Taking seatbelts off after takeoff

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Jumping from 500 ft... still better to get inflattion and fast landing than a very abrupt stop in a piece of metal that is collapsing around you.

Unless the plane is in a nose down dive, you can exit at 200 feet and get opening. At 100 mph almost all of you deployment with be horizontal. Remember where you relative wind is on exit.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Amazon 7]

I have gotten out of a Cessna 180 that was in a nose down attitude.. I was trying to spot.. in the clouds...the "pilot" was not rated IFR and I am in an open door on my knees... looking down to get a glimpse of the ground thru the clouds.. I went to say some thing to the pilot when I looked out of the window in front and...OOPS there was the ground.. the pilot was looking at me as I left the aircraft with my pilot chute already in my hand. I got inflation about 900 ft over a hill next to a river.... oh and the church steeple on top of the hill was a bit freaky as far as ground rush went.....this guy was not a regular jump pilot and I NEVER had anything to do with him again.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

I have gotten out of a Cessna 180 that was in a nose down attitude.. I was trying to spot.. in the clouds...the "pilot" was not rated IFR and I am in an open door on my knees... looking down to get a glimpse of the ground thru the clouds.. I went to say some thing to the pilot when I looked out of the window in front and...OOPS there was the ground.. the pilot was looking at me as I left the aircraft with my pilot chute already in my hand. I got inflation about 900 ft over a hill next to a river.... oh and the church steeple on top of the hill was a bit freaky as far as ground rush went.....this guy was not a regular jump pilot and I NEVER had anything to do with him again.

You Redheads will do anything for a cheap thrill. I would have had one more thing to do with the pilot........
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skymick 0]

Not sure whats its like on the west coast squeak but over her in the east i can think of 5 DZ ive been to that did not use seatbelts ( and think most of planes didnt even come equipped with them)

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Lets get one thing straight. Seat belt installation and use are mandated in all aircraft by Canadian law (CARS). If the jumpship you are using does not have seatbelts installed it is because the Transport Canada inspector doesn't see the point and thus doesn't care. Have you checked under the cushions? You might be surprised. In Chilliwack the C-182 with the wingtip extensions has weight and balance allowance for six (five jumpers) but is not allowed to utilize this because they do not have an Special Type Certificate for the sixth seatbelt location. Like most government inspectors, TC inspectors tend to interpret the rules differently from region to region.
As far as the use of seatbelts in Canada goes, I have heard from an Ottawa based official that the only acceptable use is around the waist as per the manufacturers instructions (and TSO or some such approval type). Wrapping the seatbelt through the harness is strictly forbidden as the harness has not been tested in this configuration.
Use of seat belts in Canada is not very widespread for the simple reason that it has not been enforced by TC. I cannot remember there ever being a crash on takeoff in Canada since I started in 1985. I suppose if there were to be one (lets hope not any time soon) the issue would draw attention upon itself just as it did in the US after Perris.
The effectiveness of seatbelts in a Cessna is, in my opinion of very questionable value. Many jumpers still persist in the mistaken idea that leaning forward somehow changes the centre of gravity and thus are in a position for takeoff that precludes their use. When contrasted with the danger of seatbelts snaging someone on their way out the door, I tend not to like them. I especially do not like kneeling on the fast points and have been injured, and seen my students injured many times by them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Andrew,

I am going to publicly disagree with you on this issue.
If you remember the 2003 CSPA AGM in Pitt Meadows, Mike Payne (CSPA liason to Transport Canada) was frustrated by the whole seatbelt ssue. To paraphrase Mikes' explanation, TC has their heads firmly implanted in their fourth point of contact.
Since few jumplanes have crashlanded in Canada (with jumpers onboard) since the 1980s, statistically it is easy to ignore.
TC chooses to ignore a TSO issued by the FAA to Hooker Harnesses (www.hookerharness.com) circa 1990.
Hooker makes most of his money manufacturing custom seatbelts for pilots of crop-dusters, antiques, aerobats, homebuilt airplanes, etc.
The FAA never issued a skydiver-specific STC to Hooker.
Circa 1997 I prepared a variety of harnesses for a PIA study that used the FAA's instrumented crash sled in Oklahoma City. Typical skydiving harnesses (Vector, Racer, Javelin, Flexon, etc.) were wrapped around instrumented dummies which were anchored to the test sled by routing Hookers' skydiver specific seatbelts through the hip joints of their harnesses. Several different routings were tested. All the dummies sat on the floor, facing aft.
After Sandy Reid returned from Oklahoma City, we reviewed video tapes of the simulated crashes. We quickly concluded that Hooker's skydiver-specific seatbelts vastly improved survival rates, however, everyone would have suffered whip lash. While most harnesses suffered popped stitches near their hips, a Master Rigger could have repaired them in less than a day.
Let's be clear that seatbelts will only reduce injuries (to survivable) in a wings-level, low speed forced landing in an open field. Their primary role is preventing guys in the back from slamming forward, crushing/smothering people in the front of the cabin.
The FAA and PIA concluded that Hooker's Harnesses were an improvement on Cessna seatbelts, but because there have been few jump plane crashes since 1992 the whole project fizzled.

