tombuch

Bridge Day 1983. I was making my third BASE jump ever as a two way. My partner opened a bit lower and slower than expected, and his canopy surged forward and to the left. I opened a bit higher and faster than expected. He slammed into my lines and my parachute collapsed and started spinning. He tried to kick out but was so tangled in the lines that he couldn't get free. I fired my reserve, but the pilot chute simply dropped between my legs and did nothing. I hand deployed it back into the air, but because we were spinning so fast it wrapped around a riser. The pilot chute wasn't able to extract the reserve, but it did put enough tension on the lines so my partner could finally kick free. As he did that the reserve fell out of the pack tray, but the diaper (it was a round) stayed locked so the reserve wouldn't open. Once the other jumper was free of the lines my main opened back up, the spinning pretty much stopped, and I had just enough time to get myself into the channel of the river where a rescue boat picked my up. As I sat in the boat another jumper launched directly overhead and had a pilot chute in tow. He smoked it down so low that we were sure he was going to slam into the small boat at about 100 mph and kill us all. He fired his reserve at just a couple of hundred feet. As he did that main pack tray loosened up, and the reserve and main opened instantly. He splashed down right next to the boat with his main on one side of the boat, and his reserve on the other. As he was climbing into the boat he asked "...did I do the right thing?" That night in the jumpers bar somebody offered the following toast: "The nasty grim reaper got lost in the haze" "So welcome my friend, to Bonus Days" Carl Boenish was on hand filming from a cherry picker. The whole experience was included on the 1983 BASE classic "Reaching." Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/1990s/media/9811.pdf Clicky. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I'd recommend the SIM and the Skydivers Handbook, as others have suggested. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

