Who's job is it anyways? [WAS: Long Island king air crash?]

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Quote

In response to JohnRich, diverdriver said:
So either it was not severe enough to warrant it or it was never reported to the proper authorities.

So what are the "reporting responsibilities" for someone operating an aircraft uner Part 91?

Wouldn't be the first time an aircraft pranged in and it didn't get reported to the FAA... would it???

Quote

In response to JohnRich, diverdriver said:
I (sic) allow others with knowledge of the operation/incident to post facts about the situation and clearify what happened/didn't happen.

Okay, I'm an airplane geek myself, so when I read about what may have happened (e.g. gear collapsed and/or somehow part of the landing gear left the aircraft during the landing evolution) I too become currious to hear more, but what is your motivation other then wanting to stand-up and say "Boo" everytime someone operating a jump plane prangs it?

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

Okay, I'm an airplane geek myself, so when I read about what may have happened (e.g. gear collapsed and/or somehow part of the landing gear left the aircraft during the landing evolution) I too become currious to hear more, but what is your motivation other then wanting to stand-up and say "Boo" everytime someone operating a jump plane prangs it?

My motivation : http://www.diverdriver.com/Accidents/accidents.htm We repeat the same tired mistakes over and over and over. This industry does not learn.

A realistic accounting of accidents in this industry that has held its head under the sand way too long. I hold up the mirror. You don't like the reflection then do something to change it.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Yeah, and, what does and doesn't constitute a "reportable incident" to the FAA for an aircraft being operated under Part 91?

[stratostar 5]

Well I'm quite happy Chris is keeping an eye out, some op's don't want to report this type of shit because of a number of reasons, some of the reasons I have seen is because they don't want the expense of fixing the the aircraft the right way instead they do shit like straighten out the prop themselves or fly with a bent crankshaft or fill damaged props with JB weld and other types of "ghetto repairs" or because the FAA has already been up one side and down the other side of their ass already, or for both reasons.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

Yeah, and, what does and doesn't constitute a "reportable incident" to the FAA for an aircraft being operated under Part 91?

Quote

Substantial damage
Damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component . Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured hoes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landings gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes or wingtips are not considered substantial damage for the purpose of this part

A King Air having the landing gear ripped off riding in on the wing usually means the wing is bent. That would be substantial damage.

A 182 flipping over in a field bending the fire wall and wing strut would be substantial damage. Both requiring NTSB notification which can start with a call to the FAA.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[pilotdave 0]

The rules for accident reporting are found in NTSB 830.

All accidents need to be reported (defined in 830.2), as well as a number of specific types of incidents.

There are some differentiations made for large, multiengine aircraft (>12,500 lbs), but there's no difference for part 91 vs any other type of operation.

Dave

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Chris, Dave,

Thanks for the 411. I knew y'all would be able to come up with that gouge.

As for y'all being self apointed whistle blowers... I'm not going to touch that one with a 10' pole.

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

Chris, Dave,

Thanks for the 411. I knew y'all would be able to come up with that gouge.

As for y'all being self apointed whistle blowers... I'm not going to touch that one with a 10' pole.

Self appointed whistle blower. Well, I guess that title fits. Can't argue that. Is it "self appointed" or is "take charge"? Am I "zealous" or am I "passionate". I like to view myself as the latter on both respects. If not me then who? If not now then when? I can't tell you how many people told me I should write a book about flying jumpers. Maybe they just saw that I like talking about it and the safety aspect (risk management). I didn't think I could write a book so it was suggested that I do a website that could be updated and altered to stay relevent. That's the route I took.

My motivation comes from loosing 5 friends in a 206 accident in 1998. I had left that operation after 3 forced landings in 4 months. I told a friend at my new dz job that my old dz would have a fatal plane crash within a year. I told others why I left. It was no secret. Within 11 months my friends were dead. I saw it coming and I feel guilt that I did not do what was needed to prevent it. So I vowed to speak out and speak my mind on the subject of how I saw things going.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[hackish 8]

It seems to me that DZ owners are afraid that paying customers will be scared away with the report of an accident.

