NTSB statistics compare to Jump Operations 2001

[diverdriver 7]

After looking at the statistics for aircraft accidents and comparing them to Jump Plane accidents it doesn't look good for 2001.
These statistics are reported by Accidents per 100,000 hours of flying. Talking with USPA it is estimated that skydiving does about 100,000 hours of flying per year.
General Aviation (which skydiving is a part of) is the real comparison.
Airlines: 0.2 accidents per 100,000 hours of flying
Charter Part 135: 2.1 per 100k
General Aviation: 6.56 per 100k
Number of Jump Plane accidents I have on my site: 13
One is a report of a smoke jumper plane so that is not tallied in the over all total for civilian sport jumping.
So, I have 12 accident reports for an estimated 100,000 hours of flying. That is almost DOUBLE the rate of all of general aviation.
Fatal accidents:
General Avaition: 1.22 per 100,000 hours of flying
Jump Planes: 2 per 100,000 hours of flying
Now, one of those fatal reports is the fatal mid-air of a jumper hitting another jump plane. Some may argue this inclusion because the aircraft was not substantially damaged (according to NTSB rules) but there was a death involving an aircraft so I do include it.
If you care to see the reports I have listed on my site click HERE
Chris Schindler
ATP/CFII
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[bbarnhouse 0]

Thanks Chris......:)
It only takes a little pixie dust......

[freeflir29 0]

Isn't comparing jump operations to other aviation a little bit unfair. I think there is a much higher inherent risk in skydiving operations than airline operations. Just my .02C
"I'm a danger to myself and everyone around me!"-Clay

[spinmaster 0]

Nice statistics work, Diverdriver. Do you also have stats for any preceeding years? If so, what's the trend? Are we getting safer or more dangerous. My guess is that we are getting safer and that's the real measure of success in my opinion. Also, comparing one stat to another is often misleading.
Looking at these from a different comparision angle shows the accident rate of general aviation at low rate of .0012% and jump planes at .002%. In that light, jump planes don't look all that much less safe.
My .02$ as well.
Dan

[diverdriver 7]

This is the type of fatalistic view that I am working to get rid of. We are part of all aviation and just accepting this accident rate is unacceptable. We are failing as an industry and I am trying to show where and how. Most accidents were from fuel starvation and landing off the airport. How is skydiving making carrying enough fuel more dangerous? Come on.
Chris

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Most accidents were from fuel starvation and landing off the airport.

Not much excuse for those......"I'm a danger to myself and everyone around me!"-Clay

[diverdriver 7]

There's a reason why the NTSB gives out the statistics in the form that they do and not in a "percentage" like you have shown. Statistics have to be shown in a way that is meaningful. Having an accident rate that is double the rate of all of general aviation is pitiful and it's time this industry start demanding a better record. The reports are there for you to read. Be aware.
Chris

[freeflir29 0]

This sort of reminds me of a conversation I was having with the pilot at SD Atlanta last weekend. He commented about the shoddy condition most jump planes are in and how it was because so many DZO's try to fool themselves into thinking they are saving money by not buying that part today when you can put it off until tomorrow. Of course....then they spend twice as much in the end. If the plane makes it to the next 100 hour.......
"I'm a danger to myself and everyone around me!"-Clay

[diverdriver 7]

Unfortunately, this can be true. But then, we as jumpers, can demand more. Well, not more. Just what should be done according to the regs anyway. Does your (not you specificly, just anyone) DZ have a new mechanic every few months? Why? Are they refusing to work on the plane again because they aren't getting paid? Because the maintenance they are deaming as necessary not being approved by the owner/operator? Keep an eye out folks. As questions. Be proactive. Let your money do the talking if you think maintenance isn't being done. Go some place else.
It's funny when I see people walk in the hanger and say "Hey, how come your plain is always being worked on? Is it always broken?" Nope, it's being paid attention to. This is a good thing.
But, what about the pilot maintenance? Pilot training that is. And recurrent training. Each DZ should have a written plan as to how they are going to train and recheck their pilots every year.
Chris
Chris

[freeflir29 0]

Well....at SD Atlanta the Pilot and the Mechanic are one in the same. "I'm a danger to myself and everyone around me!"-Clay

[diverdriver 7]

Got an email from Ed Scott at USPA saying they were not including the Salt Lake City King Air crash in their tally since it did not happen during any jump operations. I told him I disagreed with this since it was a jump plane, carrying jumpers, with a jump pilot coming home from a boogie. I feel Skydivers need to be more aware of these dangers since it surrounds their skydiving activity.
Chris Schindler
ATP/CFII
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[diverdriver 7]

Also, USPA is not including the non-fatal prop strike at Skydive Chicago in their tally. I see why they do it that way. They only include it as a "jump plane" accident if the plane was engaged in skydiving ops at the time of that particular flight. Call it: strict constructionists.
I am trying to paint a broader picture for all jumpers and jump pilots. If it has to do with a jump plane and jump pilot (whether it's on a skydiving mission at that moment or not) I include it. I don't want to mislead anyone in my statistics. I just believe a broader picture is necessary to tell the whole story for jump planes.
Oh, what is the legal limit on responding to your own posts in a row?
Chris Schindler
ATP/CFII
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I don't want to mislead anyone in my statistics

Ummm...isn't that what statistics are for....to lend credibility to your side of the story?

Quote

Oh, what is the legal limit on responding to your own posts in a row?

