Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
Airplane Collision - Skydive Superior - 2 November 2013

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

csubl  (D License)

Nov 3, 2013, 6:04 PM
Post #26 of 210 (9596 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.uspa.org/...bid/203/Default.aspx


Snowwhite

Nov 3, 2013, 6:12 PM
Post #27 of 210 (9558 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

captain1976 wrote:
Actually formation flying with paying passengers on board is illegal. I know everyone does it but I like to use "close proximity flying".

Federal Aviation Regulation 91.111 states; No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire in formation flight.

On that violation these Pilots will surely loose their Certificates for awhile.



I must have missed it... where was the post that said there were passengers on board?


leesamsiel

Nov 3, 2013, 6:58 PM
Post #28 of 210 (9369 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

captain1976 wrote:
Federal Aviation Regulation 91.111 states; No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire in formation flight.

On that violation these Pilots will surely loose their Certificates for awhile.

The actual reg. is as follows:
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.

If paragraph (c) applied to skydivers as "passengers," it would not be legal to ever do a big way that required more than one A/C. I believe the FAA takes a different view when flying skydivers to altitude.

OTOH the FAA can use FAR 91.13 and say they were operating the A/C in a reckless manner...which in this case is sort of a res ipse loquitor issue since the planes collided in flight.

FAR Sec. 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

It's pretty self-evident that the life or property of others was endangered. Fortunately none of the parts of the fragmented A/C hit anyone on the surface.

LS


SkydiveJack  (D 6486)

Nov 3, 2013, 8:45 PM
Post #29 of 210 (9101 views)
Shortcut
Re: [csubl] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post


Regarding the legality of Formation Flights, you guys didn't open the link to USPA's website that csubl posted above. Formation flights for skydiving are fine with the FAA.

From USPA.org-

Formation Flight
In 1992, USPA succeeded in gaining a letter from the office of FAAs Chief Counsel which reversed a previous finding that skydiving aircraft could not fly in formation when dropping jumpers. As a result, FAA policy is that jump pilots can fly in formation without violating Section 91.111(c) that prohibits formation flights when carrying passengers for hire.




hcsvader  (E 2952)

Nov 4, 2013, 12:15 AM
Post #31 of 210 (8762 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Snowwhite] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

Snowwhite wrote:
captain1976 wrote:
Actually formation flying with paying passengers on board is illegal. I know everyone does it but I like to use "close proximity flying".

Federal Aviation Regulation 91.111 states; No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire in formation flight.

On that violation these Pilots will surely loose their Certificates for awhile.



I must have missed it... where was the post that said there were passengers on board?

I don't know where I heard this but I thought jumpers were classed as cargo as they do not land with the plane.


captain1976  (D 7183)

Nov 4, 2013, 4:40 AM
Post #32 of 210 (8427 views)
Shortcut
Re: [csubl] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post


Great, thanks for that info, I really didn't know as I haven't flown formation for some time.

Whats interesting though is the last time I did was about 10 years ago and the FAA Office required us to get a waiver specifically for that part of the FAR's on a 4 plane jump. Guess they didn't know either.


(This post was edited by captain1976 on Nov 4, 2013, 4:50 AM)


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Nov 4, 2013, 4:54 AM
Post #33 of 210 (8372 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hcsvader] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

hcsvader wrote:
Snowwhite wrote:
captain1976 wrote:
Actually formation flying with paying passengers on board is illegal. I know everyone does it but I like to use "close proximity flying".

Federal Aviation Regulation 91.111 states; No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire in formation flight.

On that violation these Pilots will surely loose their Certificates for awhile.



I must have missed it... where was the post that said there were passengers on board?

I don't know where I heard this but I thought jumpers were classed as cargo as they do not land with the plane.

Not exactly. At one time skydivers were categorized as "occupants" rather than passengers, but I have no idea if that's still true.


onelawndart  (No License)

Nov 4, 2013, 5:51 AM
Post #34 of 210 (8186 views)
Shortcut
Re: [inspector] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

Glad everyone is safe. The report said they were "experienced skydivers", also says they were going for a tandem jump. Kind of confusing. I wonder if the "passenger for hire" exclusion that might apply to skydivers includes "paying" tandems? Also this is the second incident at Superior? Landing offshore was an incident?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Nov 4, 2013, 6:01 AM
Post #35 of 210 (8146 views)
Shortcut
Re: [onelawndart] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The report said they were "experienced skydivers", also says they were going for a tandem jump. Kind of confusing

Just my guess - the media just got confused. I think when they say a 'tandem' flight, they mean that it was a 'two aircraft' formation. I think the 'tandem' part refers to the two aircraft.

