diverdriver

It definitely was a jump plane years ago. It was crashed about 10 years ago (1999). And Buckeye is a DZ soooo... just trying to see if anyone knows if it was still used as a jump plane there. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

You are mixing efficiency with safety and "purpose built" marketing. I'm not saying the PAC 750 is a bad plane. I do not like its marketing at all in that regard. That's my beef. The numbers prove it is an efficient aircraft and able to turn light loads. I once lusted over a turbine Cessna 206 (secretly still do). But there have been tail strikes on the 750 like Caravans and King Airs. You may have tried to jump up and touch the tail but I do not advise you attempt that again. Your pilot may have the right setup for dispatching jumpers. Why go and try to reduce the margins? (Boothe's law number one I guess.) The PAC 750 will have its market share and will be suited to a certain size DZ. It will not replace all jump planes nor do I think they expect to. As stated before it's for the DZ moving up from 182s and 206s with competition for Caravans. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I don't want to get into an argument about semantics but here is a direct quote from Parachutist Magazine.... This is from August 2007 edition of Parachutist magazine. Article written by Ed Scott. It is a Cresco airframe ADAPTED with a turbine engine for skydiving operations. It was not purpose built. It may have been MARKETED to skydiving operations. This claim it was purpose built is a marketing slant. Sorry but the Twin Otter actually WAS designed with dispatching skydiver in it's original design. It had a bi-fold electric door available. That was decades ago. It wasn't the only purpose for the plane so I guess it's not "only" built for skydiving. I just get really iritated when I see this posted over and over. It makes people think it's the only safe (because it was "originally designed" for skydiving) jump plane. A horizontal tail in that position has serious hazards like a King Air, Caravan, C-182. All of these planes were adapted to skydiving. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

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

It is NOT designed for skydiving! Anyone who puts a horizontal stabilizer in direct line with the door is not designing a skydiving plane. It's a frame that was ADAPTED to skydiving. Anyone who says the PAC was designed for skydiving is lieing. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

This may be a way out there suggestion in all this jump plane safety stuff but I would propose a DZO certificate/rating from USPA. A course of instruction could be set up to make sure a prospective DZO or current DZO could demonstrate to a certain level of knowledge. It would be tough as they would have to demonstrate knowledge of instruction courses, rigging, FARs for skydiving, FARs for aircraft operations, fuel tank regulations and other subjects that a DZO must have working knowledge of in order to then train his staff and supervise his operation. It is a top down approach. I have been approaching jump plane safety from a bottom up approach for a long time now having my website as a resource for those that went looking. But someone has to want to look. What if the one constant at a DZ (the DZO) had a working knowledge of most things and could point people in the right direction to get expanded training/knowledge. Discuss. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I posted before I read your next post. You get it. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

