Penalties for flying with improper credentials?

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Personally, I'll vote for anyone who has as part of their platform the elemination of the Group Member Program.

I agree with you 100%. USPA is not a trade organization but the GMP makes it one.

Quote

That said, I don't really have a problem with a DZO being on the BOD,

DZO’s have their own business interest at heart and have no place on the BOD of an organization that is supposed to be an advocate to their customers. That’s the fox guarding the chickens.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[DougH 270]

Quote

I agree with you 100%. USPA is not a trade organization but the GMP makes it one.

I agree. And as long as they continue to hose the general membership in favor of being a trade organization they will be unable to inspect, police, or even spank the hand of any of their group members for fear of another antitrust lawsuit.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

The problem with expecting any results from any USPA appointed office holder is that they have an interest in protecting their friends interest. Such things as former RD taking an under age tandem without bothering to file the proper paper work to get permission or a waver for the age requirements, while holding a tandem CD rating and is in charge of not only enforcing the rules on others as the RD, but is also the the guy who is teaching all new TI's that your NOT allowed to do that shit without jumping through the right hoops.

How can you expect the likes of Glen Bangs to be honest and truthful in dealing with member complaints that were also proven by the FAA to be true, only to have Glenduh send out to invesigate the the on goings of not one but two DZ's his good old boy buddy Mr. Tom Welgos who in turn not only tried to say the FAA and USPA members in bed together to drive out of business one of the two DZ's and also stopped in at the second long enough to ask his buddy Mr. Jay Stokes if any of the reports that were filed were true, and was told no, only Mr. Stokes was not on staff or even in the state during time frame of the violations, his word was taken as fact because Mr. Welgos and Mr. Stokes are old army buddys & he would trust Mr. Stokes with his life and Mr. Welgos made such statements in the FSDO office as to his reasons why he would just take Mr. Stokes word for it.

Then you have other cases, like USPA membership providing not only logbooks and video tapes proving one former RD Bob Ingoldsby was on the take of one DZO and was the S&TA @ that DZ where tandem ratings were given and rules for taking passangers were not followed per the SIMS or MFG requirements along with a whole host of other FAR & BSR violations that an S&TA would have to be blind and totally retarded to not know was 1. going on & 2. that is was a FAR violation.

So Mr. Bangs choose to hand over the statements to the very person members told USPA was on the take to "clean it up". That's kind of like the cops who bust crooked cops expecting the crooked cops to police themselfs and not cover up the evidence, by handing them the evidence.

So if you really think that you can trust the current seat holding President, Vice President, any other seat holding BOD member to publish a truthful report about not only their friend, but the very places they jump and work at then your friken fool and need to just go bury your head in the sand.

If you want to see any real change, then start by voting out the "lifers" who serve for their own self serving interest and take back the USPA and return it to a membership ORG. and not a DZO trade ORG. filled with special interest politics.

Stratostar quit holding back on us, are you to scared to tell us how you really feel???? I agree with you 100%.....

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

A lot of people are jumping on this bandwagon.

But I'll just state what should be obvious:

The suicide was irrelevant to the pilot's credentials. It doesn't matter how many licenses the pilot may or may not have had, the observer was going to commit suicide anyway. The argument CANNOT be made that if only the pilot had another license, then this nut-case would not have died.

So let's just forget about that kind of reasoning.

Ok, we'll take it out. Now, how about that tandem that exited just before the suicide? He was in violation there. What do you have to say about that? The suicide was just the mode by which the pilot got found out.....AGAIN.

I would imagine this pilot gets no sympathy from the FAA and gets a violation anywhere from 30 days to 90 days.

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

[Andrewwhyte 1]

There sure is a lot of sanctimony out there about this case. For most jumpers the certification (as opposed to the qualification) of the pilot makes little difference. The issue of USPA insurance is relevant, however I am certain the equity in the aircraft would usually protect the individual jumper.
On the other hand, the average jumper would (I would expect) have exactly zero sympathy for the pilot who now will have to pay the penalty.
One question that still remains is why doesn't this guy have a commercial rating? Is he lacking in some skill or intellectual ability? It doesn't sound like it. Is he just some crotchety old guy who didn't need one when he started flying jumpers and refuses to get one? Is he medically unable to obtain a class 2?

