diverdriver

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

Oh for crying out loud Quade. You're gonna melt your processor if you keep seeking out these sites.

We have to look at what FARs we operate under. Skydiving is considered to be General Aviation because we operate under Part 91. We also follow part 105 but that is just for the skydiving aspect of it. You can have commercial operations that are part 91. Flight instruction, banner towing, aerial photography, crop dusting are examples of commercial aviation under part 91. You can get paid to do it. What you are thinking about is charter and airline operations and that is Part 135 and 121 respectively. And I was to compare our numbers to part 135 charter ops it would be an even worse comparison. They have a much better accident rate than GA. Generally it is due to the increase scrutiny from the FAA. You must have a working manual that is approved by the FAA in order to train your employees. You have to have a chief pilot listed that has at least 3 years in a 135 operation. You have to have a chief mechanic listed that has at least 3 years working on planes in a 135 operation. Your pilots must receive FAA approved initial and recurrent training. In skydiving, there are no such requirements even though it is shown that standardize approved initial and recurrent training can go a long way to reducing accidents. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Like you mentioned, jump planes are operating at their max stress level on takeoff. It must be tougher on the motor and airframe than regular flight. The cycle time for an Otter is 20 minutes. One out of every 20 is spent during taxi and takeoff. On a regular type of flight, the plane takes off and may fly for 90 or 120 minutes before landing. Thus, a higher proportion of time is spent during the high-stress takeoff part. As an Otter pilot, you do 14 takeoffs a day. A regular pilot has to wait for cargo/passengers to load/unload. Maybe he does 4 takeoffs in a day. 14 loads? Try 37. That's the max loads I've done in a day. And yah, it is very demanding on the pilot. It wouldn't be a bad thing to see operations institute a maximum number of hours you could fly in a day. Course, that would limit how much the pilot could make since they are paid per load usually. Yes, you are under high stress on takeoff. But it doesn't work the same for turbine engines as it does for piston engines. Unless the piston engine is turbo charged then you pretty much make max power on takeoff and that's it. You decrease power as you climb. A turbine engine can produce that max power for an extended period after takeoff. But they are designed to. The reduction gear box for a PT-6-27 is actually derated from what it is truly capable of. That how you design "robustness" into a mechanical system. You set wide margins and you adhere to them to get full expected life out of them. And even when derated the -27s put out a lot of power. But actually there are many aspects to jump ops safety. Maintenance and cycles is one aspect. Pilot training is another. Aircraft fueling, oiling, and loading yet another section. It's a long list. We must pay attention to them all. That is why I list all the jump plane accidents I can find. You can read for yourself the varied reasons why jump planes have accidents. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Yah but this comment: Doesn't set me into thinking this conversation is going to be a very informative conversation. I think RWS has shown that they can get bulletins out to the community in a timely manner for all to benefit. And could someone please post a link to this other thread where this supposedly came from? I'd like to read it too. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Is what a contributing factor? Every takeoff is followed by a landing no matter what. So, just the way you wrote it seems you're saying that takeoffs are factors in landing accidents. I suppose if you never took off then you never would have an accident right? But really, takeoff is a high risk time because most jump planes operate at the max of their envelope on takeoff. They are usually full of jummpers putting them at the max allowable weight for takeoff called max gross weight. You do not have a lot of performance and you will be using more runway for takeoff than if you were lighter. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

