diverdriver

Oh yah, the spooks. Neet CASAs.

Wow, what a crock. I remember an airshow in Jacksonville, FL when the F-117 was first released to the public. Back around 1989 or so. I stood 30 ft from it snapping picture after picture. No one arrested me. Does Greece have a plane more sophisticated than the US? I don't think so. Again, what a crock. Chris Lazily sitting back in his easy chair eating bon bons drinking a cool ice tea cuz he's lazy. Thank you.

Here's a thought....let's get the hydrogen fuel cell technology up to speed and get off the "oil standard". Let them buy fuel from US for a change. Then we can embargo them and see how they like it. Saudi Arabia sends money, even today, to organizations that support suicide bombing. They just held a State SPONSORED telethon for such groups on Saudi TV. We need to divest ourselves of dependence on foreign oil. When that happens you will see a very changed world. Chris

Do you have an article link?

Man this never ends.....18 dead.....14 teachers....2 students....1 police officer....1 shooter My condolences.

Go HERE and see the FAQs.

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 Schindler ATP/CFII D-19012 www.DiverDriver.com

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

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

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

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

Uh oh.

But that's not a word. It's an acronym. Can't Understand Normal Thinking. Oh I'm getting in trouble for that one.

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 Schindler ATP/CFII D-19012 www.DiverDriver.com

I know a few sponsored freefliers that this applies to. Well...they aren't sponsored anymore.

I got booted and it wouldn't let me back in. Sorry guys.

Remember when we went to boogies to just skydive? What a concept. Chris

I've given enough extra altitude to know. Score: 19. Thank you. Chris Schindler ATP/CFII D-19012 www.DiverDriver.com

This is not a conversation I want to get into really. Politics and such. Bill, I was being more cheeky than serious. Sorry. No, we're not going to annialate 350,000 civilians. Won't be tollerated anymore. Just making a comparison to how things were, and are now. Chris Chris Schindler ATP/CFII D-19012 www.DiverDriver.com

Yep, I was kidding Lisa. Sorry. Chris Schindler ATP/CFII D-19012 www.DiverDriver.com

Private email sent. Chris Schindler ATP/CFII D-19012 www.DiverDriver.com

Well, I agree that there are Commercially rated pilots who have accidents. But, I think I explained it a little why I feel we should follow the law first. When we can't even follow the FARs as is, then how can we expect any safety from a pilot flying jumpers? Chris

A Private Pilot license is your basic license to fly passengers. But if you get paid for flying or you advertise for people to come and jump out of your plane then you are a COMMERCIAL operation. You MUST have a Commercial Pilot's license to fly skydivers. The FAA has come down on operators that think because they don't pay their pilots that they aren't doing a commercial operation. That is completely incorrect. Not to mention that to get your Private Pilot's license you only have to have a minimum of 40 hours. Do you think that a pilot with 40 hours has enough experience and maturity as a pilot to deal with flying jumpers? It bothers me because I play by the rules. I got the proper training to fly people for hire. That is the definition of Commercial Pilot. Anyone who gets payed to fly. It does not refer to Airline flying. Plus you have to fly the aircraft to a higher precision than a Private Pilot to pass the check ride. The FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) clearly say what you can and can not do as a Private Pilot. There are numerous enforcement actions on pilots to show that you can not fly jumpers with a Private Pilot's license. Articles have been written in Parachutist about this topic. And if you have any doubt whether you can do it or not just call your local FAA office (called FSDO =Flight Standards District Office) and they will explain it to you. Chris Schindler ATP/CFII D-19012 www.DiverDriver.com

Actually, I am exactly correct. I have a few years of aerodynamics training. When you bring a toggle down you INCREASE the angle of attack. This increases lift on that side and when you produce lift you produce drag. So the opposite side of the canopy "flies around" and a turn is initiated. So when you say "When you make a toggle turn, you force the side of the canopy you pulled the toggle on to have a less agressive angle of attack. " You are incorrect. Less agressive? Actually, the angle of attack increase when you pull a toggle. Chris Schindler ATP/CFII D- 19012

Oh man. That is horrible. I'm assuming no bodily injury. Makes me sick that planes are toast. That just aint right. Chris