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

The suicide was irrelevant to the pilot's credentials. It doesn't matter how many licenses the pilot may or may not have had, the observer was going to commit suicide anyway. The argument CANNOT be made that if only the pilot had another license, then this nut-case would not have died.

So let's just forget about that kind of reasoning.

Out of all the threads/posts I've read related to this topic it doesn't sound like anybody is making it out to be about that kind of reasoning. Nobody is blaming the improper ratings on causing the suicide, but instead this tragic incident happened to reveal that the pilot did not have the proper ticket and it is discussed independent of anything else except that he wasn't supposed to be flying jumpers at all; suicidal or not. I mean, the guy could have blow a tire on landing, dinged the aircraft or something and gotten the FAA's attention, which would have shed light on his ratings after investigation of even something so small. Either way, what we're talking about now is what would have been talked about no matter how the situation allowed this fact to come out.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[freakflyer9999 1]

Quote

Quote

Of course the pilot's license was irrelevant to the fatality,

But the attitude of the pilot/DZO may have had something to do with the student fatality. Lie and cheat in one area might lead to the same behavior in other areas. How well was the student trained?

Sparky

The fatality in the post that you quoted wasn't a student fatality. It was a D-licensed jumper who had trained at another area DZ.

[hackish 8]

Maybe part of the answer is that a DZ needs to list the pilots with the USPA/CSPA for whatever country they're in. If your name is published on a list for all to see the chances of it being checked into are greater and I think people who do this sort of thing are being sneaky by nature - they wouldn't want their names published!

-Michael

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Maybe part of the answer is that a DZ needs to list the pilots with the USPA/CSPA for whatever country they're in. If your name is published on a list for all to see the chances of it being checked into are greater and I think people who do this sort of thing are being sneaky by nature - they wouldn't want their names published!

-Michael

I like this idea, but perhaps I'm a bit of an overidealistic dreamer.

[Waldschrat 0]

Look at the average price for getting a ATPL or CPL.

[DougH 270]

Take that price and amortize it over 20 years... or however long this business has been in operation. I think that puts it more into perspective.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Waldschrat 0]

Yes....he should have time and money to make this CPL.....in between.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Look at the average price for getting a ATPL or CPL.

Compared to a PPL or instrument rating, a CPL is a minor expense.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

I didn't want to hijack the Duanesburg incident thread. Tombuch mentioned that the pilot of the DZ plane that the suicide jumped out of had only a private pilot's rating when he was supposed to have a commercial pilot's rating and that he was busted on it before.

If this is true, it looks like there is enough evidence to get him busted again. What are the penalties for infractions like that? I'm not a pilot...

Edited link to go directly to post in question: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3232310;#3232310

Evidently......this guy didn't have a Commercial. And evidently it had absolutely had nothing to do with this other guy dying. That is all....

p.s. just stating the first obvious fact.

[hackish 8]

Many times jumpers are fiercely loyal to their DZ. So this DZ and DZO get bashed around a little online for allowing a private pilot to fly jumpers but at the end of the day it is probably flying jumpers and tandems this weekend. Whether it's using a commercial pilot or a private one to do the flying we don't know, but from a business point of view shutting down the DZ itself for a time may be a more effective deterrent.

If I loan one of my cars to someone who is drunk and they get caught the car is impounded for 45 days. Perhaps a similar thing needs to be instituted for this situation. Put the plane into impound for 45 days as well as the pilot's license. This means the aircraft owner will take a more active role enforcing the legit operation of the aircraft and the credentials of the pilot using it. Closing down your DZ for 45 days should be enough deterrent.

-Michael

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

Many times jumpers are fiercely loyal to their DZ. So this DZ and DZO get bashed around a little online for allowing a private pilot to fly jumpers but at the end of the day it is probably flying jumpers and tandems this weekend. Whether it's using a commercial pilot or a private one to do the flying we don't know, but from a business point of view shutting down the DZ itself for a time may be a more effective deterrent.