John, who said we ignored anything? I read the thread. The person is obviously outside the WL proposals. What else is there to say. This person would obviously not have been effected by the WL proposal. So there's no arguement. The person did not die and that may be in due part that the person was not on a higher wingloading when they made their error. And I think that's what people would like to see with this WL limit proposal. A reduction in fatalities. We know people will get hurt in this sport. Heck, I got hurt running out of the plane. But that doesn't mean we can't direct people towards WL that if/when they make a mistake it is not fatal and they have a chance to come back and learn a lesson. If they're dead, the only lesson learned is by the people left behind. No benefit goes to the jumper themself. So exactly what do you think we should have been saying in this thread that we supposedly were ignoring (which we weren't)? Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I would say that before getting two pilots for planes that only require one we should make sure they have proper, standard training. But yes, some jump planes do require two pilots because that is how the plane was certified due to its complexity and or weight. There is no standard and no obligation to prove training for jump pilots either through the USPA or FAA. A good idea might be to put together a pilot proficiency card much like they have for getting a JM rating that pilots would fill out every year with designated Jump Pilot trainers. It's only an idea but it would be more of a network of knowledge than we have now. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I am but one voice. But if you agree with me. Then I suggest you contact your Regional and National Directors to make them take notice. If they then believe what I say is true then as a group we can change even more for the better. We are skydivers. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I have just emailed this letter to the editor of Parachutist about the August issue's "Safety Check". [HR]Dear Parachutist Editor, I am glad to see Kevin Gibson's article in August's issue of Parachutist talking about aircraft safety. But I am also left with the feeling that this is a day late and a dollar short. He is right on about what he states skydivers and skydiving operations should be doing about aircraft operations. But unfortunately, the USPA leadership should have been doing much more of this and more loudly over the years. Kevin states, "And although skydiving continued to grow, reports of wrecks and sloppy aircraft operation diminished." I could not disagree with this more. On my website, www.DiverDriver.com, I track jump plane accidents through the NTSB website. I list the type of aircraft, fatal/non-fatal, where it happened, the date, and the link to the NTSB file. Kevin goes on to say, "Lest we forget, two recent fatal Cessna crashes should sound an alarm to all jumpers to again notice the planes they jump from." Excuse me but the alarm bells have been going off since 1998. I've been trying to get this industry to take notice that we have a problem with our aircraft operations. We have twice as many accidents per 100,000 hours of flying than General Aviation. That's an average of 12 jump plane accidents per year or more. When I started sounding the warning in 1998 we had 7 jump plane accidents 2 of which were fatal. I said that the bomb was ticking and waiting to go off. I was pooh poohed and ignored mostly. In 1999 we had one of the worst years ever with jump planes. There were 14 accidents of which 6 ended in a fatality. Everyone was in an uproar about jump planes. But the trend didn't stop there. The year 2000 had 5 accidents with one fatal repositioning flight. 2001 had 12 accidents with 2 fatal jump plane accidents. 2002 had 15 accidents and 4 fatal jump plane accidents (to be true, the collision between the Golden Knights porter and a C-182 is counted twice because both planes involved were jump planes). So you say the number of accidents declined? In 1992 there were 7 accidents. In 2002 there were 15. How is that a decline? Look at the numbers more closely before stating that we are doing better as an industry. Jump planes crash twice as often as General Aviation aircraft. That is comparing us to other private pilots, student pilots, and commercial general aviation pilots. We should be doing as good if not better than GA because of our professional commercial pilots. But we are not. Why? Why is it that flight instruction flights (which average about the same number of cycles as jump planes) have a better accident rate per 100,000 hours of flying than GA? The NTSB states that it is because there is a Commercial Pilot with a Flight Instructor Rating in the right seat supervising the operation. They run their planes sometimes harder than jump planes. Going from high power to idle simulating engine failure after engine failure until the student gets it right. Anyone who argues jump planes are run the hardest and that's why they break more needs to look at the whole industry a little better before making that statement. If we know they are running hard then we should be doing what is necessary to bring those numbers down. Not pat ourselves on the back and say we've been doing ok for now. Because really, we haven't. Aircraft maintenance in this industry as a whole is horrible. Pilot training in emergencies is lacking. And adherence to FARs is cavalier at best at many DZs. Is your DZ one of them? How do you know to check? The FAA expects skydiving to be self-regulating. But when complaints about DZ ops have been made to the Regional Directors they have flat out refused to do anything saying, "That's an FAA problem". It goes round and round and nothing gets done. If you do nothing, nothing will happen except more accidents. So what's it going to be USPA BOD? I spoke to you at the July 2002 BOD meeting at Skydive Chicago. I got blank stares in return when I sounded my warning then. Now, a year later, we have a half page article in Parachutist to get people to pay attention. Again, it's a day late and a dollar short. Hope we won't waste tomorrow. The membership should back you. Do the right thing and make it very uncomfortable for the operations we know to be lacking. Peer pressure is our ally to making this industry ready for the next time it expands. If we can't handle it now, how can we handle it later? Chris Schindler www.DiverDriver.com edited to change "waist" to "waste". Sheesh...darn spell check.

Hands down got to be Cutaway. I so want to be number 8.