We'd be facing very stiff regulation from the FAA, and probably different regulations in most of the individual 50 states. We would also see significantly more regulations at the local level, and far less access to local airports and airspace. Pilots would hate us, and what little jumping we did would be in very small pieces of isolated rural airspace. Demos away from drop zone probably wouldn't happen. The absence of national standards would make financial liability and exposure far more serious than it is now. The absence of third party liability would keep us off most airports, and we'd have far more issues with farmer McNasty's. We would be operating under part 135, and the expense and hassle of that would close most drop zones. The sport would be much smaller and more fragmented, and it's unlikely we would have sufficient critical mass to support the industry development that has made the United States one of the leaders in sport parachute technology. Safety would be a bigger problem due to the lack of national standards, and the inability of jumpers to communicate through a national network as the sport grew. I know I owe a lot to the 'parachutists' who came before me and established USPA as the voice of skydiving. I'm proud I've been able to help maintain that vision, and push our sport forward for all the new jumpers. Sure, USPA has a few problems, and some folks will always object to any organization, but I'm super glad we have had their representation and support at the national level. I've probably paid USPA is excess of $1,200 over the past 25+ years. It's been money well spent. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It varies. Check out this link http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/av_library/index.html. Scroll down to "Interagency Guides/Publications (Smokejumpers)." There is a good overview of equipment in the Forest Service link (pdf). Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Sure, the DZO is responsible for the overall operation, and for developing and supporting systems to achieve his goals. If the system we are discussing is used, the rigger is responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the repack list posted in the equipment storage shed. Each instructor is responsible for checking the list before removing a rig, and then confirming it is in date and properly listed on the wall chart. If an error is found at that point, it offers a feedback loop to the rigger maintaining the rig. Finally, each student skydiver (AFF, IAF, SL, IAD) is responsible for checking his own rig as part of the pre-jump pin check, and that backs up everything else. In the USA, a failure could be attributed to any of the players, and they could all face FAA administrative action. For more information about who is legally responsible in the United States, see my Article 13 "FAA Regulations Applied" at http://theblueskyranch.com/STA.php. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Always check. It's tough when there are lots of rigs being swapped out, but if each rig has a number you can easily create and post a master list of all rigs with repack dates. If that list is hanging in the gear room it's easy to take a quick look when you take a rig, and thus confirm it is in date. The idea is to have a bridge point (when a rig leaves the storage rack) where the date must be checked. That way, even if you use a rig that was just jumped and packed, you know that an instructor confirmed it was in date that very day. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Yup, I’ve been working that issue pretty heavily for about three years with Ed Scott at USPA. We managed to get a data string for skydiving drop zones included in revision 19 of the ARINC 424 standard. That is the international data management standard used by FMS systems in larger aircraft and jets. That means airline magic boxes will now have language available to handle drop zone data. However, we don’t yet have that data, nor do FMS or GPS boxes have the ability to actually display skydiving data without programming upgrades. We also managed to get the National Aviation System Resource (NASR) updated so it can handle drop zone data, and the FAA has established a distribution channel to get that data to users (manufacturers and data packagers). As I write this, I understand there is a process ongoing between USPA and FAA to source new data covering all drop zones from a combination of USPA and FAA resources. Once that new data has been compiled and verified the database will be populated and released. At that point we will have created data standards, and produced a distributed database of all known drop zones. That’s a big deal, and a milestone that should be reached this year. The next step will be to get GPS and FMS box makers and flight planning programs to update their software so it will recognize and display the drop zone data. Unfortunately, none of the manufacturers are interested in doing that without a prompt from their customers. Each airline flight department purchases proprietary data from providers (such as Jeppesen), and each GPS manufacturer does the same. Any of those manufacturers will have the ability to add drop zone data, but they will need to initiate the request. Actually, the defining standards have been written and published, so airlines can start requesting that their software vendors to write code to display the new data right now. USPA will probably make a big push on that once the database has actually been populated. As for airlines…they could have their FMS boxes programmed to display drop zones when the aircraft is below a set altitude (such as 15,000 feet), and within a certain distance of the drop zone. The boxes could easily suppress the depiction of drop zones when the aircraft is above normal jump altitudes, or in Class “A” airspace, or when ground track indicates the aircraft will not cross through the target area. It’s a pretty simple process, but the politics of getting it done are complex. Chris: If your airline is interested, I have some great FAA and industry contacts that can help them understand what data will be available and when. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It sounds like a few changes are in order. First, I hope a NASA report has been filed. Then: 1) I’d suggest your airline prepare a briefing statement about the skydiving operation so your transient pilots are aware of what is happening in that airspace, and furnish it as part of the airport specific briefing. 2) Your airline should consider contacting your software vendor to have them include the Crosskeys airport in the FMS database so pilots know what the radio calls relate to. It probably doesn’t show up now because it is listed as a restricted category airport…I think. It can be added, although it won’t show up as a private use field, but at least it will be there. 3) Let your airline know that there is an effort at the federal level to get all drop zones listed in the National Aviation System Resource (NASR), and that the format for that data is available right now as part of ARINC 424-19. Software vendors can already begin writing the code needed to display drop zones so the hardware is ready when the database is released, but that needs to be prompted by a user (airline) request. 4) If there isn’t a Letter of Agreement (LOA) on file for the skydiving operation, there should be, and it should include an appropriate level of detail about where descent can take place. For example, the LOA for The Ranch requires “Descend east of V213 until leaving 7,000 MSL.” Perhaps descent profiles can/should be restricted unless the aircraft is equipped with collision avoidance technology, or similar SA display technology. Contact ATC to find out if there is a current LOA on file, and what it includes. Those are some quick comments. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Ahh, good point. We were all thinking it was a Cessna 182, not a Cessna Caravan because a 182 is the most common aircraft for static line jumps. Some drop zones with larger aircraft place a skydiving altimeter on the back wall of the aircraft or near the door to help jumpers maintain situational awareness. It's a good idea. Absent that, you are on your own. When I'm in a jump plane I keep track of my altimeter, but I also glance around at any other visible altimeters. Sometimes they differ and I like to know that. Occasionally mine will be off by a few hundred feet from all the others. If I see another jumper with an altimeter that doesn't agree with the rest I'll point it out. As an instructor I always do an altimeter "hack" with my student as we climb through pull altitude. It's not uncommon to have our altimeters off by as much as 500 feet at pull time, so if there is a difference I want to know about it on the way up, so I know when to expect their pull on the way down. That way I know when a missed pull is a student error, and when it is an instrument error. As for the instrument panel of the Caravan, your instructor (or a jump pilot) should introduce you to the instruments up there when you begin spotting. If they don't, just ask for a tour of the flight deck. It's interesting stuff, and knowing about the basic instruments will make you a better informed jumper. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I think it's not. If they are not able to understand such a basic concept.....well there's bowling. I disagree. We are talking about a static line student. At that stage we should be providing safety critical information and not overloading them with unnecessary information. It makes sense to give them an altimeter and discuss zeroing it it to ground level, but at that stage it shouldn't be necessary to discuss the aircraft instruments. If they ask questions, fine, but we shouldn't go into that level of detail so early in the progression. Later on, when they are learning to spot, students certainly need to understand the aircraft altimeter and some of the other instruments (airspeed indicator, rate of climb, attitude indicator, fuel gauges, etc.). Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The argument against giving a static line student an altimeter is that trying to understand altitudes will overload the student, and altimeters are expensive and break easily. That was an especially important consideration 'back in the day when we used round mains that landed hard, and students were taught (and expected to) roll on their landings...obviously not such a consideration in the modern era. The argument in favor of giving students altimeters is based on safety and an understanding that students should begin to become altitude aware on their very first jump. In the United States the BSR's require an altimeter for every student. See 2-1(K)(2)(c). That's a relatively recent and important change. Somebody else suggested that there is an altimeter in the aircraft instrument panel, but of course that is set to MSL, and skydivers use altimeters set to AGL. It's asking a lot to expect a static line student to understand the difference. As to the original question of fault...I'd rather not place blame. Each participant could have done better, and that's the lesson that should be (and I think has been) learned. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