The other issue is cost. Hooker does not give seatbelts away (US$56 for bolt-ins and US$69 for belts that attach to cargo rails ala. Cessna Caravan) and it costs a few hundred dollars for an aircraft sheet metal worker to install extra tie-downs in the airplane floor.
Given the narrow profit margins in the Canadian skydiving industry, Canadian DZOs are only going to install skydiver-specific seatbelts if pressured by customers or ordered by Transport Canada.

In conclusion, few Canadian jump planes have skydiver-specific seatbelts because Transport Canada has their heads firmly up their fourth point of contact.

I would cheerfully wear seatbelts if TC allowed us to install skydiver-specific seatbelts in Canadian jump planes.

[billvon 3,120]

>I would have had one more thing to do with the pilot........

??? It's not his responsibility to give you a safe exit. His responsibility is to fly the plane safely. It's your decision as to whether to get out or not. And if you do decide to get out - it's your issue.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You Redheads will do anything for a cheap thrill. I would have had one more thing to do with the pilot........

Nah I was figuring gravity was going to take care of the dumb ass for me.. I just wanted out.. and was letting the pilot chute go as soon as I was clear.... but it was already out of the pouch on my leg strap...

I reallllly do not like pilots who scare me.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Their primary role is preventing guys in the back from slamming forward, crushing/smothering people in the front of the cabin.

I wonder how effective they even are at that the way we wear them. Sitting against the forward bulkhead in an otter, if everyone on the load shifted only 6 inches in a crash, you'd be flattened like a pancake. And I bet a lot of people would be able to move a lot farther than 6 inches.

Dave

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I just finished reading the FAA report on the testing;my bad. This does not change the fact that TC is not interested in incomplete results.

Quote

TC chooses to ignore a TSO issued by the FAA to Hooker Harnesses (www.hookerharness.com) circa 1990. The FAA never issued a TSO to Hooker.

What does that mean? Did they or didn't they? If so wouldn't they also need an STC for each type of aircraft they were installed in?

[riggerrob 643]

Sorry about the confusion caused by my editing.
I meant to say that the FAA never issued a Supplementary Type Certificate to Hooker, only a Technical Standard Order for manufacturing seatbelts.
This means that Hooker must conform to all the same quality control and tracking standards as original manufaturers.
As long as Hooker's belts are attached to Cessna-original anchor points, no big deal.
The administrative hassles begin when you try to install seat belt anchors in places that Cessna never intended.
The sheet metal work involved in reinforcing the floor weighs far less than the gov't paperwork.

[livendive 8]

Quote

>Are you really ready to exit an aircraft that is going down at 1000
>feet?

Yes. Depending on how bad the situation was I'd get out as low as 400 feet on my reserve.

C'mon now Bill...we all know you'll gladly go out somewhere between 200 and 350 feet, right??!

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,120]

>C'mon now Bill...we all know you'll gladly go out somewhere between
>200 and 350 feet, right??!

Right!

I was suprised at how many people took that seriously. Yeah, two S+TA's really did live reserve tests from 200 feet in the rain.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

>I would have had one more thing to do with the pilot........

??? It's not his responsibility to give you a safe exit. His responsibility is to fly the plane safely. It's your decision as to whether to get out or not. And if you do decide to get out - it's your issue.

The way I read the post, he was not flying the plane safely. I do not consider nose down in a dive during jump run to be safe. Do you?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hazarrd 1]

So I am still looking for an answer as far as whether or not any experienced jumpers here feel that it would make sense to leave the belt on a little after 1,000 feet. Being that its easier to take off the belt quickly than it is to put it back on?

.-.

[billvon 3,120]

> I do not consider nose down in a dive during jump run to be safe. Do you?