Jedi mind tricks. Hey no offense taken. Debate is healthy if it stays as a debate on track with the facts as we know them.

See, I knew in the end you'd see it my way.

Alright buckaroo. We can lock horns on this all day. I think we both have safety in mind and that's what counts. I don't think we will get any points on our score cards to find out truly who is more right here. Both things need to be considered as a body of knowledge for safe skydiving. Agreed?

The main landing area doesn't move does it? You know other canopies will be landing there because they were on your plane. You can't plan to look for them? Come on now.

If memory serves me correctly I think I have read as many power line strikes this year as canopy collisions. And I'd say there are more people landing on the airport than off. So the chances of striking a powerline is higher I guess than hitting another canopy according to statistics. But then again, yah, we could argue this until the cows come home.

I did...and just because you didn't get what you were looking for there you started a poll here to prove how right you are. Shheeeeesh.

We're talking about seeing the wire. Not the effect of the wire. You are much more likely to see a 15 foot wide canopy than a 3 inch line. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Generally, skydivers land in landing areas. So your point parallels both. As for actually seeing power line (not the effect of them or where they might be) you are better able to see an open parachute, glider, airplane than you can the 3 inch diameter line. That's what the question was. Can you see power lines or an open canopy better. Powerlines usually don't swoop you from above and behind true. I don't think that was the question. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

I agree with that. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Exactly. See what is there in a gear check. NOT what you expect to be there! Pilots do this all the time. It's something we fight. See what's there, not what you expect to be there. I packed a PC in tow when I was learning to pack. It was caught on a gear check by the JM. Man, did I learn a lot that day. Course, it didn't stop me from packing a PC in tow for a friend (after approx 3,000 pack jobs later) by pushing the bridle too far up under the side flap leading the the PC pouch. I even knew Reflexes had had an issue with bridles snagging the stiffener on the bottom flap causing a PC in tow. And yet, it happened. I'd like to think that it had help from the jumper during their gear check but if he says he didn't push it further I got to believe him. I apologized. Later on he thanked me because he road the reserve on the other rig I assembled for him. So, I did do some good work. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

So you are above reproach? Sorry, no one here is. Not even me. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Well, I have to say the first post in this thread is rather unclear as to where it is coming from. It does not state what incident it is talking about. It just says "the rig in question". What question? Where did this come from. Given that and the statement at the beginning of that post that Vector IIIs had a firing problem when they first came out leave the reader rather confused as to the motive behind the post. I certainly question its timing. Then it says RWS made a change to the packing instructions but gives no material to back that claim up. Point to the revision if you are making the claim. As of yet, no such revision has been posted. Not saying it doesn't exist. Just saying there is more that could have been done to make this clear as to where the poster is coming from. So, given so little info on where this post is coming from one might look at the posters profile and see what they say about themselves. 300 jumps may be a lot but overall it is not a great amount compared to many other jumpers posting here. Time in sport is important also but that is not in the profile. I can somewhat surmize that Malfunction has been in the sport at least 2 years (if not more) because they were registered here on these forums in 2001. Again, jump numbers and time in sport combined give a picture of the person posting as to how much they might have seen up to this point. I have certainly seen many posters here get very dramatic about very small things or take an event out of context and paint a picture of dire events. With the second post by Malfunction we learn that it was based on another thread (which I still don't know what it was) and a moderator asked him to post here. Fine. Could we please have a little more background on this? Look at the original post and then think how someone who has no other clue as to what he is talking about might take that first post. Sure seemed like a slam to me. Talking about a problem on a rig when it first came out that happened to be many years ago. If a rig had the same problem due to packing recently then state the problem. Don't just say it has a firing problem. That implies it was the rigs fault when in fact it may have been the way it was packed. As of yet, I don't know which to believe from this thread. Since Bill Booth has not commented on this thread yet and has on others it seems that this problem or situation was blown out of proportion or is not being told exactly correct. Bill, if you know of this rig that the original poster refers to could you please comment as to what he is talking about? Or are you just as confused as me? Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Excuse me.....but Roger Nelson had his canopy run into. Not the other way around. Roger's canopy was collapsed from above. Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125

Scott....meet BillVon......Bill.....meet Scott. Please go have a talk about the 45 degree rule for seperation and why it DOES NOT WORK! Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125