seatbelts (long)

[adamT 0]

It is standard procedure at most dropzones to remove your seat belt after 1000'
Thats what everyone is taught. But on safety day our pilot brought up the the concern of near misses. Our DZ(hollister) lies in the traffic patterns for the major bay area airports. We see alot of traffic at all altitudes. He, and our other pilots have had experiences where they were not told of traffic by atc and wen't visually identified until they were closer then they would prefer. So if the situation arises where if he has to make a abrubt course change to avoid a collision it is most likely going to be a carving negative g pushover. This of course will slam all the unseatbelted jummpers in back right into the celling. Possibly braking necks. So he recommended that everyone keep their seat belt on until we turn onto jumprun.
Of course the first rebuttal is what about emergency exits? Well as he explained it anything below 1000' your staying in the plane(as we are all taught) and anything above you should have time to make an orderly exit. If you are aware of how you placed the seat belt it should not take you more then a second to remove it, just another part of your emegency procdures.
The will not just drop out of the sky in an emergency, and if it does that means it stalled and if it is not recovering quickly its probably going to be spinning. According to everyone i've talked to that has been in a spinning aircraft, seatbelt or not you are going to be too stuck to the side of the aircraft to get out. So alot of us have started wearing our seatbelts for most of the climb. Taking it of just becomes part of the routine, like checking you hanndles and putting on healmet(these should also be secured for the whole flight as they would become a dangerous projectile) gogles. The only valid argument(IMHO) i've heard so far against this was regarding people sitting by the door while it is open durring the climb. It a pilotcute gets out the door they could be ripped in half by their seatbelt(depending how it was placed).
Of the few jump pilots i've talked they have agreed with this. But you would be amazed by some of the shit people have been given at other DZs when they try to where their seat belt past 1000'. I try to find out the pilots stance and listen to him, because ultimatly he is responsible for the jump ship. I just wanted to bring this up for discussion, get some more opinions( especially pilots) so i can make a more educated descision.
adam

[quade 4]

If the door is open, the seatbelts MUST be off.

Quote

So he recommended that everyone keep their seat belt on until we turn onto jumprun.

Further, jumprun is far, far too late to be taking seatbelts off. The dz can come up with whatever rules it sees fit for it's operation (seatbelts on until 2,000 AGL for instance), but you must do gear checks before jumprun and you can't do those with seatbelts on.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[adamT 0]

Was there a specific incident that brought this about? Perris is where is first heard this argument. So far is is the only one that makes a lot of sense to me.

[quade 4]

Quote

Was there a specific incident that brought this about?

By "this" I assume you're talking about seatbelts and open doors.

I have personally been on aircraft where jumpers have, for whatever reason, had a number of wacky things happen to their main or reserve containers. In one case, a reserve pilot chute deployed just after opening the door.

A deployment of either while the person is still belted in could result in not just the person being ripped apart, but the aircraft itself.

It's a very bad idea to be anywhere near an aircraft door in-flight with a parachute on unless you're free to leave that aircraft at any moment.

The ONLY exception, which still gives me the heebee-jeebees, is sitting at the open door of an aircraft for takeoff -- unfortunately, you -must- be belted in due to the FAR 91.107 requirements.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Laurel 0]

This argument doesn't sound like it should be a seatbelt argument. It should be a traffic communication argument taken up with the FAA.

.....................................................................
PMS#28, Pelogrande Rodriguez#1074
My Pink M

[adamT 0]

Quote

Further, jumprun is far, far too late to be taking seatbelts off. The dz can come up with whatever rules it sees fit for it's operation (seatbelts on until 2,000 AGL for instance), but you must do gear checks before jumprun and you can't do those with seatbelts on.

Maybe depending on seating arangment, but in our kingair with the seatbelts routed through leg straps i can check my gear and give and recive pin checks the same as if they were off. Also different dz have different amounts of time before the final turn and the door light. We turn on to heading for jump run around a 11k and exit at 15k. I wouldn't wait until the door light comes on to remove the seat belt, too much other things to think about at that point. No seatbelts on with the door open does make perfect sense to me.

[adamT 0]

Well they can't catch em all. Alot of DZs situated in valleys(like ours) will not have radar coverage for a portion of the climb.

[jfields 0]

As you ascend during flight there is a point where the combined risks of wearing the seatbelt surpass those of not wearing it. If you put risk of seatbelt usage and altitude as the axis on a graph, where it becomes riskier to wear it, you ought to take it off.

When you are taxiing and taking off, you stand a better chance of surving any problems with the seatbelt on. You parachute does no good below the height in which it could reasonably open.

Then you get into a fuzzy zone where there are pros and cons of both. For example, you may be at an altitude where you can exit and immediately deploy your reserve, but not have enough altitude for your main. That is a risky scenario, because not everyone may have time to get out and also you have narrowed your options by only effectively having one parachute.