As to this incident, sometimes people underestimate the effects of jumpers climbing out of an airplane. Especially a 182/206 sized plane, two or three jumpers out on the step present significant drag and will effect the flight path of the aircraft. It wouldn't be hard for a plane to lose airspeed and altitude, and slide back under a trailing plane that was just faster or had less people already out.




andybobolson  (B 35696)

Nov 4, 2013, 7:59 AM
Post #37 of 210 (7734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

Dave is correct. It was not a tandem jump. It was supposed to be a 9-way track dive.


lanceav8r  (D 13892)

Nov 4, 2013, 9:04 AM
Post #38 of 210 (7505 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that this accident needs to be studied by the USPA. To the best of my knowledge the USPA leaves this up to the FAA. The FAA completely ignores skydiving. Drop zones usually only meet the minimum at best in regards to aircraft regulation, maintenance and training. Let me tell you all that the minimum is not good enough and skydiving aircraft accidents will continue. USPA truly needs to address some issues with the aircraft and pilot side of skydiving.

Lance M.
D-13892
chuckakers wrote:
This is disturbing. Would like to hear the details of how jump planes already on jump run with jumpers climbing out collided. Would also like to know the formation flight experience of the pilots.


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Nov 4, 2013, 9:56 AM
Post #39 of 210 (7314 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

davelepka wrote:
Quote:


As to this incident, sometimes people underestimate the effects of jumpers climbing out of an airplane. Especially a 182/206 sized plane, two or three jumpers out on the step present significant drag and will effect the flight path of the aircraft. It wouldn't be hard for a plane to lose airspeed and altitude, and slide back under a trailing plane that was just faster or had less people already out.

You are so right.

These planes likely had different horsepower engines. The 182 standard is a 230-HP or 235-HP while the standard for the 185 is 260-HP. Both of these planes can have upgraded engines so it's not uncommon to find 300-HP on a 185.

Just the engine size does not mean that the pilot can't control the airspeed.

I've flown many formation loads and jumped from many more and taught dozens of pilots how to fly formation loads.

There are many important parts about flying formation loads with skydivers. Here are a few rules we always lived by:

Pre-determined jump run airspeed. Usually 85 MPH.

Extra long jump run with very small heading corrections.

No spot corrections within one mile of the DZ.

No cut. If the jumpers can't handle the prop speed then they should not be on the load.

The people in the trail must pay careful attention to the climb out from the front plane and must not delay the trail climb out (for the reasons mentioned by Dave).

The # 1 job of the trail pilot is to "not put his people too close to the other plane."


Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.


.


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Nov 4, 2013, 10:45 AM
Post #40 of 210 (7133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skydivesg] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

This is a great DZ and I'm grateful my friends (and people on the ground didn't get hurt).

I'm always amazed at how close pilots will try to fly on these 2 small plane loads. My preference is actually quite a bit more separation with the trail plan back to side and below - if I'm in the trail plane, I don't want to have to leave exactly on "GO" - I want to see the others leave and then time it from my plane. And good skydivers can close the distance, I don't need or want the trail pilot to try and put me right on top of the other group. There's no reason for it.

There's good lessons to review and learn here. (Sandy/Dave L's posting here is very appropriate to start with).


(This post was edited by rehmwa on Nov 4, 2013, 10:46 AM)


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Nov 4, 2013, 10:56 AM
Post #41 of 210 (7031 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lanceav8r] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

lanceav8r wrote:
I agree that this accident needs to be studied by the USPA. To the best of my knowledge the USPA leaves this up to the FAA. The FAA completely ignores skydiving. Drop zones usually only meet the minimum at best in regards to aircraft regulation, maintenance and training. Let me tell you all that the minimum is not good enough and skydiving aircraft accidents will continue. USPA truly needs to address some issues with the aircraft and pilot side of skydiving.