If such a manuever is required to remain clear of clouds (or even clear enough to fly with visual references) then yes, that's safer than continuing flight into the middle of a cloud. VFR flight into IMC is one of the leading causes of GA crashes.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

So I am still looking for an answer as far as whether or not any experienced jumpers here feel that it would make sense to leave the belt on a little after 1,000 feet. Being that its easier to take off the belt quickly than it is to put it back on?

Yes. 1,500 AGL is a good number to me. And remember that at some DZ's after you take off the GL changes rapidly. (Perris, and Otay come to mind)

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

So I am still looking for an answer as far as whether or not any experienced jumpers here feel that it would make sense to leave the belt on a little after 1,000 feet. Being that its easier to take off the belt quickly than it is to put it back on?

Yeah, I make my decision based on where I'm sitting and when the door opens.

I jump from Otters and our policy is that the door stays closed 'till 1,000 feet, so that's the point where, if I'm near the door, I take my belt off. If I'm sitting back by the pilot I would rather leave my belt on 'till 2,000 feet, but when the door is opened that trumps altitude and the belt comes off.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

> I do not consider nose down in a dive during jump run to be safe. Do you?

If such a manuever is required to remain clear of clouds (or even clear enough to fly with visual references) then yes, that's safer than continuing flight into the middle of a cloud. VFR flight into IMC is one of the leading causes of GA crashes.

You can argue it any way you want, the pilot was not flying in a safe or legal manner. He put himself in that position which was not only unsafe but illegal. A C-180 is not certified for aerobatic flight, which a nose down dive of more than 60 degrees is. If he had to dive nose down to avoid the required separation from clouds, it sounds like he did not take off with VFR conditions in the first place.
I repeat, flying nose down on jump run to avoid clouds does not sound like safe flying to me. Does it to you?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 3,120]

>the pilot was not flying in a safe or legal manner.

?? Based on what? It is perfectly legal to descend rapidly in an aircraft and/or fly at 1000 feet over a sparsely populated area.

>He put himself in that position which was not only unsafe but illegal.
> A C-180 is not certified for aerobatic flight, which a nose down dive
> of more than 60 degrees is.

Actually, it's 30 degrees pitch, 60 degrees roll. Ever landed with an Otter? All you can see is ground out the windshield even though the descent angle is less than 30 degrees.

>If he had to dive nose down to avoid the required separation from
> clouds, it sounds like he did not take off with VFR conditions in the
> first place.

It sounds to me like he was trying to remain VFR. If you can remain clear of clouds, you're VFR. Required separation depends on type of flying and can be as little as zero feet in special VFR. (Of course, you need better separation than that to jump safely.)

>I repeat, flying nose down on jump run to avoid clouds does not
> sound like safe flying to me. Does it to you?

Y'know, this goes back to the thing I posted a while back. Take responsibility for yourself, for crying out loud! If you want to jump on a cloudy day, then you take the risk. The pilot is not your mom. He or she does not decide that it's OK to jump, only that it's OK to safely operate the aircraft in whatever regime he's flying it in. YOU decide if it's safe to jump or not.

I've made jumps like this, and it usually takes a bit of an argument to get the pilot to go because of the clouds. And then it's another argument to get him closer to the clouds than he likes, and often he will "pop up" to get enough altitude to jump safely. If there's not enough room between clouds then there is a fast dive to remain clear of clouds. If you don't want to deal with that, don't get on the plane when it's cloudy! Geez.

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

So I am still looking for an answer as far as whether or not any experienced jumpers here feel that it would make sense to leave the belt on a little after 1,000 feet. Being that its easier to take off the belt quickly than it is to put it back on?

Speaking as a pilot who has had 3 engine failures at 1,000 feet and lower on takeoff I would say that all three times I wanted everyone to stay put and don't move! I had just enough time to worry about making a good landing rather than letting people get out and try to maneuver at the same time.

Engine failure at 1,000 feet in a single engine plane: Don't move and make sure your belt is secured.
Engine failure above 1,500 feet I might start thinking about letting you out. But it's gonna be situational.

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

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Y'know, this goes back to the thing I posted a while back. Take responsibility for yourself, for crying out loud! If you want to jump on a cloudy day, then you take the risk. The pilot is not your mom. He or she does not decide that it's OK to jump, only that it's OK to safely operate the aircraft in whatever regime he's flying it in. YOU decide if it's safe to jump or not.