It varies by country, but there are similarities to comply with international standards. Here in the United States we are governed by the United States Parachute Association (USPA). The entry level license is called the "A" and requires a minimum of 25 jumps. The "B" license requires a minimum of 50 jumps, the "C" license requires a minimum of 200 jumps, and the "D" license requires a minimum of 500 jumps. There are also performance requirements for each license. For a more complete review of the United States licensing process, see section 3 in the USPA Skydivers Information Manual (SIM) at http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2007SIM/SIM.htm. It's available to purchase, or as a free download. License requirements in your country will be a bit different. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I have always tried to be honest as we approach that point, and then let the student make the decision to stop jumping. Many students have trouble at some point in their training and an instructor needs to be encouraging and positive. But there is a point at which it becomes apparent that a student just doesn't get it, and is a danger to himself. As we approach that point my feedback becomes more direct and less encouraging. In most cases the student will recognize the sport isn't for him and will quit on his own, or at least ask for an honest assessment and that opens the door for me to become blunt. I find it's generally better to guide the student to the decision to quit, rather than make the decision myself. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I use the "air" component to help take the "set" out of the canopy. If you open the reserve and pack it right away the canopy almost folds itself back up along the prior folds, making it super easy to pack. If you thrash it around a bit and hang it up for a day or two, those folds break down, and the new folds are in slight different places. That makes it a bit harder to pack. When I pack my own rig I'll open it up for inspection and then repack immediately twice a year, and let it sit and really air out for a few days once a year. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Four jumpers plus pilot in a 172 doesn't sound very reasonable to me. I had my manual for a 1978 Cessna 172N sitting alongside my desk. Your numbers are probably a bit different, but not by a whole lot. Looking at total weight only, and not the balance component... The maximum gross weight for my C-172N is 2330 pounds (1057 kg) The maximum useful load is listed as 907 pounds, (411 kg) including fuel. I'm guessing a stripped down airplane probably has a slightly higher max gross weight, but you won't gain much. If you carry 10 gallons in each wing, or 20 gallons of total usable fuel (20x6 pounds) you will have 120 pounds of fuel (54 kg). That leaves just 787 pounds for the pilot, jumpers and all gear (357 kg) Conventional rigs weigh around 25-30 pounds (11-14kg). Tandems are probably in the 50 pound range (23 kg). If the jumpers with gear each weigh an average of 200 pounds (91 kg), and the pilot is a lightweight at just 175 pounds (79 kg) with his pilot rig, your total load with three jumpers will be 775 pounds (351 kg), and would put you just inside the maximum gross weight range. Adding a fourth jumper would bring you to 975 pounds (442 kg), and put you way overweight. You may be able to fudge a bit, but not by much. You also need to consider takeoff and climb performance at those load levels, and the way the airplane is loaded to manage weight and balance. It sounds like your plan is stretching things, and even three jumpers with gear may put you overweight unless you track weights very carefully. A 182 gives you a bit more useful load, but I know they are at the edge with four jumpers, and actually often overloaded at that level, so five jumpers would probably be overweight in a conventional C-182. Here in the United States most of our 182's are loaded with four jumpers and the pilot, and there are plenty of accidents where the NTSB has computed the weight and balance as being out of range. I'd suggest you figure out which airplane you will be using and compute an exact weight and balance for that serial number, and figure a range of students and staff that you can actually accommodate. It's really close, which means whatever you do will be at the edge of the operating envelope. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I would consider the wind speed and direction. If the wind is blowing out to sea and is faster than the canopy, then I'd want to open low so I wasn't pushed further out to sea. If the wind was blowing toward shore I'd want to open high and ride the tail wind home. My real preference, of course, would be not to get out above the overcast. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