I have to admit that hearing about a pilot using a plane with known problems like carb deicers not working would scare me off. I know little more than basics about aircraft so I have to put my safety in the hands of the pilot and mechanic(s). I don't have a big problem with people posting straight facts as long as they're not deliberately misreporting to make a competing DZ sound bad.

Perhaps these individuals hiding accidents would be better off if they could demonstrate that all the proper care was being taken so if there is an accident there is no negligence on their part.

-Michael

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...As for y'all being self apointed whistle blowers...

Thank God for the (your negative term, not mine) "whistle blowers". It's the "hide the head in the sand" people who perpetuate problems instead of fixing them.

edited to add:
It's EVERYBODY'S job.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[stratostar 5]

Quote

It seems to me that DZ owners are afraid that paying customers will be scared away with the report of an accident.

That or they don't want any FAA eye's seeing the other corners they are cutting, looking over the logbooks and other aircraft, pilots ect.

Quote

I have to put my safety in the hands of the pilot and mechanic***

And sometimes that would be DZO/Pilot/Mechanic under one hat, what they do on monday afternoon when no one is around to see can and has been very shady/crooked with some operators. We have to trust that all is above board. Yet I personally have seen other pilots and A&P's and even I/A's knowingly use aircraft parts or sign off stuff they knew were not repaired correctly and they even helped the DZO to cover up the illegal repairs to the aircraft and then flew loads of jumpers. I'm not talking about little BS stuff here.

Things like not sending damaged props to a certified repair station or the MFG, but using JB weld type crap to fix badly damaged blades and then painting them to hide the "patches" and flying with them or selling the prop to someone who has no clue as "overhauled" and "no damage history".

***I don't have a big problem with people posting straight facts as long as they're not deliberately misreporting to make a competing DZ sound bad.

Well yea, your right, that is what most people think who are loyal to their home dz's. They think their hero DZO couldn't / wouldn't be a crook and those who point fingers are bad mouthing becuse they jump at XYZ dz or just a disgruntled ex-employee.

But wouldn't it suck, lets say, to start up a DZ some place, let's say like in Kentucky and then be sold a plane you were told was legal and had no damage history. Then to be flying along with a load of jumpers when the JB weld prop departs the shaft @ 400 ft. Or find out later that in fact the AC was sold out of annual with fake STC's and no carb heat installed and a long list of other crooked and "ghetto repairs" done to it.

The funny thing is the new owners have to try to sell the flying turd they were sold to recover the loss they have had to take, to some other poor bastard DZO a few states away, so they have to do one of three things, 1. sell at a loss 2. sell it with all the shit still wrong and cover it up, or 3. spend a ton of money for over two years on a bird they already paid too much money for, thats a heap of junk.

Quote

Perhaps these individuals hiding accidents would be better off if they could demonstrate that all the proper care was being taken so if there is an accident there is no negligence on their part.

Maybe their not worried about it because they have been covering up their tracks for years by not making the required logbook entries or repairs, I mean what are they going to do make a logbook entry that says they made an illegal repair to a prop with JB weld type shit and then covered it over with paint? I don't think so.

Then their is always funny things that just seem to happen once there is a crash and people die, like logbooks just happen to have been in the crash that burned up like in Hinckly 92 or it just so happend that the logbook was in the hanger and a battery just happend to get spilled on the pages or one nite a fire just happends to burn down the office were the fleet logbooks and records are.

The reason you always here people say their just "deliberately misreporting to make our DZ sound bad" is because no one wants to turn in their "dope dealer" becuase their a nice guy and they would never do that kind of shit that would endanger ME, WE"RE FAMILY! or better yet, "they only did that stuff once, a long time ago, and now their legit"

Oh what rose colored glasses some people wear!

Let's not forget those who know all this shit is going on and don't speak up but yet keep supporting these operators for years, and when your rookie ass shows up to jump there they tell how great the place is and well maintained the planes are.

The best thing each and every skydiver can do, is go take a class in A&P or learn to do a real pre-flight, it might just be money well spent and help you from getting the wool pulled over eyes.