I've made jumps like this, and it usually takes a bit of an argument to get the pilot to go because of the clouds. And then it's another argument to get him closer to the clouds than he likes, and often he will "pop up" to get enough altitude to jump safely. If there's not enough room between clouds then there is a fast dive to remain clear of clouds. If you don't want to deal with that, don't get on the plane when it's cloudy! Geez.

Ah, Geez. You are using a stupid argument and you know it. You are not the last word on a pilots responsibilities when flying an airplane. The FAA is. If a private pilot allows himself to get in the described situation he is not flying safely. No the pilot is not my "mom", my mother died many years ago, thank you very much, and I have been taking responsibility for myself in this sport for a lot longer than 13 years "old timer". Now are you going to tell us all that you have never found yourself on a plane with a pilot that was flying in an unsafe manner? When it happens, you make the best of a bad situation and deal with the pilot when and if you both are back on the ground.
And since it is obvious you did not get it, the comment I made to Amazon was made in jest. You take yourself way to serious.
You must listen to hear, I am done with this.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 3,120]

>You are not the last word on a pilots responsibilities when flying an airplane.

You are correct. However, I am the last word in MY safety when I exit the airplane. No one can force me to jump, and I am ultimately responsible for exiting the plane at a safe altitude, over a safe spot, and with adequate clearances from clouds. It is not the pilot's responsibility to ensure that, which makes sense since I know my gear and skills better than he does and I can see out the door. Do I have a snively canopy? Maybe I better hold out for 2500 feet. Do I have a slammer of a main? Perhaps I can get out just below 2000.

>If a private pilot allows himself to get in the described situation he is
>not flying safely.

Different thread.

>Now are you going to tell us all that you have never found yourself
>on a plane with a pilot that was flying in an unsafe manner?

Sure! But that has more to do with the operation of the aircraft than what sort of spot he gives me or what sort of manuevering he does on jump run.

Pilot flying with no working airspeed indicator - unsafe.
Pilot jinking around on jump run to maintain clearance from clouds - not unsafe.
Pilot buzzing canopies - unsafe.
Pilot giving you a jump run at 1500 feet - perfectly safe for him, maybe not so safe for you.

This is turning into a contest to see whose dick is bigger, and that's not my intent. My bottom line is that the jumper is responsible for exiting the plane at a safe location, altitude and with safe cloud clearances. I believe it is wrong to blame a pilot for your own failure to ensure these things. You may believe differently; that's fine. I hope people will always err on taking responsibility for themselves rather than relying on a pilot, because skydivers are more likely to survive if they do that.

[faulknerwn 38]

I was in a Super Otter which had an engine problem a couple of years ago. It lost the engine at 1300 feet. The pilot did his thing, turned onto a downwind jumprun and asked us to leave :-) We were all happy to oblige. He didn't want to land on our short grass strip with a full load, and he wasn't having any problem maintaining altitude (he actually started climbing once people left).

W

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

>If a private pilot allows himself to get in the described situation he is
>not flying safely.

Different thread.

Quote

I have gotten out of a Cessna 180 that was in a nose down attitude.. I was trying to spot.. in the clouds...the "pilot" was not rated IFR and I am in an open door on my knees... looking down to get a glimpse of the ground thru the clouds.. I went to say some thing to the pilot when I looked out of the window in front and...OOPS there was the ground.. the pilot was looking at me as I left the aircraft with my pilot chute already in my hand. I got inflation about 900 ft over a hill next to a river.... oh and the church steeple on top of the hill was a bit freaky as far as ground rush went.....this guy was not a regular jump pilot and I NEVER had anything to do with him again.
Jeanne

Looks like the same thread to me.

No has said that no one can make you jump. But weather on not you jump has nothing to do with how the pilot is flying the plane. Even you can't take the responsibility for how the plane is being flown. That is up to the pilot. All you can do is get out or sit down, hold on and shut up. The man in the left seat is in charge not you.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 3,120]

>>>If a private pilot allows himself to get in the described situation he is not flying safely.
>>Different thread.
>Looks like the same thread to me.

There's a separate thread on whether private pilots (as opposed to commercial pilots) can fly jumpers or not. The answer is usually no.

> Even you can't take the responsibility for how the plane is being
> flown. That is up to the pilot. All you can do is get out or sit down,
> hold on and shut up. The man in the left seat is in charge not you.

I agree there. The pilot is in charge of safe operation of the airplane, and the extent of what a skydiver can tell a pilot to do is usually limited to requests for altitude, requests for course direction, a cut etc.