This is why we need FAA intervention/inspection because DZOs cannot be trusted to do it on their own all the time. If they are doing it now then they have nothing to worry about. Their inspection will be quick. But if we can get true oversight then the average jumper will not have to educate themselves on how TBOs work and that they aren't required to be done yet we run these engines to death and not everyone knows how to baby them past TBO. (run on sentence I know) This engine that blew up wasn't just a little over TBO. IT WAS TWICE THE TIME OVER TBO. WTF. And to those that don't think the FAA can demand TBOs you're wrong. They won't have to change Part 91. They can change Part 105 to require it. Think AOPA will step in on a Part 105 NPRM? Unlikely. NTSB talked about how skydiving should be seperated out from just being part 91. It can be done. People should take heed. The crux of a lot of these problems is that there is no qualification to being a DZO other than money. You have the money you can start a DZ. They hold the purse strings and pilots want to fly. DZOs might be depending on their pilots that revolve through the door to keep track of maintenance. Pilots look at how little they are getting paid and won't do much above the minimum and then get out when they have enough hours. This industry needs people who know what they are looking at to inspect things and keep oversight. There really should be a DZO certificate or Part 105 "operating certificate" that has to be applied for and granted by the FAA. The process would require the DZO to show knowledge of Part 91, 105, 125 as it pertains to all aspects of their operation. Then we can mandate minimum specialized training for jump pilots. Then we look at recurrent training if they stay in it long enough. It's the only way to get bad DZs into compliance so we stop killing our friends in jump planes. Roger Nelson predicted that this industry was headed for fewer DZs with "large DZs" growing. The large DZs already understand for the most part about what we are talking about here. Either the small DZs get on board soon or they will be plowed under and that will be sad. It's just going to take a mindset to get into this to survive. A single 182 DZ can survive in this if they start getting educated on what it will take to truly comply. Even if the FAA does not follow with each NTSB recommendation people could just choose to follow it and raise the bar themselves. Do you want your rigger doing the minimum to make your rig airworthy? Why would you expect/allow your DZO to do the same for the plane/pilot you ride to altitude? These aren't new areguements. It's just now a very serious government agency has turned the spot light on this industry and it's a real heat lamp. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I'm surprised nothing has been mention by the NTSB about the door being open for takeoff. It was a right engine failure. The ensuing right yaw would have put the relative wind right into that door causing drag. Sure, the pilot should have banked into the good engine. But I see that door being open as a huge culprit to this crash also. Otter pilots: Please stop the practice of taking off with the door open. I don't care how hot it is. The possible drag at a critical moment might lead you to the same accident. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Jen, I wrote out a nice post a few days ago in response to yours about seatbelts failing. Unfortunately the computer I was working on locked up and it didn't post. Been too frustrated to post until I got back on my own. The restraints (they weren't seatbelts) did not fail. They failed to stop the occupants. We hate when the press uses "parachute failed to open" when more likely the statement "jumper failed to activate parachute". These occupants failed to use restraints or use them properly. They wore them loosely and in places on their harness that did nothing to restrain them really. And this subject has been talked about for years on this forum. People need to get in tune with their restraints and understand a little physics in order to protect themselves to the maximum extent possible. This is not something new. This has been something learned from the Perris Otter crash in 1992. We should have been "doing something" 14 years ago. Will they finally listen? Those who come here to read still are the choir. And preaching to the converted...well, is it saving anyone? Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/boardmeeting.htm Click on real video. It is the webcast of the accident discussion. There are pictures of the restraints used and discussion was made how they were not sinched down or not used at all. Go watch. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Somewhat. Was it in reference to seatbelts on walls not being sinched or belts are forward of the jumper sitting on the floor being useless? Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I've been told this was not the case by someone who was involved in the recovery operation. I can't verify the veracity of their comment but I wanted to post that because the NTSB said they weren't wearing belts when in fact the belts failed. My concern regarding belts is that they don't get tightened properly and in fact, even if they were sinched down, most people I've seen grab belts that are behind them (i.e. to the front of the plane) thus negating somewhat the point of tightening the belts (if they were). The NTSB studied seatbelt use and belts that failed. They noted that at least one had NO restraint indication which means that they weren't wearing a belt that failed. They had no belt at all. Watch the video for yourself. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Seatbelts/restraints: Jumpers on 203E did not use the belts installed properly or at all. They were fastened but not sinched. This allowed people to travel forward into the crush zone. One jumper at least was not belted in and travelled forward striking people. Same as in the Perris 1992 Twin Otter crash. The people in the back of the plane used (unwillingly) the people in the front as cushions from impact. NoShit: I think you are confusing prop blades with turbine (engine) blades. Turboprops are mini jet engines hooked to propellors for thrust. So there are many baldes to discuss. The compressor (first part of the engine) has a seires of blades that as it turns it compresses the air getting it ready for fuel to be added. From the photos I saw it looks like the compressor began to fail on the takeoff roll. There was so little runway to use AND because the pilot did a rolling start instead of insuring both engines ran up and stabailized I feel he was focussed with the end of pavement. A PT-6 engine requires a push up of power and pause to allow the compressor overpressure relief valves to close. The engine is very efficient and at idle it's too efficient for stages of the engine to take that air. So it dumps it. This is why doing a rolling takeoff on such a short