diverdriver 7 #1 April 25, 2002 I put up a poll at www.DiverDriver.com forum.To users of Netscape or Linux: Sorry, I'm still having trouble with these users viewing the forum. IE5 is probably the best to see it with.Chris SchindlerATP/CFIID-19012www.DiverDriver.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #2 April 25, 2002 Chris:nice site!Richard"Gravity Is My Friend" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 April 25, 2002 Interesting poll.You don't really want skydiver's (non-jump pilot's) opinions do you?quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #4 April 25, 2002 My site is for everyone. The forum is for anyone that wants to participate. Some people might feel more comfortable posting an aircraft question there than other forums. The site IS geared towards pilots since many other sites aren't directly focussed that way. But it is open for anyone and everyone. My goal is to educate more jumpers about aircraft operations and have a resource that pilots can refer to at any time.Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 April 25, 2002 With that in mind, did you really include all of the most popular ways to be killed as a jump pilot?Right off the bat I'm thinking you forgot premature deployments.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #6 April 25, 2002 You are correct. I did forget that. That is a pretty high risk. It's a really non-scientific poll. It's an opinion thing. How people view their corner of the aviation world. From a jumper's perspective, engine failure on takeoff might be their only concern. As a pilot, I might be worried about carrying enough fuel to get me back safe. Those are the things in the forefront of their minds on a load by load basis. If the day turned cloudy then the pilot might answer with FAA violation depending on what part of the country they're in. Some Feds hide in the bushes waiting for you to mess up. Some places haven't seen a Safety Inspector in years. It's all from personal perspective. Just curious to see what people put. No one has posted any addon posts there though. They voted but gave no expanded post.Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #7 April 25, 2002 <<>>Killed?!!! Can that happen as a result of FAA enforcement action? How do they do it, lethal injection? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 April 25, 2002 Losing one on take-off and getting an FAR 91.155 violation seem to be pretty far apart on the outcome side of the risk equation -- in one you might lose your certificate and the other you might lose your life.What do you really want to hear about?quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 April 25, 2002 Well, the poll asks what is the greatest danger.Now, to some folks that are building hours while waiting for a big iron gig and not thinking straight, they may think a dangerous thing is to have a violation on their record.Personally, I don't think that's too dangerous.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #10 April 26, 2002 Part of why I did that. Perceived "Danger". It's a perspective thing.And there are more planes that run out of fuel and land off airport bending something. But that is the least picked item so far besides the two that have not been picked at all.Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #11 April 26, 2002 my biggest fear is always engine failure/fire at take-off, after 1000' i really don't worry about anything, except a "nose down aircraft failure" to where ya can't get to the door. i really never thought until now, the flight back, new perspective, for future thoughts.............Richard"Gravity Is My Friend" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #12 April 26, 2002 Quade, you're correct. A better way to word this poll may have been "What do you think is most likely to happen to you next." Any better? You're right, "Danger" may not have been the best but may "what are Jump Pilots (in general) in danger of having happen the most in the nation." I was trying to include things other than just physical control of the aircraft.Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #13 April 26, 2002 IANAP - I am no a pilot.I wouldn't think pilots would fear running out of fuel, rather it seems to me the fact that a jump pilot DID run out of fuel is proof enough that it was the farthest thing from his mind. I would also think it's the one thing that the pilot CAN control, personally I tend to fear those things I don't control.An example of a thing the pilot can't control: jumpers running into a spinning props. Many jumpers have absolutely no exposure to GA before they start jumping, they're a wildcard around a spinning prop. You never know what they might do next.Maintenance ferry flights and boogie trip would seem second nature, almost as simple as the GA play you did as a private pilot. But what do I know?Engine outs at 100 feet? Yeah, that goes to maintenance, and trust in whoever does it is being thorough. Trust in someone else, so I would fear this. Ultimately I voted for this one. This I would fear most.It goes to trust in myself, mistrust of things I don't necesarly do myself.