Colson

I like that wording.

How recent is "company resource management"? I heard "crew" used 3 years ago.

Uh...The CRM I have had beaten into me for years is "CREW/COCKPIT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT" Never heard "company" used.... so who are you a check pilot for, FYI I know plenty of 737 pilots, many check airmen, not confined to one major, so be honest. Chances are they would know you.

That is already in place, it is called the certificate holder.... Suprise, if you've got an FAA ticket in you pocket, you are actually responsible for something. The regs are there, the FAA is there, and they are trying to do their job. The last Inspector I talked with gave me the old "you guys in the field are the best and first line of enforcement". Of course overtime that has degenerated to "look at the freedom we have". New rules just are not going to fix that.

Im not bitter Im just calling it like I see it. Regardless of how the 135/121 safety record compairs to DZ ops doesnt change the fact that as far as Im concerned the same maintenance issues you bash DZ's over happen all the time to them even under the nose of the FAA. Do I want more regulation, NO. Do I want more enforcement, YES. If I call up the FSDO over joe blows aiplane that has more inop stickers then instruments including those required for day VFR, I EXPECT them to get their ass down there and have a look as they are legally required to do so.....Yet cant seem to find the time. I can be labeled a horses ass for killing the fun and thats fine, if they cant have fun and be professional then thats too bad. I do not support the creation of new rules that will be ignored by the same idiots, while causing a straight up DZO to quit. Most DZ ops have been and probably will always be the starting point for a pilot, that means low time. You cant expect a pilot fresh out of the sunshine states finest mills to have thousands of hours flying jumpers. You also cannot expect them to build that kind of time as some kind of SIC jumper pilot. That then leaves training time as the only solution. But who and how? how much? all good questions that take effort and support to get a solution, and it hasnt happened yet because people dont seem to feel the benefit is worth the cost.

What a joke, have you looked around at an airport for more then a minute? Ive seen pissed off line monkeys ram jaming planes around with tugs, people putting 1200lbs in containers labeled 600lbs max because it fit, maintenance that is totally illegal, and looked like 15th century battle surgery, forged documents, missed inspections, the list goes on. ALL of this was being done at MAJOR HUBS, INFRONT of this oversight you speak of, of course as long as the people up in the terminal dont see it its all good and they go on their ignorant way. Of course theres always somebody sent out to count the number of turns per inch on the safety wire or something useless like that, got to have that oversight.

The purpose of the overhaul isnt to get a new engine, it is for an inspection. After overhaul much of your engine may be the old parts provided they meet the tolerances in the overhaul manual, which will not be "new" tolerances, therefore the engine is not/cannot be zero timed at an "overhaul". Aside from the opportunity to inspect, there are other things that can be done like cleaning sludge, new rings, plain bearings, cylinders are sent out, etc. That being said the overhaul period is in place to inspect the engine, and running over the TBO can be more complicated then just having good compressions, oil PSI, oil analysis, etc. I am not 100% against running over TBO, but is is hard to define how much over TBO is ok, and what exactly to look for to determine when it should no longer be operated. The best thing a new engine owner can do is put themselves on a saving plan, meaning for each hour of engine operation X amount of $$ is put aside for the upcoming TBO. Many dont like this idea, but it can work well.

Then you end up with lawsuits because it didnt say specifically in the POH that running out of fuel might cause a crash, or trying to get the cessna caravan revised to prohibit flight into known ice because one crashed due to ice.....You seem to want to add as many specific rules as possible in hopes that it will prevent accidents...it wont. It will just drive the people who already follow the rules out of business. You think people who dont follow rules are going to care about new ones?? ALL the rules required are in place, but not being enforced...The FAA should NOT have to sent inspectors to the field on a regular basis. YOU as a FAA certificate holder, PILOT, RIGGER, MECHANIC, ETC are just as much resposible for enforcement as the FAA. What does this mean? It means telling somebody they need a wake up call from the FAA....piss them off,make a report. If you see something in violation of the FARS, and take no action, then you are just as guilty as the person who is in violation as far as I am concerned. Of course nobodys going to do that because then they dont get to jump or end up persona non grata. If the FAA is going to kick somebodys ass I wish it would be with the current rules and not by just adding another FAR subpart.

Best choice of words, I very much agree.....But when the plane is sitting and the dzo has customers and only the bonehead is available to fly....guess what happens. 737driver...this isnt all about maintenance issues, and maintenance issues are not confined to DZ's, airlines are some of the worst offenders ever.

Like I said, I need more coin to fly if I have to jump through those hoops, Im sure not going to do it for a few bucks a load. With a statement like that you would assume they crash every other flight. Why? probably because it isnt a big deal to them. You cant single out jumpships...It also does nothing to the image of aviation to have a cessna driver groundloop a Stearman or a Cub because they had their buddy check them out it an hour. Maybe we should change the tailwheel endorsment to a new type rating because everybody knows tailwheel aircraft are horrible, dangerous, and deadly. Or what about all the 135/121 guys who even have type ratings and recurrency training who still manage to screw up? I've also seen complete nonsense at 141 ops, somebody whos first lesson was 6 months ago is now teaching people to fly.... For every accident there are obvious FAR violations. There are sufficient rules in place with respect to jump op safety. The accidents happen when people do not respect these rules, therefore adding more rules will just mean more violations at the post crash investigation. If jumpers wouldnt jump at the dumpy DZ's, that might help, but you know thats not going to happen.

Exactly, they would rather just see it all go away. There is no way they would setup a new certification program for this. There is too much work required, besides whos going to administer the test? It would have to be a DPE, who more then likely has never flown skydivers, and who would also have to have been through the program himself, and have experience, etc.....Not to mention he would charge an examiner fee, then theres the cost of the airplane....whos going to pay that...Not me.