If I loan one of my cars to someone who is drunk and they get caught the car is impounded for 45 days. Perhaps a similar thing needs to be instituted for this situation. Put the plane into impound for 45 days as well as the pilot's license. This means the aircraft owner will take a more active role enforcing the legit operation of the aircraft and the credentials of the pilot using it. Closing down your DZ for 45 days should be enough deterrent.

-Michael

I never said it was "right" to fly without proper credentials. I was stating that whether the guy had a PPL or a CPL had absolutely nothing to do with that young man dying.

But I would also guess that some FAR is broke just about any day on any particular DZ..... Of course, that's just a guess.

[shaark 0]

One reason, possibly the main one, for DZs to pay to be in the Group Member 'program' has to do with aircraft insurance. Falcon Insurance is the only provider. Their underwriter requires that a DZ be a Group Member, otherwise no aircraft insurance! No insurance, apart from the financial risk, mostly means no public airport access.
Bullshit, of course, as being a Group Member guarantees nothing. Most jump plane crashes happen at Group Member DZs. You could say it is required.
(Most airports require $1,000,000 liability coverage, with the airport and city/owner named. The liability coverage for C-182s, C-206s, etc. only provides $300,000 coverage. I suppose most airport owners overlook this.)
It would probably be best if small DZs tried to get rid of the Group Member program, then the underwriter could not require this, and the money saved could be used for something worthwhile like aircraft maintenance.

Pilot license requirements:
The FAA regulations require that a pilot holds a Private Pilot's license, with a current 3rd class medical in order to fly skydivers. That's it. (Same for towing gliders, except here an authorized instructor must endorse the pilot's logbook certifying required ground and flight training. Might be a case made for similar for jump flying?)
Anyway, this is deemed sufficient.
Should this be? Is this safe enough? Should the FAA be more concerned?
If money enters the picture, then the flying falls under commercial rules, and a commercial license is required. Period!
The real question now is why?
Does this make sense? Does it make it safer? Should the FAA be concerned? Maybe this is what the discussion should be about.
Other countries have different rules. Some European countries do not require a commercial license. DZs have operated there for 50 years with similar safety statistics as the USA.
Unfortunately the EU bureaucrats are now mandating that all EU member states follow the most stringent regulations, vis. now all jump pilots must have a commercial license. This includes experienced jump pilots, some with decades of jump flying. And getting a commercial license in Europe is a lot more difficult than in the US, and very much more expensive.
You visit Europe. Who would you rather have fly the jump plane? The PPL with 30 years experience, who really does not want to go through the hassle and expense of getting a commercial, or a 20-something fresh commercial pilot who needs hours?

TANSTAAFL

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You visit Europe. Who would you rather have fly the jump plane? The PPL with 30 years experience, who really does not want to go through the hassle and expense of getting a commercial, or a 20-something fresh commercial pilot who needs hours?

Your choices don't make sense. That 30-years of experience pilot had to start somewhere, and if the minimum qualifications is a private pilot, then your choices are a 20-something private pilot wanting to build hours or a 20-something commercial pilot wanting to build hours. You have to look at the SYSTEM, not just cherry-picked examples.

I could just as easily ask, who would you rather have flying, the PPL with 30 years experience, or the guy with no license but 35 years experience, who really does not want to go through the hassle and expense of getting a PPL? Where do you draw the line? Isn't the line drawn by the FAA and they draw it at the commercial certificate?

Lets say you don't have a driver's license and you get pulled over. Is it a valid argument to tell the officer, "I have been driving for 20 years, taking a silly test isn't going to make me safer"? Do you think the officer would say, "Oh, 20-years, heh? OK, no problem, go ahead."? Why?