runway even if considered "light" on the takeoff weight was an action that put him in a corner. Now, give that it was a hot day (high density altitude). The airplane "acts" as though it is taking off from a higher elevation than it physically is. Dash 20/21 engines are not well known for their ability to produce full power on hot days. This is why you see operators converting to -27/-28/-34s. They want to produce the max allowable power at even high temperatures. Vmc (Speed: minimal control) This speed is marked as a redline on the low end of the airspeed indicator. It signifies to the pilot the minimum speed at full gross (allowable) takeoff weight (loaded with an aft CG) with the critical engine failed (in the case of a twin otter the left engine) that will allow the pilot to maintain directional control (head where he wants to go). THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WILL BE ABLE TO CLIMB OR MAINTAIN ALTITUDE!! However, redline is not always redline. If you change any of the conditions I noted for its definition the speed will change (usually for the better ie. lower). Vyse (Speed: best rate of climb single engine) This speed is marked as a blue line on the airspeed indicator. The aircraft can have a bank up to 5 degrees in the direction of the operating engine and will give you the best climb per time OR the minimum sink per time. However, if taught and used properlly you can trade directional control for performance and climb at better than book values assuming engine performance is not less than book. That brings us back to maintenance. When an engine fails due to poor maintenance and treatment do you think the remaining engine is likely to be any better? Pilot training: A pilot who is current and takes regular checkrides in a jet DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CURRENT AND PREPARED FOR A FAILURE IN A TWIN OTTER (PROP PLANE). A jet that has engines on the tail does not create the type of yaw that a failure in twin prop can/will. No one should think that an airline pilot who flys for your DZ on weekends only is prepared for emergencies in that DZ plane just because they practice in a sim once/twice a year for a jet. YOU MUST PRACTICE EMERGENCIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANE YOU ARE FLYING AT THE TIME. I've been saying it for years that this skydiving industry needs some standard/trackable initial training and RECURRENT training to ensure a high degree of performance. Pay now or pay the high cost later. And some debts can never be repaid. But I do not agree with "Zing's" assesment of "we're fucked". I think operators who understand what it really takes will have no problem adapting to what's coming. Had we paid attention to this problem years ago and addressed it properly we would not have arrived at an NTSB special report and presentation. I spoke at the USPA BOD meetings at SDC years ago saying if they wanted to promote skydiving more broadly to the public they had better clean up the jump plane accidents. I was received by the sound of crickets. Well, there you go. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Many errors and I don't have time to go through them all. It's not Vmc. It's Vyse (best rate single engine to climb). Vmc is minimal control speed which is less than Vyse. The pilot got below Vyse and couldn't climb. Vmc is lower at lower weights. It is indicated by a red line on the airspeed indicator for MAX GROSS T/O WEIGHT. Vyse is a blue line. The propellors don't rotate left. They rotate clockwise as seen from behind. The descending blade creates more thrust than the ascending blade creating what we call "P-Factor". The distance on the right engine to the center of max thrust is longer on the right than the left. Thus being the left engine is the "critical engine". But in this case the right engine failed so not worst case. I've never heard of -21 engines. There are -20. Max thrust at Sea Level standard day is 550 Shaft Horsepower. The Density altitude on that day was much higher. The pilot did a rolling takeoff using only half the runway. He put himself in the corner and couldn't get out. I will write a longer post of what I think happened on that Sullivan crash but I don't have time at the moment. Just couldn't let some of these errors go further. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Abusing union power? Have you read the Railway Labor Act that we have to go by during negotiations? It is VERY slanted towards management to begin with. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Scott, your service and the service of this soldier are to be commended, appreciated and honored. I think Sadam was a bad dude. I think he was a genocidal maniac and proved it by gassing the Kurds. I oppose the handling of the war by the Presidnet. NOT the members of the Armed Forces of the USA and Allies in Iraq. They have performed tremendously. Never doubted that. But I was just having this discussion with a friend of mine who posted that same video on his facebook. The arguement that people have died in this war means that anyone who opposes it is wrong is ...well, wrong. It's circular logic to say that because people have died in this war so we should never pull out. YOU have done good on our behalf over there. YOU have given them a chance to take control of their country. But at a certain point they must take control of their country and be responsible for their security. How many days after the war started was Sadam toppled? The Iraqis must stand up for themselves and say enough with the violence. And they are. The surge worked. And as I understand it a tactic change in dealing with the groups over their also helped lower the violence. Pull out of Iraq the day after Obama take office = bad. Stay for 100 years (no I don't believe 100 years of combat) in Iraq = bad. I do not believe Obama will withdraw all troops immediately or even as fast as some think he will. I do not believe McCain will keep troops in Iraq forever either and will withdraw them also. Obama wants to focus on Afghanistan and I think he's right. I have not heard from McCain much talk about refocussing on Afghanistan. Not saying he hasn't said anything I just haven't heard what he thinks. So it comes down to other issues like domestic things and I believe Obama will be better than McCain. As an airline pilot I know McCain hates us and actively votes against our issues. Just so you know I am not a one topic voter. I think McCain is a hero and a true example of what it means to serve your country with honor. I just can not agree with his policies. I will vote Obama. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Martin 404. From Save A Conny (SAC) in TWA paint scheme without the TWA logo. I didn't get to jump it but I did get to talk to the guys that restored and cared for them as I was a flight instructor on the ramp next to theirs. They'd stand around telling stories so I'd just walk up and then listen. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