No there does not. Do not think that getting the FAA involved with this kind of thing is useful, besides I doubt they would even entertain the idea. If there was a need they would have already done so. Ok, Ill take the course, but know that I expect to be compensated for it, and I will also consider myself to be worth much more per load/hour then I have been paid previously for jump ops.

Sometimes they dont exist, there are no answers, and there are little to no facts. I know thats hard for some to think there is no answer to their question but it looks like that applies here. People dont disappear without a trace, there are no perfect crimes. But they can disappear with so little of a trace it would be by shear luck to find it. Of course the more time that passes, the less likely you will ever find it. Sometimes its best to just accept that you probably will never know the "what happened" or "why", and move on. It will be easier then looking for something that isnt there..

This guy got around. Lets get another endless thread going on the zapruder film and its distant connection to Cooper. Maybe the shadow in the film could be run against the Cooper sketch using the highly technical Look-a-like meter.

Curtis Robin??

You dont always need a body to solve a case...I just wonder why everybody tends to gravitate to the idea that he survived. You assume he told them? The problem with this case is there are too many guesses that became facts, people approach the case generating theories and not gathering facts. Even know facts arent solid. Maybe he was paid under the table then, that would explain the lack of job history then. Or maybe he saved hundreds by switching his auto insurance to Geico.... Everything can go more then one way.

Agreed, in 1971. But 30+ years later with still nothing solid turning up..... Or maybe because he stepped off the back of a 727 doing 120+knots into a rainstorm, in overcast, over mountains, wearing a business suit, with little to no training, etc..... Which is why I cant understand why most of the theories depict him as determined, methodical, skillful. They should go more like: He had no idea where he was, but jumped anyway, as he hit the airstream he flailed around and immediately lost the breifcase, and due to lack of goggles was unable to see well because of the rain/wind hammering his face. Now tumbling about with a bag loosely tied to him that is now flipping around beating the hell out of him he thinks "where was that ripcord again?" If it doesnt end there then he yanks the ripcord, and right after the tremendous opening shock of a flat circular watches his money bag fall away from him. He eather lands and is injured, thus dies (broken ankle in mountains=bad), or in a stroke of luck somehow lives, but that isnt likely. I remember something in the 90's on tv where they had a stuntman jump with a bag and try to fall stable, then they dropped him in a pool with a rig off the high dive, etc all to simulate possible cooper outcomes, or to depict the actual seriousness of what Cooper was trying to do. I cant remember for sure but I think they said something like "possible but not likely."

I guess what Im saying is the first two possibilites wouldnt suprise me, specifically the second one. The only reason this case has stood the test of time is nobody knows. It is impressive how many people "know" and want him to have made it and even want to make humor out of it, (remember "pursuit of DB cooper"?) The idea that he bounced or otherwise died on the mountain does not fly well. "they never found a parachute".... They should try going after a freebag in the bush after even watching it land let alone looking for a white C9 somewhere between portland and seatac. The theories are amazing, everything from using some bent coat hangars to pick up a VOR for the jump, to coordinating with people on the ground...calm and collected. In actuality it looks like a improvised clusterf**k Austin Millbarge/Emmett Fitz-Hume type of operation.

QuoteWhat skyjack made of the confession in subsequent years may or may not have been what he intended.Quote Ok...back to the original question, why confess at all? If he really wanted "let it die with me" why say anything at all? Attention....why else?..he was eather cooper wanting recognition, or he was just another Walter Mitty who didnt like the idea of slipping away. Eather way it worked, but in 600 years it probably wont matter.

I do not agree. Go to google and look up "duane weber" there is plenty of attention. Infact I would go so far as saying if one were to want to pretend to be cooper this would be the perfect time, what are they going to do to you? Some people just like to be remembered. Why else would he need to confess? If he was Cooper he didnt want to be forgotten, If he wasnt Cooper he just wanted a name. I cant think of any other reasons for this. In any case it was a very selfish thing to do as it has put a large burden on his wife, probably for the rest of her life. On a side question to skyjack...In alot of your posts it seems like you want Duane to be Cooper, thats the impression I get from reading it. Much of your evidence is presented to tie Duane to Cooper. How much time have you spent being as unbias as possible, looking for evidence that would prove Duane was NOT Cooper?? Sometimes in a quest for answers we place emphasis only on the side we wish to see........

Three curved pins, finger trapped Dacron line connecting them. Take the cones off, put in grommets, cover the back side of the grommets with elastic: you can now have soft loops. Might need to add additional grommets offset from the ones the cones used. That would kill two birds with one stone: the original grommets are probably too big for standard curved pins, and soft loops would otherwise be too long to allow original closing geometry. Should close a little easier without a pilot chute in there. Take photos, get video. Thanks! Mark Interesting...would you still need/use the pack opening bands with that arrangement?

Quote there are some good meteorology books written for glider and hang glider pilots.Quote Got any names or isbn #'s? I kept most of my college meterology stuff, and all the flight training materials, but Im always looking for the next good read.

Call, (or have your rigger call) whoever did it and ask them about it. They are the only ones who know for sure what they did, even if it is wrong. Go to the source.

Hi 337 Awhile ago we were doing some work on a 727. As far I could tell the idea that the stairs can be lowered in flight is contained in the maintenance manuals. I dont recall them saying that it could be done, but rather they gave no indication that it could not. BUT, after DB's jump, the 727 was fitted with a "cooper vane" and the operating handle was placarded "stairs cannot be lowered in flight". Any flight attendant would have known how to operate the stairs as it is one of many possible exits.

Your post reminds me of this classic piece of writing http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/i_want_to_be_a_pilot.htm