That is only if they are paying(mileage limit).If they "share expenses" and plan to jump in, that does not apply. Then there is the drop zone waiver issue when they get there. I think you are mixing your regulations. I don't want to get too deep into the books or type each regulation, but the quick paraphrase is: 91.107 says every passenger must occupy a seat, but skydivers may use the floor as a seat if they intend to jump. There is no distance limitation or exemption under this regulation. It applies to every flight. 119.1 specifies higher regulations for commercial operations, but then exempts skydiving flights within 25 miles of the airport of take off, and allows them to be conducted under the more lenient part 91. So using a skydiving aircraft to transport jumpers more than 25 miles runs afoul of 119.1. Using the floor as a seat for a sightseeing flight runs afoul of 91.107. Using the floor as a seat for a flight with a landing point in excess of 25 miles runs afoul of both. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

But it does. The theory, as I understand it, is that we each have an arousal level that is satisfied by the perception of risk. That perception is both conscious and subconscious. It’s an important consideration in risk management. We can reduce accidents by reducing the risk factors, but those people predisposed to risk behavior will simply adjust their behavior in other ways to achieve the same level of perceived risk. An alternative is to address the perception of risk, rather than the specific behaviors. When I look at this issue in the ski industry I see an industry that intentionally hides injuries and risks, giving participants the perception that the sport is relatively safe. If instead we publicized the actual injury rate we might change the public perception of the risk, and through that mechanism might change behaviors. Obviously the ski industry is afraid to do that because participation itself might be reduced. When we apply this to the skydiving industry, we again see that there is a perception of low risk among many participants, when in fact, the risk is quite large. If we can change that perception, we may be able to change behaviors. Here is an interesting contrast: Last year there were 30,618 members of USPA and 21 fatalities. That creates a fatality rate of 1:1,458. Contrast that with the odds of winning a Powerball jackpot at 1:146,107,962. Many of us believe we are relatively safe in the skydiving world and won’t die, but at the same time we believe there is at least a small chance of winning that lottery jackpot. We have a very false perception of risk in the skydiving world, mostly driven by our own participation in risk management decisions. Yet, more than 1/2 of our fatalities last year occurred to jumpers with C and D licenses, who likewise believed that they wouldn’t be killed. So, the research suggests we can increase engineering barriers and regulations, but that those actions will simply change risk behaviors rather than reduce actual risk exposure. The alternative is to change behavior through improved perception of risk. It’s interesting stuff. For more discussion about risk management, check out the articles I wrote for the S&TA area of The Ranch web site at http://theblueskyranch.com/STA.php. See article 7 “Skydiving Risk” for a statistical analysis done several years ago, and article 17 “A Safety Culture” about different ways to think about risk. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Sec. 91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems. (a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator-- (1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness. (2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness. (3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may: (i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device; (ii) Use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, provided that the person is on board for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting; Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