Lance M.
D-13892
chuckakers wrote:
This is disturbing. Would like to hear the details of how jump planes already on jump run with jumpers climbing out collided. Would also like to know the formation flight experience of the pilots.

The FAA doesn't spend much time scrutinizing skydiving, but this was not a skydiving accident. This was a collision during formation flight and will be investigated as an aircraft accident.


dorbie

Nov 4, 2013, 10:56 AM
Post #42 of 210 (7023 views)
Shortcut
Re: [leesamsiel] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

leesamsiel wrote:
The actual reg. is as follows:
(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

You had me at (a).
Hindsight is always 20/20 and in this instance (a) was violated by definition.


dorbie

Nov 4, 2013, 11:00 AM
Post #43 of 210 (7004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

rehmwa wrote:
This is a great DZ and I'm grateful my friends (and people on the ground didn't get hurt).

I'm always amazed at how close pilots will try to fly on these 2 small plane loads.

So are you saying these pilots have a history of flying in close proximity? Closer than you need for skydiving according to your follow-on remarks.




fcajump  (D 15598)

Nov 4, 2013, 12:50 PM
Post #45 of 210 (6651 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

As both a chicken-shit skydiver and private pilot I've been in a few of these as skydiver/passenger/cargo... whatever the term.

The USPA letter is great, until it gets challenged. With all experienced jumpers and no fatalities (thank providence) this may not be the time. BUT, have a newbie tandem passenger who wants all his friends about him on that dual-load and get killed, and the gloves will come off.

I agree that the applicable violation here would be Sec. 91.111 (a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
Kinda hard to not have one of the pilots facing that one.

My question is this - how much training do jump pilots get (at all), and specifically how much in flying formation??
As part of my training to be a private pilot, I've gotten NONE. Don't remember any requirements to get a commercial ticket either...
The pilots at my airshow go through considerable training and are required to get annual sign-off. (I think they get theirs from FAST, but it might be FFI... see: http://www.avweb.com/...-1.html?redirected=1 FMI)

So USPA... you got us permission for our pilots (thanks... really). But where is the training?

And I'm STILL looking for the regulation/rule/policy that requires jump plane pilots/passengers to have at least a PEP on... glad this one did.

Just my $.03
JW


(This post was edited by fcajump on Nov 4, 2013, 12:52 PM)


normiss  (D 28356)

Nov 4, 2013, 1:01 PM
Post #46 of 210 (6635 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hcsvader] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't know cargo doesn't land with the plane.

HTH do they get it all back inside before they get to the terminal?
TongueLaugh


Sky_doggy  (C 41295)

Nov 4, 2013, 1:11 PM
Post #47 of 210 (6604 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

I suspect that there more qualified pilots than me to comment on formation flying (aka ex-military aviators) but I will share my limited experience.

I have had few of hours of formation training from ex-military instructors and I found it very demanding. In the early phases I found that I could only do 20 or 30 minutes at a time because of the mental concentration required before I needed a break. It is hard to do and takes a lot of training, much more than the couple of hours I got.

Perhaps we need some guiding parameters for jump plan pilots. I wouldn't have thought that they need to be all that close, nor in a trailing formation.

It is really great that no one on the ground or in the air got hurt. It has been a bad season for airplane/skydiving accidents.

I think a few people are out buying lottery tickets today


arm900fj  (B License)

Nov 4, 2013, 2:40 PM
Post #48 of 210 (6403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sky_doggy] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

It is not hard unless you do not have a lot of time. As these pilots will probably never get enough time, they should get some training and then fly a very loose formations. No need to get that close if you do not know what you are doing. Here I am flying a G-550, for a photo shoot, with a much slower aircraft as my lead. It was a pain in the neck as his fastest speed was my slowest.
Regards,
Dave
Attachments: _97I0202.jpg (433 KB)


normiss  (D 28356)

Nov 4, 2013, 3:27 PM
Post #49 of 210 (6289 views)
Shortcut
Re: Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

NBC News helmet cam pics

ok-how much did they pay for the pics?


Trafficdiver  (D License)

Nov 4, 2013, 3:33 PM
Post #50 of 210 (6268 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Skydive Superior [In reply to] Can't Post

Ahh, in excess of $100K maybe?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...4a03c2351_story.html

Amazing shots I might add.


(This post was edited by Trafficdiver on Nov 4, 2013, 3:34 PM)


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)