A little bit higher, and you are into hop-n-pop territory. Everyone should have done them at some point, so a low exit and main deployment shouldn't be a problem. An unplanned exit from this height isn't ideal, but shouldn't present anyone (except tandems) with a problem. To me, seatbelts should be off here and above, if not a little sooner.

Above that altitude, I think you are better off not wearing the seatbelt. Fundamentally, you should be ready to exit the plane. Your gear should be checked before you ever board the plane. (Not saying you shouldn't check again, anyway.) Other than maybe pulling your helmet/goggles on, you are ready to do what you planned to do anyway, jump from the plane.

Upon exit anywhere above the hop-n-pop zone, you still have all the options you would on a normal skydive. You have plenty of time to potentially deploy your main, check it, cut it away, then deploy your reserve. The risks of the seatbelt at these altitudes seem to outweight their benefits. You don't have anything for the plane to run into. (If you do, the seatbelt won't help.) The seatbelts could prevent a quick exit in the case of a loose pilot chute or situation where the pilot ordered everyone out. Wearing the seatbelt that high up provides virtually no benefit, and a small but measurably higher risk even with the door closed. When the door is open, the seatbelt risk jumps up even further.

My $.02:

0-~1000/1500 feet
Seatbelt on (specifics depending on DZ policy) - Exit, go silver (if directed by pilot)

~1000/1500 - 2000 feet
Seatbelt off - Exit, go silver

2000 ft and up
Seatbelt off - Exit, deploy main

It is what I was taught, and it makes sense to me.

[quade 4]

First things first . . .

ATC and Radar Services are specifically NOT there to point out traffic for VFR aircraft. Never has been, never will be. IF ATC gives your pilot a traffic point out, then it's only at their convenience, but it's definitely not a part of their duties.

Your pilot while operating in VMC (out of the clouds) is responsible to see and avoid any and all traffic whether he's on an VFR or IFR flight.

If he's worried about having to take evasive action on a regular basis, so much that he thinks you should be belted in until 10,000 AGL, then maybe this isn't the right location for a dropzone to begin with! If HE can't see and avoid the traffic, then how the heck is the traffic going to see and avoid you in freefall or vice-versa?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lippy 918]

Quote

in our kingair with the seatbelts routed through leg straps i can check my gear and give and recive pin checks the same as if they were off

Unfortunately for the vast majority of Canadian skydivers, we're confined to small Cesnas for the most part, and gear checks with seatbelts on ain't gonna happen. Often it's enough of a challenge just to get enough room to check your handles. OTOH, most of the Canadian DZs I've been to are either small municipal airports, or grass strips used solely for jump planes, so air traffic is a very small issue.

I got nuthin

[adamT 0]

Your hear about turbulance bouncing people around in planes the size of 747s. And talk to your pilot, see if he has ever been spooked by a plane that got past his comfort zone without him noticing. Im just trying to see as many aspects of this topic as possible. Seat belt or not if you hit anyting at altitude it won't matter. But if you are going hit something and the pilot has the chance you better belive he is going to try to miss, and it will probably be a pretty sever effort.

[quade 4]

Quote

Your hear about turbulance bouncing people around in planes the size of 747s.

And this IS a valid reason for a person putting his seatbelt back on in-flight, but it usually wouldn't be a blanket policy consideration for a dz op.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[adamT 0]

I know that IFR is there priority, just adds to the point of it not being an atc issue. Unfortunatly there are DZs that are in high traffic areas. Do you guys ever have problems with March AFB aircraft. Just because the airspace is on the charts doesn't me the pilot is always going to listen. I don't recall seeing much traffic in perris. I did see a few GA aircraft in freefall close to the drop space while i was in elsinore.

[adamT 0]

Im not expecting blanket policy change. Im just wanting people to think about it. Before our pilot brought it up i hadn't heard any discussion on the topic. And it seemed like something worth discussing.

[jfields 0]

Adam,

I'm not saying that can't happen. However, I think the chances of it, combined with how it fits into the risk/reward mix, suggests that you are better off without the seatbelt above hop-n-pop altitude.

I've been bounced around severely in small passenger planes as well as 747s and C-141s. But none of them in weather I'd be sport jumping in. As to the air traffic, it raises other questions. I think it was Paul that said if traffic was problem enough to cause frequent near-misses, then the DZ was in the wrong place. I agree. If you are preparing for a very rare instance, I think the emphasis over the more-likely loose chute scenario is adding risk rather than reducing it.

[jfields 0]

PS

I'm not trying to bust your chops about the question. There was nothing wrong with asking. But to me, the answer seems pretty clear.

The only question where I don't have a definitive answer is at exactly what altitude the seatbelts should come off. 1000? 1500? 2000? To me, it is going to be somewhere in that range, but within that range I defer to the DZ policy.

[billvon 3,096]

>But if you are going hit something and the pilot has the chance you
> better belive he is going to try to miss, and it will probably be a
> pretty sever effort.

