Is this "unsafe"?

[bfilarsky 0]

There is no one answer to this - it all depends. It sounds like a normal takeoff at this dropzone is a non-issue. The only potential safety problem I see is an engine failure on takeoff, and being able to either climb over the wires on one engine, or stop the airplane safely. One BIG factor is the terrain. Is it hilly, rocky, or otherwise nasty terrain at the end of the runway? Or is it flat and smooth? Taking off downwind is not necessarily dangerous in and of itself, but it does pose additional problems and considerations.

[AFFI 0]

Quote

The runway length available is 2,500 feet.

If you are talking about Spaceland then the runway is 3400 feet.

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

Quote

The runway length available is 2,500 feet.

If you are talking about Spaceland then the runway is 3400 feet.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not talking about any specific drop zone, but rather, just a specific set of circumstances.

When I said "length available", I was referring to the amount used for the downwind takeoff, starting from the boarding point, not the total runway length.

Everyone please quit trying to attribute this to a specific DZ.

[angiemonette 0]

Hey ya'll. I'm new to the DZ (virtually and otherwise), so hi and thanks for all the great conversations I've been reading up on. Finally, I'm compelled to jump in and shed a wee tad of perspective on a question.

First, let me state that I am NO expert in piloting planes or canopies. I flew a Cessna 150, 152, and a 172RG way back when as a teenager in exchange for washing and lightly wrenching on said aircraft. Many years later, I've just started skydiving (a whopping 8 beloved jumps under my belt). Given both, albeit rusty/naive, experiences, I have to draw a parallel between the two for this question.

It sounds to me like this pilot is absolutely making safe decisions in regards to the performance of his aircraft. However, as with skydiving, the biggest danger on the runway is other aircraft/skydivers. One of my AFF instructors was keen to remind me to "always fly a predictable pattern" - a downwind, crosswind, and upwind leg (even swooping is a compressed standard pattern...) - to avoid canopy collisions. That, to me, is the safety concern in this scenario - avoiding other aircraft.

But there are radios... well, as most pilots would attest, radios fail. Flying a predictable pattern for aircraft means that the wind direction can suffice as a last-ditch resort to 'controlling' airport traffic. Even if you lose your radios, you can still read a windsock. At a controlled airport, ATC can guide other aircraft around an aircraft in distress / with a failed radio. This airfield doesn't offer that option.

Maybe this is a relatively rural airfield, but ultimately, you never know who is going to take his rincky dinky old Cherokee for a little cross-country spin this weekend and lose his radio, doesn't have his backup preset, etc.

I know it's a rare scenario, but we jump with reserves and AADs for the rare scenarios. Flying into the wind is not just for better takeoff performance, it's to help direct airfield traffic.

Would I prefer a regular pattern over getting another load in at the end of the day? Sure. Would I board that plane in these circumstances? Yep, you betchya. But you're damn sure I'm going to put my eyes to use spotting aircraft for at least the first few thousand, as we all should, every load.

My humble $.02.

-Angie

[Hayfield 0]

My home DZ's runway is only 2500' and the otters don't even need half of it except maybe on hot humid summer days.

"Remember the First Commandment: Don't Fuck Up!"
-Crusty Old Pete

[kmcdrop 0]

Well, I'm new to the sport but I have been a pilot for 20 years. Whether it is safe or not depends on a lot of factors. However, in general the safest TO practice is upwind in order to reduce ground speed (and keep as much remaining flat concrete ahead of you) in case of an emergency. In very light and variable wind conditions, the safest choice is to TO in the direction which leaves the best choice for an emergency landing.

I've only gotten in 2 jumps so far, but I'm more afraid of dying in the aircraft than from the jump. Overloaded, improperly balanced aircraft and poor flight procedures seem to be a major problem in aircraft-related DZ accidents.

I didn't check the numbers but if the runway is only 2,500' long I can't see how they're saving that much by taking off downwind. The plane still has the same rotation speed either direction and, if going downwind, they burn fuel - at TO throttle settings - just to get to a "zero" airspeed so they're already burning more than the taxi for that distance.

Kevin M. Curran

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I didn't check the numbers but if the runway is only 2,500' long I can't see how they're saving that much by taking off downwind. The plane still has the same rotation speed either direction and, if going downwind, they burn fuel - at TO throttle settings - just to get to a "zero" airspeed so they're already burning more than the taxi for that distance.

I have never figured out the fuel burn of a PT6 at idle so I can't do the math for that. But you have to remember that in skydiving, time is money... at least sometimes. They might possibly burn more gas taking off downwind instead of taxiing farther (i doubt it though), but it might mean they fly a couple extra loads by the end of the day. That can make all the difference.

Dave

[west33freefall 0]

Any time taking off downwind/tailwind its a little more tricky in judging the take off roll. But with a competent pilot who is familiar with the super-otter this is fine. I believe the Super-Otter is pretty close to a STOL rated aircraft if it isn't. (Short Take-Offs and Landings.) And when it comes to Jump aircraft, weight is always an issue and since they are so stripped down its more of the experience of the pilot rather than technical/on paper statistics.

[Skydave103 0]

You seem to bring up safety issues where ever it is that you skydive. 'John Smith'
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3551945;page=unread#unread

Are you looking to shut down the dz? are you actually a jumper? Or a pissed off dz neighbor trying to get info to sue the dz or maybe your a farmer McNasty?

Your 'hypothetical' question is very specific! As someone said before, the pilot will not endanger his life for a load. (i've never seen one that would).

I say lock this thread so 'John' doesnt get any more info that could be wrong because of unknown circumstances and jeopardize the operation of the dz.

Dave

LifeshouldNOTbeajourneytothegravewithawellpreservedbody,buttskidinsideways,cigarinone hand,martiniintheother,bodythoroughlyused upandscreaming:"WOO HOO!! What a ride!!!"

[billvon 2,384]

>As someone said before, the pilot will not endanger his life for a load.

No. But a great many pilots can be talked into situations that are not as safe as they could be. It is worth asking such questions; it leads to better informed skydivers.

[riggerrob 558]

"I believe the Super-Otter is pretty close to a STOL rated aircraft if it isn't. (Short Take-Offs and Landings.)"

.........................................................................

Hah!
Hah!
Hah!
Twin Otters were designed first and foremost as Short Take Off and Landing airplanes.
Twin Otters routinely haul heavy loads out of strips so short and rough that most airplanes would not consider them taxiways.
Twin Otters were developed from single-engined Otters which earned the nickname "stone boats" for lifting huge loads out of short lakes.

When it comes to manufacturing STOL bush planes, there are two types of manufacturers: deHavilland of Canada and a bunch of other companies that try hard and mean well .....