Derek

[shaark 0]

Hi Derek,
With regard to pilot qualifications re flying skydivers:
You are right. In the US the FAA makes the rules. And, of course, if one is caught breaking them there can be penalties.
The further question, though, is are the rules appropriate or not? Are the FAA requirements too lax, just right, or too stringent?
The FAA requires a Private Pilots license in order to be legal when flying skydivers. Is this enough? The FAA believes that it is. What do you think? I would hazard that some jump flying specific training would be appropriate.
If so, should this be regulated, and how?
Do we want the FAA involved, or do we want to keep this in house? Bear in mind that the FAA civil servants are generally not skydivers, not jump pilots, and not DZOs.
Do we want these bureaucrats to formulate a jump pilot training program? Maybe so.
Maybe the FAA in conjunction with the USPA should develop a training program? What do you think?

Now going further. When money enters the picture, i.e. skydivers pay for the ride up, the rules change. The pilot must have a Commercial License. There is still no requirement for specific jump pilot training.
Questions. Is this rule too lax, just right, or too stringent?
And should the introduction of money make a difference? In a club type DZ, skydivers paying for their jumps hardly makes the operation 'commercial'. A non club DZ could also argue that regular jumpers are break even financially at best. Again, hardly a 'commercial' scenario. (I am talking about Cessna DZs, though turbine DZs could maybe make the same case.)
And so to the general public. First time jumpers! The real commercial end of things. What is the appropriate license? Private, commercial, or ATP?
I'm just asking.

As in my last post, other countries have different pilot license requirements. They have a different 'line' then the FAA 'line'. Yet there does not seem to be any great difference in the results. People still commit skydiving. Planes still fly. Pilots do good, and then sometimes screw up. Planes sometimes crash. People sometimes die. Same as here.

Could we do better? Sure!

WRT my 'choice' question. Presented because of a specific scenario I am familiar with. Some very experienced old-time jump pilots with Private licenses are going to be barred from flying jumpers. Some have neither the time nor money to get Commercial licenses. (And these pilots do not get paid for flying.) Some have virtually no chance of passing the written tests. These writtens make the FAA tests look like a kindergarten joke. No multiple choice take a chance there. And these tests are totally geared towards airline type flying; almost nothing relevant to VFR day jump flying.

But the new laws must be followed. I suppose to make it safer.
So my 'choice' maybe makes no sense, but in this case it is a real 'choice' taken from real life. Really.
I would prefer 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', but politicians and bureaucrats hate that concept.

Every jump pilot has to fly his/her first load. You have to start somewhere. Other things being equal, a pilot with a Commercial should be better than one with a Private; and more hours should mean better also. But often it is not so.
In my experience, quality of pilot has little to do with type of license, and sometimes even the number of hours flown. Same with skydiving ratings. And jump numbers. Sometimes you wonder.

So I come back to jump flying specific training as maybe the best way to go. (Which of course happens informally, with varying results.)

Just my opinion.
See you in the sky.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The further question, though, is are the rules appropriate or not? Are the FAA requirements too lax, just right, or too stringent?

In the U.S. most often the DZO increases the minimum requirements to what insurance requires or more. I don't think a private ticket is enough but think commercial is sufficient, with parachute operations specific training. I agree there should be a formal, FAA training syllabus, like glider towing.

The problem in the U.S. is people justifying a private pilot flying for a commercial DZ because he has been doing it a long time. Cheating the system and getting away with it should not mean that you should be grandfathered in. That would encourage more people to attempt to cheat the system.

Sure you can find a private pilot that is a better pilot than a lot of commercial pilots, but the system is in place for a reason. A DZO should either train a poor pilot to standard or replace them. I would argue that the average commercial pilot is better than the average private pilot and have demonstrated such to the FAA.

A private pilot flying jumpers at a commercial DZ demonstrates a dangerous attitude, "The FAR's don't apply to me." Where does it end? What about pre-flights? Manufacturer's maximum weight for the aircraft? Aircraft maintenance. When jumpers allow the FAR's to be ignored, they are letting down their fellow jumpers. Skydiving is supposed to be self-policing. Eventually, when the FAA realizes they are being laughed at behind their backs, they will take action. Skydivers will only have themselves to blame at that point.

Derek

[htrammel 0]

FAA Order 2150.3A details the FAA Compliance and Enforcement program. It's available to the public here: http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library%5Crgorders.nsf/0/CB8A92C19885B06A86256EE60067AAAF?OpenDocument