I'm not sure....but you have definately broken it.
"I'm a danger to myself and everyone around me!"-Clay

[lummy 4]

Chris,
Yuo mentioned that USPA estimates 100,000 hours of flight time over a year. IS that for the whole US?
Is there anyway to calculate that number more accurately?
baby's hungry and the money's all gone. the folks back home don't want to talk on the phone.

[diverdriver 7]

Well, Ed just told me that they are working on redoing the computation for number of hours flown by US jump planes. They sent out a questionaire to DZs (not sure if it's just GM DZs) and are getting many of them back. He thinks it will be over 100K. Now, I'm hoping that it will be closer to 200K. If it isn't then I still think we have a serious problem.
Chris

[lummy 4]

That's what I was wondering.......100,000 seems kind of low. A quick and rough estimate of my DZ would be approx 30 hours a week for one plane which is about 1500 per year. (ROUGH GUESSTIMATE!!!!)
but I am not a pilot either
regardless, thanks for the info.....
baby's hungry and the money's all gone. the folks back home don't want to talk on the phone.

[billvon 3,120]

>This is the type of fatalistic view that I am working to get rid of. We are part of all
> aviation and just accepting this accident rate is unacceptable. We are failing as
> an industry and I am trying to show where and how.
While I agree that we shouldn't accept this sort of accident rate, I also see why there is a perception that the rate is OK. Our situation would be more similar to airline operations if you had a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting killed as you were walking down the jetway. Even in airline travel, that would swamp out the risks of flying unless it suddenly got several orders of magnitude less safe.
To most people, traveling in an airliner is like spending a boring two hours waiting in a doctor's office, so they compare airline safety to sitting in a room - and _any_ accident while you're sitting watching TV is one accident too many. We compare the risks of flying in a jump plane to the risks of skydiving, and if one is much safer than the other (i.e. you are much more likely to die skydiving than in the plane on the way to altitude) then we tend to accept the risk more easily.
-bill von

[diverdriver 7]

Very good points Bill.
Chris

[Dutchboy 0]

Chris,
I would have to question the USPA figure of only 100k flight hours. They are reporting 3,500,000 skydives per year in this country. If you figure all of these jumpers were made in fully loaded 182's, at a conservative 30 minutes of flight time each. That is 437,500 flight hours.
I know, you can say that not all jumps are done from a Skylane, but it is also true that not all planes are fully loaded. To get the USPA figure would require the average jump to be made in a practically full Twin Otter.
As for the risks involved. GA operations are inherently more dangerous than airline operations because they involve many more takeoffs & landings per hour. Given that 28% of accidents occur during takeoff and 32% during landing, this really scews the numbers. Naturally, there are other reasons why the airlines are safer, but I'm talking about risks that cannot be easily removed.
Flying a jump plane requires lots of takeoffs & landings, but not nearly as many as flight training, which makes it inherently safer.
The Dutchboy
Phil's Flying Enterprises, Inc.

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

Flying a jump plane requires lots of takeoffs & landings, but not nearly as many as flight training, which makes it inherently safer.

So I don't misunderstand your position, you are saying that flying in a jump plane is safer than in a flight training aircraft?
Well, that 3.5 million jumps is an estimate like the flight time of all jump aircraft in the US. And a lot of these DZs that use turbine aircraft do more jumps in a week of flying than a lot of Cessna DZs do in a whole year.
My point is that I have 12 accident reports involving Jump Planes for the year 2001. USPA estimates (at this time) that there is roughly 100,000 hours of flying per year by the fleet. That is a rate of 12 accidents per 100K hours of flying. That is DOUBLE the rate of GA flying. I'm not even comparing jump plane flying to airline flying. I gave the statistics for people to reference. So, to compare ourselves to GA (of which flight training is totalled into) we are doing a very poor job.
Look at the reports I have listed. Many are from a "loss of power during descent." So the fact that it happened during the "landing phase" doesn't make it less important just because that's a risky time of flight and a large number of accidents happen during that time. Well, no kidding. But if the operator or pilot had bothered to put enough fuel on board to begin with then maybe landing wouldn't be so risky for jump planes. Just a thought.
Chris Schindler
ATP/CFII
D-19012
www.DiverDriver.com

[Dutchboy 0]

Quote

So I don't misunderstand your position, you are saying that flying in a jump plane is safer than in a flight training aircraft?

No, I'm saying that there is a greater level of inherent danger in flight training since more time is spent near the ground at speeds 20-30% above stall. The reality is that flight training safety records are better than those of rated low-time pilots. Part of the reason for this is that 75% of flight training occurs with a CFI in the plane, and the other 25% only happens when the weather is good.
Incidently, I have been reading a book "The Killing Zone - How & Why Pilots Die" lately, and would highly recommend it. It is a complete analysis of common aviation accidents along with which pilots are involved.
The Dutchboy
Phil's Flying Enterprises, Inc.

[diverdriver 7]

Ahhh, now I see what you're saying. Interesting point about the low accident rate for training aircraft compared to low time pilots. I guess that making sure your Jump Pilot was properly rated, trained and regularly checked would decrease the accident rate. But I know that commercially rated pilots are not adhering to max gross weight and minimum fuel requirements. They are flying into IFR conditions without being rated and current or with a plane that is not rated and current. And I know these issues are tested for on the Commercial Pilot Practical test.
Chris