My sense is that it has a terrific chance of passing. This change has been contemplated for years, and the FAA finally made the effort to publish the proposed change. There were plenty of ways they could have gummed it up, but they decided to go with the easiest and simplest change possible. It's unlikely there will be sufficient objections to cause a rethink. For what it's worth, I have many objections and offered them in my own comments to the docket on September 12, 2005 (see: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf93/345005_web.pdf. None of those suggestions were incorporated in the proposed rule. I think the FAA is happy with the proposed change, and while they will certainly entertain comments, I doubt there is much room for alteration of the final rule. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making that will extend the repack cycle from 120 days to 180 days. I haven't had a chance to carefully review the rule yet, but it looks like what skydivers have been asking for. The proposed rule and request for public comment was pubilshed in the federal Register today, and is available at: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=838649250119+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

I don’t mind landing with an airplane, but I’d rather not, and better pilot training can be had without real people in the aircraft. It wouldn’t be a bad idea for a new pilot to experience it once or twice in training, but if ongoing training is adequately planned, then it shouldn’t be necessary to use real people for real landings. Landing with a full load isn’t such a big deal as long as there is adequate power and airspeed is maintained. It becomes much harder if there is a loss of power, or the pilot gets himself boxed into a corner. This is the kind of stuff pilots should be practicing at full load, and extra people (beyond an IP) should not be on board for that training. With large aircraft the practice is best handled with a simulator to constantly repeat the process with little waste of flight time. With smaller aircraft that do not have full motion simulation available, the pilot should be practicing at altitude at max gross weight (secured cargo, not people), or as somebody suggested on another thread, with a throttle limit. It’s pretty easy to simulate a takeoff or landing at altitude, and when done up high the simulation can be extended to a full stall so the pilot learns to recognize the indications of a stall, recovery technique, and limitations of a stall. The pilot should also be practicing steep turns with a full load at minimum speed to simulate a return to the airport after power loss, and those should extend to full stalls as well. Most of this stuff should already be accomplished as part of a biannual flight review, but those reviews are usually done empty. It’s far better if every pilot does these things at gross weight. Flying without real jumpers makes the training safer, allows for more advanced maneuvers, and it is less expensive for the DZ. I'm a huge beliver in this kind of training. If you really want to get jumpers involved in a training exercise, contact your local rescue squad as see if they want to drill an airplane accident. It’s great learning for the drop zone, and for the rescue squad, especially if you have a large plane that would overload the emergency response system. I’ve been involved in a couple of those skydiving mass casualty simulations, and it’s scary how poor the coordination is, and how much training the rescue squad needs. Helping local rescue workers (especially volunteer fire and ambulance departments) get better at their jobs is a great investment of our time. Plus, participating in the training helps jumpers to understand what role they can play in a real aircraft accident. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

The Otter is a fine static line aircraft as long as the operator wants to use it for low passes. It has a big door, flys slow, has a high tail, and is super easy to rig and jump from. Sure, it's more efficient for high altitude jumps, but it works for a static line program too. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

As I understand the current proposal, it applies to turbine powered flights on an IFR flight plan (that's as per Ed Scott at USPA). As it stands now, skydiving operations would not be charged the fee. HOWEVER, it is a tiny step from where we are now, to assessing the fee on all operations in controlled airspace, or all turbine operations, or all commercial operations. It's something we need to aggressively attack before it becomes law. This would cripple skydiving as we know it. The other part of the proposed regulation worth noting is that there will almost certainly be significant additional fuel taxes on turbine aircraft, and probably on piston aircraft too. Every pilot, jumper, and DZO should be in touch with their Senators and Congressmen to let them know we don't need new funding sources or user fees for the FAA. The aviation funding we have now is adequate. If you do not understand the issue, it's OK to say to your representatives that they should contact AOPA for additional guidance about the position of GA. Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy