range using each figure produces the following comparison:

Independent calculation based on Chile’s statutory minimum-income amounts applicable in September 2026. These are illustrative ranges under Article 185, assuming the relevant aviation-law provisions apply. They are not penalties imposed on the two participants.

The difference between the two calculated maximums is CLP 98,369,000—nearly 98.4 million Chilean pesos.

That is not a rounding error. The news reports reached different results because they used different legally defined minimum-income categories.

Chile’s Labor Directorate confirms that the non-remuneration-purpose amount was CLP 356,815. That makes the basis used by CNN Chile especially relevant when considering administrative-penalty calculations.

Neither figure, however, is a confirmed fine against the parachutists.

Article 185 establishes a general range of potential sanctions. Whether it can be applied to this incident, which provision might have been violated, and what sanction might follow are separate questions.

The striking headline number is only the beginning of the legal analysis—not its conclusion.

Japan Has a Similar Distinction: Where Did the Jump Begin?

There is a revealing parallel in Japanese law.

Article 90 of Japan’s Civil Aeronautics Act requires permission from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism for parachute jumps from aircraft. Japan’s aviation authorities also publish a specific application procedure for that permission.

Like the Chilean provision, the Japanese rule is framed around an aircraft-based operation.

A BASE jump from a building therefore raises a different set of legal questions from an ordinary jump out of an aircraft.

That does not mean anyone in Japan is free to jump from a building onto a public road. Access to the building, road safety, possible damage to other people or property, and other applicable laws would still have to be considered.

Seen from Japan, the interesting point is how a seemingly simple distinction—whether someone departed from an aircraft or a fixed structure—can change which regulations must first be examined.

So What Happened to the Two Parachutists?

On September 29, the DGAC said it had not authorized the Santiago maneuver and announced an investigation into the circumstances and possible responsibilities.

As of the public information reviewed through October 12, 2026, no reliable confirmation of a final administrative penalty or an exact fine imposed on the two participants had been established.

The precise departure point and the legal basis for any eventual finding of a violation also remained unconfirmed in the sources reviewed.

What is documented is unusual enough: two people descended by parachute into an avenue carrying normal city traffic at night, and Chile’s aviation authority began examining the incident.

Whether the final legal story matches the initial headlines remains an open question.

Editor’s Note

Two people landing by parachute on a busy city avenue at night sounds like a scene cut from an action movie.

But the part that bothers me isn’t how daring the jumpers were. It’s that the people driving below had no reason to expect any of this.

Then there’s the paperwork. Start reading the regulations and suddenly it matters whether the parachutists came from an aircraft or a building. Even the maximum fine reported in the news changes by nearly 100 million pesos depending on which minimum-income figure is used.

Big penalty figures make excellent headlines. But shouldn’t we establish which rule was broken before debating how much someone might have to pay?

From above, a road might look like a convenient landing zone. From behind a steering wheel, though, having a person appear out of the night sky is hardly a reasonable hazard to be expected to anticipate.

References