IMO, yes you did deceive him by not telling that the jump was being made in violation of an FAR. I may be a little out of the loop here, but wasn't the pilot in control of the aircraft? Are pilots responsible for following all FARs while in control of their aircraft? I would think that unless the aircraft was hi-jacked and the pilot was under duress, any illegal actions on the part of the aircraft/pilot go into the pilot's bag. Is there another thread where I can find information on this? - David In order to get a Commercial License you are tested on the FARs. Part 105 skydiving is not one of them. You have to know it's there in order to go read it. Sure, he should have thought to look. But skydivers do know about it as they are tested on it for the A and subsequent licenses. Now, if the FAA investigates and finds that the pilot did have prior knowledge of Part 105 then they might go to the heavier side of the enforcement action. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I had to fly through that TS 3 times yesterday. It sucked. PHL to DCA to ALB ...delayed...delayed until TS reached PHL then ALB-PHL. Ugh. Sucked. Weird thing was it was smooth IN the rain and once you exited the rain the turbulence got you. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

BASE jumping isn't stupid. You can do BASE jumping stupidly though just like you can do skydiving stupidly. Just like you can do Diver Driving stupidly. BASE jumping is not done from aircraft. And 4 different posters out of over 30,000 current members should not mean a majority are trying to alienate you. Buck up little camper. I still like you. I like reading your posts. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

If you hit the ceiling you are not doing "zero G" you are doing negative Gs. Twin Otters are not rated for extended negative Gs. You risk breaking someone's neck. Pulling unexpected manuevers for yahoo effect is a sign of pilot boredom. Be aware. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

This disparity has been noted for years and years and once in awhile I bring the topic up. It is supply and demand. Now, if we just give our new commercial pilots or pilots moving up from piston to turbine a sense of self worth the pay would increase because they wouldn't be taking the jobs. I worked my ass off at a Cessna DZ in KC. I flew the loads then packed the student rigs and jm rigs just to have some money (the DZ was always behind paying me). I didn't get my first airline job until 7 years after graduating my university for aviation. How many of you out there want to "intern" for 7 years? Didn't think so. Your pilots are human beings. But if you use an analogy of aircraft engine operation you might see what I'm getting at. You can't run your engine in the red for very long before it fails. Run it within limits and it will last a long time and won't cost you more in the long run. Do you want to pay a little more now or a lot later? You must ensure your pilot is running within parameters as a human. They have to afford to eat and a place to live. They can be under tremendous stress due to financial obligations while getting that training. Do you want them distracted while working at your operation? No, you want them focussed totally on the task at hand. DZs have never given much thought to human factors in accidents and incidents. Or how a "corporate culture" or "industry culture" can play into it. Things that don't show up at the accident site and can't be photographed or measure with an instrument. It takes humans watching out for each other before the accident happens to prevent it. You don't want your pilot to be the weak link in this chain. Treat the pilots with respect. Give them a sense of self worth either by increasing pay or adding perks that are not as tangible as money yet motivate the employee (free jumps, free sandwich brought out to them, etc...) And for God's sake watch for signs your diver driver is getting bored. Yanking and banking for the thrill of it is a sure way to creating more maintenance down the road or to a smoking hole when the fly by goes bad (accelerated stall trying to buzz campground on first load of day with a full load in the back). Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Correct. I am excellent proof that the AFF rating is now far too easy to get. I bet she flys a seven cell canopy. ...congrats Lisa.

Myth. The little heat (comparitively) that you take into the carb from the carb heat does not compare to the heat change needed to cause "shock cooling". And the amount of heat drawn in is directly related to how much heat is being put out by the engine so low power (rpm in your case) would mean little heat drawn in for your stated purpose. Carb heat is to prevent carb ice. That's all. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125