But there will always be the fools who refuse to believe it even with a mountian of proof.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[hackish 8]

I cannot imagine repairing a dammaged prop with jb-weld. I work on performance engines all day and I refuse to do substandard work such as JB-Welding a turbo oil drain to an oil pan. The auto industry isn't regulated like the aviation industry. I've seen this JB-Weld story posted more than once...

If someone really did JB-Weld a prop then would questions not be asked about where this JB came from? Or is it still in operation somewhere... waiting to fail? I mean how stupid could you be? Why don't you just hammer that bent valve back into shape while you're at it... Here that would clearly fall into criminal negligence - forget about losing the pilot's license and think about spending time behind bars...

Back on topic I understand that being a small community nobody wants to turn their DZ against them by being seen as the squealer. The idea of "look at how much you cost us by reporting this accident or illegal repair to the FAA" has to be replaced with "look what mis-reporting this illegal repair ended up costing us".

The regs that I skimmed through seem very specific on the procedures. I wonder if there is a tech support like line for the FAA where a DZO can call and ask if they're allowed to oil this stiff rudder cable or if it must be done by a licensed tech. Or do the more educated here think it's seldom a case of a pilot not realising that their minor DIY repair was not permitted?

-Michael

[stratostar 5]

Quote

I cannot imagine repairing a dammaged prop with jb-weld. I work on performance engines all day

Well see you work on stuff that is performance, that means, one would like for it not to fail and an important time during it's use, there for you "get it"

The shady type of crooks who do this in skydiving are counting on you to be to stupid to figure it out, or be to stupid to think you'll be ok because you have a rig on. Or they expect you to tow the "party line" and keep your mouth shut and turn a blind eye, but hurry up and get on the Plane "we have a load to fly".

Quote

If someone really did JB-Weld a prop then would questions not be asked about where this JB came from?

Yes someone did use a "JB Weld" type substance on a prop, painted over the patches and then sold the airplane to an unknowing non skydive operation. You would have to know that it was there in the first place to ask about it, or ask about it after the prop blade fails and fly's off the shaft, right? If you can't see it, it's NOT there.

Quote

Or is it still in operation somewhere... waiting to fail? I mean how stupid could you be?

The FAA found the plane and found the prop as they were told they would and in the condition they were told it would be in, after taking the prop and x-raying it. The "JB weld" type substance was traced back to "Tom's FAA welding shop in Jamestown Ohio" according to the person who helped take it there and pick it up and place it back on the AC. I have no reason to not believe them or their statements, seeing how the plane was found as per their earlier statements to the FAA.

So you would be right in saying "how stupid could one be" I don't know maybe you should ask the person who would order that type of work and then cover it up and sell the crap to another "unknowing person" to fly with it in that state of repair. But yes pretty fucking stupid and down right crooked, only a lowlife crook would do that!

Quote

I understand that being a small community nobody wants to turn their DZ against them by being seen as the squealer.

Depends on what side of the fence your standing on, those who have morals and then those who say they do, but then go along with the people who would do this type of stuff, all the while never stopping to think, what else are "they" cutting corners on or thinking what the hell, that plane didn't crash or that repair didn't hurt anything.

Some people think and would /have argued here before, that just because some of this stuff was done 6 or 7 or even 10 or 20 years ago (depending what part were talking about), "they" aren't/wouldn't do it again. Even though "their" history would say other wise. It's called denial, hey after all we're family and "they" would never endanger "us".

Quote

Here that would clearly fall into criminal negligence

Only if you get caught and it can be proved you/they did it.

Pretty sad that it takes a "event" to get some action done, kind of like were now seeing with the bridge collapse this week, now your seeing other known bridges closed.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[hackish 8]

Let's take the bridge example. This bridge collapses and they start looking into it. They have a complete paper trail from the engineer who first designed the bridge to every last bolt and rivet that was replaced.

From what I can tell an incident investigation with an airplane is conducted in much the same way. I do know that the engines have a mandatory overhaul after a certain number of hours. Do the aircraft not have a similar inspection where critical places are checked for fatigue, stress cracks etc? If this is the case then would such an inspection not notice a repair and audit the maintenance logs to ensure it was performed correctly?

Someone I know works for Air Canada and he told me that every last part is documented. If they change a sensor then everything including the serial number of the old and new sensor is logged. Now I realise that a DZ's plane wouldn't be that well documented but is there not some sort of requirement?