Most pilots will use positive G's to avoid another aircraft (i.e. turn right hard) since a) that's what they're trained to do, b) that's what the other aircraft will expect and c) planes work better when loaded with positive G's vs negative G's.

In 3300 jumps I've seen a lot of high-G manuevering (only once for avoidance) but the only negative G I've ever seen was when a Skyvan nearly stalled on climbout - and that's a bad time to be wearing a seatbelt.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Your hear about turbulance bouncing people around in planes the size of 747s.

Right, but if there's enough turbulence at jump altitude and below to bounce someone around in a place, you will not be jumping that day due to weather. This largely isn't an issue with skydiving.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[billvon 3,096]

>I've been bounced around severely in small passenger planes as
> well as 747s and C-141s. But none of them in weather I'd be sport
> jumping in.

I only did that once, in a CASA at Quincy. The pilot recommended we put our seatbelts on due to turbulence, and in fact it got pretty bad. We jumped anyway but we shouldn't have; we could barely stand on the tailgate with all the bumping. We landed 3 miles from the DZ (and it was a nude jump of course.)

[quade 4]

The airspace around Elsinore and Perris is actually -quite- different.

Perris sits under the March Class C Airspace that extends from 3,900 msl up to 5,500 msl. Some small VFR aricraft are "attracted" to the Homeland VOR about 2 northwest of Perris -- especially annoying are the ones that are attracted from the Elsinore area as it brings them right over the top of the Perris DZ. That said, I think Perris has generally fewer issues with GA traffic because they have a tendancy to shy away from being anywhere near the Class C. Generally speaking, the March traffic isn't an issue, but occasionally puts on a pretty good "show".

Elsinore, on the other hand, lays right on an attractive route for VFR GA to fly. It's right by the freeway and near a very visible landmark, the lake. If I wasn't a skydiver, I'd be tempted to fly right over the Elsinore DZ. That little blue parachute symbol on the chart is easy to overlook.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jfields 0]

Bill,

Of course I'd put the seatbelt on if the pilot recommended it due to turbulence. (If it was a nude jump, I'd just be careful about how I routed it.)

But don't you generally agree with the reasoning I described for why, on average, the seatbelt is more liability than benefit above a fairly low altitude?

[adamT 0]

Don't wory about busting my chops. I asked for opinions and discussion. I could never be offended over something like this.

[adamT 0]

Quote

Most pilots will use positive G's to avoid another aircraft (i.e. turn right hard) since a) that's what they're trained to do, b) that's what the other aircraft will expect and c) planes work better when loaded with positive G's vs negative G's.

In 3300 jumps I've seen a lot of high-G manuevering (only once for avoidance) but the only negative G I've ever seen was when a Skyvan nearly stalled on climbout - and that's a bad time to be wearing a seatbelt.

I was thinking positive Gs would be a bad idea in a plane climbing at neer max performance. Seems like it could easily lead to a stall. Im not a pilot and i don't know what air speed is generally used in a climb. Perhaps someone could fill me in on that.

[dterrick 0]

Mr Quade, Sir:

I was at that Safety Day briefing, as as guest visiting from Canada. There are a plethora of issues at Holllister that cannot be simply 'ruled away', as I understod the situation.

On one of 5 jumps I made that day, we had to circle at altitude (18k!!) waiting for commercial traffic to clear the airspace - BELOW US!!. I DO recall the comment that the radar shadow of the hills extends upwards of 5,000 ft!!

I'd never before considered the possibility of being belted in while I had a premature in-a/c deployment. Certainly, though, local conditions suggest a 5k seatbelt rule to be a reasonable compromise. That damn Kingair can CLIMB... HARD!! and I'd be more scared to become a projectile were I not belted in during an avoidance manouver than to be ripped in two. Door open is annother situation altogether. Please remember my experience is ONE day, albeit Safety Day (...that was "sort-of" safe)

***

Likewise, weeks later I brought up the seatbelt arguement at our C-182 DZ here in Canada. It's a totally different situation here, according to not only the pilot but a senior jumper who survived a sub-1000 ft. stall/crash 20 odd years ago (with many broken bits... he was the 'lucky' one). I've read most of the online doccuments diverdriver posts about crashes, etc, and recognize the seriousness of the issue. However there is a move afoot in Canada to have the seatbelt requirement waived (as it is a throwback to "commercial" travel ... here we require an AOC just like any major airline - unlike the USA).

Strange that we want to drop seatbelts as a nation and you lot want 'more' ?? Food for thought ... and may we never experience the issue firsthand.

Dave

(always open to ideas)

Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friend (Lennon/McCartney)

[adamT 0]

Quote

Right, but if there's enough turbulence at jump altitude and below to bounce someone around in a place, you will not be jumping that day due to weather. This largely isn't an issue with skydiving.

This is ture.