(not posting to diverdriver.com because I can't remember my username. DOH!)_AmICQ: 5578907MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com AIM: andrewdmetcalfeYahoo IM: ametcalf_1999 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 April 26, 2002 QuoteAs a pilot, I might be worried about carrying enough fuel to get me back safe.I had to think about this for a bit.If by "back" you mean from the moment of takeoff, then you might have a point, but I'd call that losing one on takeoff -- clearly that's dangerous, especially in a twin. I mean, hey, we just passed ten years for the Perris crash.If, on the other hand you mean, "at some point after jumprun", then maybe I'm missing something.I'm just a CFI and I've never been a jump pilot, but I can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly, under normal circumstances, let yourself not have enough energy to land at your DZ runway.Maybe it's because I used to just drill and drill my students in simulated engine outs all the way to touchdown. quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #15 April 26, 2002 QuoteI can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly, under normal circumstances, let yourself not have enough energy to land at your DZ runway.Which is exactly why I voted for this one in my poll. An engine out on take off is what you are thinking about. You're "primed" for it. But, how many times a year do we see a jump plane land short of the aiport because they ran out of fuel or had an engine failure "for undetermined reasons"? It's a problem right now that we are not gassing up enough to complete the load. We are supposed to cary enough fuel to fly the load and then fly for 30 minutes more during the day. It's 45 minutes at night. I know that some people do put in enough fuel yet still have problems because (in particular C-182s) have rubber bladder type fuel tanks. The rubber bladders can "pull up" inside and cause ridges. So when you get low on fuel you could actually end up with no fuel going to the engine. In a critical situation, you could have gas on board, but none going where you want it. I know operators are allowing this problem to persist. They just accept it as "well, that's the way they are" instead of getting them fixed. On an Otter you have two tanks. One forward in the belly. On aft in the belly. Each "tank" is divided into four little tanks. One is the "collector tank" which is kept full by the fuel system. The other three tanks are to be drawn down before the collector tank is empty. There's a piece in the collector tank called a "flapper valve". If this flapper valve fails or is blocked then it won't allow the collector tank to stay full. So all of the mini tanks will reduce fuel evenly. You can get your "low fuel" warning lights to come on even though you may have quite a bit of fuel on board. Why is this a problem? Because just like the 182, you can have fuel on board but if you put the plane in a climb or descent at a high angle then you might get no fuel flowing to the engine. And turbine engines don't come back to life as easily as piston engines. So, if you see an otter with the low fuel light on and the pilot says "Oh, don't worry. We've got plenty of fuel." You tell them to get their flapper valves fixed before you get back on the aircraft.I'm not saying picking engine out on takeoff isn't in the forefront of everyone's mind. And it is a great danger because you are pointed away from the runway. You don't have a lot of time to make decisions. And you have some people on board that may think they know what to do better than you as the pilot. Maybe they do, maybe their actions will get you killed.Again, this is not scientific. But I do enjoy the dialogue that is happening. It's healthy.Chris SchindlerATP/CFIID-19012www.DiverDriver.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 April 26, 2002 QuoteBut, how many times a year do we see a jump plane land short of the aiport because they ran out of fuel or had an engine failure "for undetermined reasons"?Ok, here's my point of view. Even though in my mind fuel exhaustion is a completely unforgivable sin -- I realize it does happen.What I can't fathom, however, is how under normal circumstances a jump plane could possibly be so far, so slow and so low from their DZ runway as to not make it back deadstick. When I spoke of energy, I wasn't talking about energy in the fuel tanks, I was talking about potential energy (altitude) and kinetic energy (airspeed).I see jump planes at my DZ regularly having to slip to bleed off airspeed for touchdown. I realize that a lot of jumpers see that as some sort of pilot stunt, but to me keeping up that much energy makes a heck of a lot of sense.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #17 April 26, 2002 Quade, I agree with you 100%.Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