-Michael

[Zing 2]

"... is there not some sort of requirement? "

A requirement is one thing, compliance is a whole 'nother ballgame.

Zing Lurks

[popsjumper 2]

Kinda like that last pencil-pack you got.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Let's take the bridge example. This bridge collapses and they start looking into it. They have a complete paper trail from the engineer who first designed the bridge to every last bolt and rivet that was replaced.

From what I can tell an incident investigation with an airplane is conducted in much the same way. I do know that the engines have a mandatory overhaul after a certain number of hours. Do the aircraft not have a similar inspection where critical places are checked for fatigue, stress cracks etc? If this is the case then would such an inspection not notice a repair and audit the maintenance logs to ensure it was performed correctly?

Someone I know works for Air Canada and he told me that every last part is documented. If they change a sensor then everything including the serial number of the old and new sensor is logged. Now I realise that a DZ's plane wouldn't be that well documented but is there not some sort of requirement?

-Michael

A jack-screw broke on the tail of an MD-80 a couple of years ago (Alaska Airlines I think). It was not out of inspection, it just broke anyway. Just because an aircraft part broke doesn't automatically mean there was a maintenance deficiency.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I do know that the engines have a mandatory overhaul after a certain number of hours.

Actually, for Part 91 operations (non-airline-type-stuff, like skydiving), following the manufacturer's recommended time between overhauls is not mandatory. I'd bet a lot of turbine engines on jump planes are well beyond TBO and still operating legally and safely.

Dave

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

A jack-screw broke on the tail of an MD-80 a couple of years ago (Alaska Airlines I think). It was not out of inspection, it just broke anyway. Just because an aircraft part broke doesn't automatically mean there was a maintenance deficiency.

If I remember correctly, that one was absolutely due to a maintenance deficiency. I heard a talk by the NTSB investigator on that accident a couple years ago... I'm pretty sure the airline hadn't been lubricating the jackscrew properly.... Or something like that.

Dave

[jdatc 0]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA00MA023&rpt=fa

Quote

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:


A loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly's acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines' insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly. Contributing to the accident were Alaska Airlines' extended lubrication interval and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) approval of that extension, which increased the likelihood that a missed or inadequate lubrication would result in excessive wear of the acme nut threads, and Alaska Airlines' extended end play check interval and the FAA's approval of that extension, which allowed the excessive wear of the acme nut threads to progress to failure without the opportunity for detection. Also contributing to the accident was the absence on the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 of a fail-safe mechanism to prevent the catastrophic effects of total acme nut thread loss.

I was working at US Airways at the time of this in their safety department.... They grounded all their MD80's....

Safety First....

_justin

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

Quote

A jack-screw broke on the tail of an MD-80 a couple of years ago (Alaska Airlines I think). It was not out of inspection, it just broke anyway. Just because an aircraft part broke doesn't automatically mean there was a maintenance deficiency.

If I remember correctly, that one was absolutely due to a maintenance deficiency. I heard a talk by the NTSB investigator on that accident a couple years ago... I'm pretty sure the airline hadn't been lubricating the jackscrew properly.... Or something like that.

Dave

They used an greese that was not approved. It led to the failure. What contributed to the accident was the crews continued use after it was known to have failed causing the stabilizer to come completely off the jack screw thus loosing control of the aircraft. So there are two aspects to that accident. What the company did and how the pilots reacted to it. So, if a company doesn't want to find out how their pilots will react to any abnormality it is advisable that the company do things straight forward and not screw around to save a buck.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X20339&key=1


A pilot should never run out of altitude, airspeed or ideas at the same time.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[jdatc 0]

Quote

They used an greese that was not approved.

Not excatly correct according to the NTSB report.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.pdf

Page 34

No technical objection, and then an in service test...

It was later that they found the grease not suitable....

Then check page 178 #21....

Quote

Alaska Airlines use of Aeroshell 33 for lubrication of the jackscrew assembly, acme nut..... were not factors in the excessive wear of the accident acme nut threads"

You do read the whole NTSB reports right? Or am I missing something?
_justin